Crossing Cultural Boundaries in Research: Critical Reflection From a PhD Journey Working With Families From Refugee Backgrounds

Abstract

Children and families from refugee backgrounds are underrepresented in many areas of research and when included, are often discussed in a way that focuses on deficits. To address both the underrepresentation and the positioning of people from refugee backgrounds, it is the responsibility of researchers to identify and alleviate barriers in both the design and implementation of research projects. There is significant risk of power disparity between researcher and participants in research conducted with marginalised groups, particularly when the researcher is not a member of the group. This raises important ethical and methodological questions about who should conduct such research and the best approach to doing so. Between November 2023 and April 2024, our research navigated these considerations in a series of case studies with children and families from refugee backgrounds transitioning into their first year of full-time school in Australia. This paper does not discuss the findings from these case studies but provides critical reflections on their design and implementation. We reflect on the question of positionality, discuss strengths and weaknesses in the research design, and unpack both expected and unexpected barriers experienced throughout the process. From these reflections, in this paper we provide recommendations for future research conducted across language and cultural divides.

Introduction

It is a sweltering summer afternoon as I sit with Paul and Aly, and their two children Noah (4) and Lucy (8) in an enclosed garden play area on the university grounds. The family are from a Chin background and arrived in the medium sized metropolitan city in Australia four years ago after a long journey from Myanmar. We are seated on small wooden chairs around a preschool table. I have found the shadiest spot I could in the garden due to the heat. It would have been nicer to sit in the air-conditioned room adjacent to the garden, however, phone reception in the building is very poor which would make the current interview impossible. Two phones sit side by side on the small table between us, along with cups and a water jug, scrap books and a set of colouring pencils. One phone is on speaker with an over-the-phone translation service while the other is recording our conversation. Noah and Lucy speak both Chin Zomi and English while Aly and Paul do not speak English beyond simple conversations.

Noah is starting kindergarten ¹ next year and we are here to talk about his transition to school. Lucy is Noah’s older sister. She was not originally involved in the study, but she showed an interest in the discussion, so I invited her to join. The plan is to interview Paul and Aly and speak to Noah while undertaking a play-based activity using the drawing materials at the table. Noah is more interested in the flowers in the garden.

The conversation with Aly and Paul is slow as the translator listens and repeats my questions, and the participants answer over a staticky line. We need to repeat nearly every statement as the translator doesn’t always catch what we say. Paul, Aly and I smile politely at each other as we work together through the conversation. I watch Lucy and Noah following our discussion. As they speak both Chin Zomi and English, I reflect on how they are the only ones in the garden understanding everything being spoken. I wonder how they feel about being in this situation, one that they likely find themselves in frequently as we are using the same translator service used by government and community service providers.

The session jumps between child and adult engagement which is difficult for the translator. I ask him to relay what is being said during the children’s activities to their parents so that they are included, but he does not relay much of our discussion. While Noah softly tells me about what he’s looking forward to at school, I cringe inwardly as loud static emanates from the call with the translator. I know that I will need to listen to the staticky recording multiple times to ensure that I transcribe Noah’s quiet comments accurately. The challenges and barriers to conducting research with families from refugee background are numerous and it has taken over nine months to arrange this activity.

This interview is part of qualitative case studies undertaken in 2023-2024 (the case studies) by a research team at the University of Wollongong, as part of first author’s (JG’s) PhD research. The case studies explored the experiences of the children from refugee backgrounds as they transitioned into the first year of full-time school in Australia and was designed to capture detailed insights into the experiences of these children and their families, and to centre these voices within the research.

The case studies followed four children from refugee backgrounds over their transition to school. Each study included two play-based activities with the child and three interviews with their parent(s) ² . While not the focus of this paper, the case studies also included interviews with the children’s preschool and school teachers. The research took place in 2023-2024. To be considered for the research, child participants were;

• Due to commence Kindergarten in 2024; AND

• Born overseas and whose family identifies as refugees; OR

• The child of a person/ people who were born overseas and whose family identifies as refugees.

Despite the valuable insights people from refugee backgrounds bring to various research areas, their voices remain largely underrepresented (Koyama, 2013; McIntyre & Neuhaus, 2021; Moinolmolki, 2019; Pinson & Arnot, 2007). Children’s perspectives on transitions have been similarly under researched (MacDonald et al., 2014). These factors have contributed to a gap in understanding the experiences of children from refugee backgrounds and how best to support this cohort during school transitions (Due et al., 2016). Indeed, being both children and refugees places this group at the intersection of two identities that experience systemic imbalances of power, limiting their opportunities to express themselves and participate in decisions that impact their wellbeing and lived experiences. The case studies were designed to address this gap, with particular care taken to ensure that the voices and perspectives of refugee children were meaningfully included. It is essential that children and families from refugee backgrounds are genuinely involved in research to ensure that their lived experiences and perspectives inform educational policy development (Keary et al., 2023; Warner et al., 2021; Yanay & Battle, 2021). Understanding the perspectives of children with diverse characteristics, abilities and backgrounds has the potential to enhance our understandings of what constitutes a good transition experience (Petriwskyj, 2014).

This topic raises both theoretical and methodological questions about how to meaningfully include children and families from refugee backgrounds in research. Soto and Swadener (2002) advocate for research to be guided by feminist, critical, postmodern, or post-structural theory, moving beyond individualistic, normative child development perspectives that obscure systemic power dynamics and are not effective in understanding diversity of experience. For the case studies, we adopted a critical theoretical foundation, which is well-suited to gaining a deeper understanding of the diverse and complex experiences in transitions (Petriwskyj, 2014).

Critical theory also provides a strong foundation for addressing methodological challenges, including barriers to participation and power imbalances between researchers and participants. It also favours methods that foster meaningful research engagement. Ferede (2018) argues that qualitative methods such as interviews and open-ended surveys are needed to gain meaningful insights with refugee communities. These methods align with a critical approach. While previous studies using similar methodologies have offered reflections and insights, few provide detailed lessons learned to guide future research (Due et al., 2014, 2016; Ebrahim, 2010; Warner et al., 2021; Yanay & Battle, 2021).

This paper is a critical reflection on the design and implementation of the research methods used in the case studies, and includes recommendations for conducting research across cultural divides. It presents strengths, limitations and learnings from this research, and explores what it means to conduct research that is grounded in critical theory. Throughout the paper we also explore the question of positionality. This paper does not discuss findings from the case studies but rather draws from critical reflection to provide recommendations for future research.

We begin by outlining the theoretical approach, followed by an overview of the case studies, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. Next, we discuss the role of expert guidance through advisory panels and collaboration with community organisations, before discussing recruitment. The final section covers the use of translation services before ending with some concluding thoughts. Within each section we include recommendations for future research.

Theoretical Foundation

The research design of the case studies is grounded in critical theory and incorporates decolonial theories, and post-structuralist elements from Pierre Bourdieu and childhood studies (Green et al., 2024). Critical theory favours reflexive, qualitative analysis that allows for and incorporates interactive elements into research (Morrow & Brown, 1994). We used this theoretical framework due to its suitability for conducting research that is highly sensitive to power imbalances within the research setting due to its foundation in a commitment to social criticism and advocacy (Wallulis & Sabia, 1983, p. 6). From a critical theoretical grounding, Australia is understood as a settler colonial state, with the ideology of ‘whiteness’ shaping patterns of advantage and disadvantage within institutions such as the education system.

For the child participatory component we drew from the field of child studies which emphasises the importance of including child voices when researching matters that affect children and young people (Devine, 2002; Dockett et al., 2014). Researchers in childhood studies have developed child participatory rights-based methods that recognise the child’s right to have a say in matters that affect them (Huser et al., 2022). These approaches also acknowledge children’s agency and rights, their role in shaping the world around them, and is highly compatible with strength-based approaches that focus on the capabilities and interests of children.

Recommendation 1: Based on the research team’s experience throughout these case studies, we recommend adopting a critical, reflexive approach that considers positionality when researching with children and families from refugee backgrounds.

Critical theoretical approaches emphasise the importance of reflexivity and positionality (Flores, 2024). The positionality of researchers always influences their research, and a reflexive approach helps identify how these influences manifest within the sociocultural context. JG the only member of the research team with direct contact with participants, is an Australian born, English speaking, white adult with a university education. The research team engaged in active reflection throughout the research process on how these identities influenced the dynamic between JG and participants during interviews, activities and through analysis. This process of critical reflection included, but was not limited to, researching the socio-political context of the research, peer review throughout the design phase of the research, and identifying how the researcher’s positionality would influence or potentially limit the research process. Feedback was also sought throughout the design process from the project’s critical friend with extensive experience conducting research with refugee communities.

Recommendation 2: When white researchers interview non-white participants, particularly non-English speakers, it can create an unequal power dynamic and raises the question of who is best placed to be conducting the research. Researchers need to critically reflect on this question and its implications.

The power imbalance in this research undoubtedly affected the data collected. The research team has maintained an ongoing reflexive approach to identify these impacts. At each stage of the research design, implementation, and analysis, this was—and will continue to be—considered, with limitations acknowledged in the discussion of findings. In the next section we discuss the steps we took to mitigate these impacts. The reflexive approach allows for evaluating the effectiveness and appropriateness of these measures as part of the ongoing research process.

Within this paper we are focussed on cultural boundaries, however, it is important to consider intersectionality and intersecting power dynamics around gender, socio-economic status and other factors in critical research. It is also worth noting that the theoretical framework used lacks theory drawn from the cultural intellectual traditions of the participants. This is largely due to translation barriers and the overarching Western dominance in university research, further highlighting the systemic barriers to research engagement. In the absence of such content, critical theory enables a reflexive approach that takes this limitation into account.

Research Methods – Mitigating Power Imbalances

Power imbalances are intrinsic in many contexts, including the research environment, particularly for populations with real and/or perceived disadvantage within the sociocultural context. Several research papers that evaluate approaches to engaging with refugee communities advocate for methods that support the agency of participants as a way to help mitigate these imbalances, such as participatory action research (Due et al., 2016; Yanay & Battle, 2021). Similar approaches are recommended for engagement with children (Due et al., 2014; Ebrahim, 2010).

Throughout the case studies we attempted to lessen power imbalances between researchers and participants through the selection of research methods and design of the case studies. Qualitative methods such as those being implemented within these studies are not designed to capture a comprehensive understanding of all experiences impacting the research population, but rather deep insights from those who are engaged.

Due to the qualitative nature of this research, we were able to build flexibility into the design without impacting its integrity. For example, establishing a flexible definition of ‘refugee’ allowed conversations to start in a positive place. The exact definition of ‘refugee’ is complex, with many people in Australia with refugee experiences not necessarily being granted a refugee visa (i.e. asylum seekers, and people with refugee experiences but who reside in Australia on alternate visas) (Arat-Koç, 2020; Rutter, 2006). Not requiring participants to have legal refugee status in Australia meant that a broader range of participants who had experienced forced migration were able to participate in the research. It also meant that the initial conversations between participants and researchers were not focussed on the participants’ visa status, or past experiences. The focus of the discussion could start in a more positive place, speaking about their children’s interests and strengths.

The child participants engaged in two semi-structured activity-based sessions centred on drawing/arts-based activities. JG gave children scrap books and pencils and sat with them to draw how they imagined their first day at school (first activity), and a typical day at school (second activity). This visual and active approach was intended to empower the child to direct the course of the discussion towards matters that affect them (Clark, 2010), share their expectations and wants prior to starting school, and reflections on how they find school after they start. The use of visual research methods is particularly recommended for children who may have limited or no literacy, or children who may have complex experiences of trauma, such as children from refugee backgrounds (Due et al., 2014). We used open ended questions in the discussion around the activities to provide participants with the best opportunity to express their opinions and perspectives (Ponizovsky-Bergelson et al., 2019).

We complemented the child-participatory components with in-depth, semi-structured interviews with parents. These interviews were designed to be conversational, allowing participants to raise issues, ideas, and concerns at their discretion. However, semi-structured interviews are not immune to power imbalances (Oakley, 2016), which are especially pronounced with populations experiencing vulnerability.

We provided participants with a wide range of options to tailor the sessions to help mitigate power imbalances, meet participants’ needs and provide comfort in the interview setting. For example, participants were interviewed multiple times to build rapport, and participants could choose the time and location of their interview. This provision is recommended for research on sensitive topics (Carroll & Lenne, 2019). The research team was open to any location suggested by the participants, other than the participant’s home. While the home would, on one hand, be a space where participants are most comfortable, using it as an interview and research environment limits their ability to choose to disengage from the research. Participants were informed of the possibility of using a private playspace at the University of Wollongong, a small, casual setting, or a site belonging to the partner organisation. This was to ensure the location was easy for the participant to access and was ideally a site familiar to them. Most parents chose the playspace, which was a tailored environment suitable for children, that had both an indoor and outdoor area and ensured privacy during the interview. A playgroup some participants attended was run in the playspace meaning the site was familiar to them. Some limitations of this site were outside noise that impacted interviews conducted in the morning. A larger playspace adjacent to the interview location was in use during those times. The additional noise caused difficulties during interviews which required over-the-phone translation. These interviews had to take place in this outdoor section of the area as the phone reception inside was very poor.

Participants who engaged using a translator provided consent to participate verbally, which was audio recorded. We chose this option over translating written information sheets and consent forms to lessen the power imbalance and ensure that the participants felt comfortable. Literacy rates of people from refugee backgrounds are lower than the general population. By seeking consent verbally, it meant that participants did not need to disclose their literacy level in order to participate. Verbal consent ensured that if any participants were illiterate they had the choice to disclose this information, rather than being forced to. In some cultural and socio-economic contexts, signing contracts can make people feel insecure, suspicious or fearful, leading to discomfort and/or disengagement (Klykken, 2022). Verbal information and consent mitigated this risk, while also removing the cost of translating consent forms for the project.

We asked parents to consent to their child’s participation in the research. In addition, we sought the child’s assent to ensure that they made an informed choice as to whether they would engage in the research, a recommended approach from past research (Ebrahim, 2010). Prior to commencing the research activity, child participants engaged in a pre-consultation activity where JG spoke with them, in an age-appropriate manner, about what it means to participate in research and how they could stop participating if they wanted to. This approach has been successfully used in other research with young refugee children (Due et al., 2014). The sessions only progressed if the child provided assent to participate and ended if they withdrew this assent. During activities with children, there were additional factors that had the potential to impact consent and prevent withdrawal, such as the presence of parents and expectations around researchers and hierarchy. However taking a continuous, situated and relational approach to informed consent helped JG to navigate these factors (e.g. making adjustments based on non-verbal cues). This approach is shown to mitigate some power imbalances in research and ensure interviewees’ agency (Klykken, 2022).

The research team offered participants with shared language the option to participate in a focus group rather than an individual interview. Participants were also welcome to attend with others, for example, their children or another family member. All participants chose to participate in individual interviews rather than focus groups. Pemala (Myia’s mother), attended interviews with her friend Shenden. Shenden was initially a research participant herself, but withdrew as her child was to start school in 2025 not 2024. Both of Noah’s parents participated in the study.

Being open to having children present during parent interviews was essential in this research. Parents who participated in the study were all primary carers of their children and were only able to take the time to participate in an interview if their children could also be present. Older siblings of two participants attended and participated in the activities.

The flexible design of the case studies meant that although parent interviews were considered separate from child activities, in practice the sessions flowed between the two. This allowed the child participants more time to become familiar with the research environment and to give their informed assent to engage. For example, Noah initially chose not to participate. This was respected, and the interview with his parents was undertaken. Part way through the parent interview Noah changed his mind and chose to commence the drawing activity. While this flexibility was beneficial for the participants it also caused some challenges for the translator who had to switch between translating for the interviewer and adult participants, and listening in to the child activities which were conducted in English.

The flexible and open-ended approach to engagement empowered participants to raise experiences they felt were relevant to the children’s transition to school, but only if they believed it was pertinent and if they felt comfortable discussing it. Despite refugee experiences often being associated with trauma, we chose not to focus on trauma in the case studies, nor assume the presence or absence of traumatic experiences among the participants. Refugee experiences are often associated with trauma (Block et al., 2014; Hocking, 2015; Lamb, 2020), and trauma research has historically been the most prominent topic in relation to the experiences of refugee children (Rutter, 2006). Due to the extensive body of research, as well as the tendency for trauma focussed research to use a deficit lens when considering refugee experiences, we shifted away from this focus.

Recommendation 3: While the measures outlined above did not completely mitigate power imbalance between researcher and participants during the case studies, the research team found they were effective in lessening such imbalances. We recommend measures such as these be used in future research with refugee communities. The option of verbal consent, and flexibility in the time, location, nature of engagement and supports available all help enable access and meaningful engagement of families from refugee backgrounds in research. In designing broader projects, we recommend that researchers reflect on how accessible the research is to refugee families as members of the broader community and to consider innovative responses to addressing barriers to engagement.

While flexibility in the research design and implementation has significant benefits for participants, the structures in place surrounding research are not always well suited to accommodate this flexibility. The qualitative nature of this study, and the use of reflexive thematic analysis meant that consistency for repeatability was not required for the research to be of high quality (Braun & Clarke, 2024). More rigid methods, including those not specifically designed to engage refugees, are likely to exclude cohorts whose engagement is enabled through flexible approaches.

Ethical considerations are vital in all research, and ethics committees play a key role in ensuring that research is conducted safely and meets community needs. This is largely achieved through a thorough review of the research design by professional and academic bodies before the research begins. In Australia, higher education institutions have human research ethics committees which review all proposed research being conducted within human subjects. This can be a lengthy and thorough process, the exact length varying depending on the risks associated with the research in question. While this process is important, it doesn’t always suit research that requires flexibility, especially research that needs to respond to the fluidity, tensions, and uncertainties that arise in practice with human participants (Ebrahim, 2010). Flexibility not just expands the range of data collected but also protects the autonomy and agency of participants.

While some forms of flexibility can be identified prior to research commencing, situations arise where decisions need to be made on the spot. For example, during several interviews older siblings attended the sessions unexpectedly due to the caring responsibilities of the parents. While this was not anticipated and discussed in the research design, it was clear in these instances that the siblings were interested in the research and wanted to be involved. While not originally considered, these children also held valuable insights and perspectives that were relevant to the research at hand. Their presence and engagement also provided support to their younger siblings and motivation for them to engage in the activities themselves. Overall, the case studies required four amendments to the initial application due to minor changes. Each amendment delayed data collection by several weeks.

Recommendation 4: For researchers, ethical engagement in practice is an ongoing process, benefited by reflexivity. This involves being aware of the socio-political context and considering how ethics is ‘constructed and practiced’ in different situations, and then adopting fair practices accordingly (Ebrahim, 2010). Based on our experiences undertaking the case studies, we encourage researchers and Ethics Committees to consider frameworks through which flexible decision making can be conducted in an ethical way, rather than prescribed processes. This would help ensure that the needs and interests of participants are central to the ethical design of research.

Partnerships and Expert Guidance

Advisory Panel and Critical Friends

It is vital that people with expertise and insights into refugee experiences inform the design of research with refugee communities (Warner et al., 2021). Engaging advisory panels is common practice in such research to ensure cultural sensitivity, research integrity, and participant comfort. Ideally, these panels include individuals from refugee backgrounds and those with significant professional experience working with refugee communities.

Due to funding limitations of the project – which was part of a PhD thesis - the option of paying panel members adequately for their time was beyond its scope. Reciprocity is highly important in partnership approaches such as this (Warner et al., 2021). As such, the research team did not feel it was appropriate to seek input from members of the community who were not able to perform this role as part of their work responsibilities. Other options of reciprocity were explored (e.g. co-authorship or delivery of training), however a formal Advisory Panel was not formed. In place of a formal panel, critical friends from partner organisations (discussed below) and an academic with experience working with refugee communities were engaged to provide feedback on the research design.

While critical friends provided expert advice, the design lacked guidance from individuals with lived refugee experience, which is a limitation of the study. Through a reflexive approach and research methods that empower participants, the team aimed to reduce this limitation, though it could not be fully addressed.

Recommendation 5: Future research with refugee communities should involve formal, extensive support from both experts working with refugee families and individuals with lived refugee experience. This support should be mutually beneficial, with financial compensation, and secure funding is crucial to ensure the ethical gathering of input and feedback on the research design.

Working with Community Organisations

Partnering with community organisations is an effective approach to engaging children and families from refugee backgrounds in research, especially for researchers without prior ties to the community (Mayo et al., 2013). These organisations have established connections with community members and are well-placed to offer valuable advice on key considerations when conducting research with these individuals.

Recommendation 6: Partnerships should be mutually beneficial and focussed on the needs of the community before specific research initiatives are established. Opportunities to form these partnerships should be a prerogative of research institutions.

To support participant recruitment and access to translation services, the research team partnered with Refugee Support Services ³ (RSS) for this project. Staff at RSS assisted connecting the research team to potential participants through their playgroups (which researcher JG volunteered at during recruitment to connect with participants and as a form of reciprocity) and their case managers. Staff from RSS were first to approach eligible participants. This meant that participants were informed about the study by a person they had a pre-existing, trusting relationship with. By volunteering at the playgroup, the researchers sought to build rapport with the parents and children prior to interviews, an approach strongly recommended when conducting research with children (Due et al., 2014). JG worked with the playgroup facilitator to communicate to families the reason for their presence at the playgroup, and to ensure that all families were aware that JG was not collecting data during the playgroup.

While the research benefited from this partnership, there were challenges in establishing this relationship due to systemic constraints. Community organisations are often overworked and under-resourced. They provide vital support to their communities and must prioritise immediate concerns over longer-term research goals. The time and resources required from organisations to partner with research teams—despite the research team doing most of the work—cannot be underestimated. This creates challenges for researchers. Ideally, input from organisations would be sought early to ensure the research starts from their position of need, is well-suited to engaging members, and requires minimal resources.

Due to heavy workloads, however, the research team found that organisations were hesitant to engage until the project was well-established and had received ethics approval. From the organisations’ perspective, it is understandable that they prefer to wait until all reviews and clearances are finalised, as this ensures they are not investing time and resources in projects that may not proceed. Having multiple ethics boards involved can complicate the research design process, as each one reviews the design in stages, often only after the previous one has completed their review. For the case studies, this limited the opportunity to tailor the research design to better suit the organisations. While challenging, this highlights the importance of communication with community organisations to guide research in line with the needs of the communities they serve.

Recommendation 7: When partnering with external organisations, both ethical and practical considerations in the research must be carefully managed. Due to systematic constraints, throughout the case studies we found that the prevalent research paradigm is not well suited to forming the types of partnerships required for high quality and ethical research with refugee communities. Regardless, it is the researcher’s imperative to ensure that contributions made through partnerships are not only acknowledged but reciprocated. Options such as sharing research findings, volunteering time, or providing resources should be considered.

Recruitment

Recruitment for the study was challenging. Eligibility involved participants self-identifying as a refugee, which is a sensitive topic and sometimes difficult to ascertain. Only two participants were confirmed through the partner organisation. Three additional case studies were initially included, however, the parents in these studies withdrew early due to time commitments, or the decision to delay their child’s transition to school until the following year.

To find additional participants, we connected with three additional services that work with refugee communities to assist with referrals. As this constituted a change in the research design, each additional organisation engaged for the project required adjustments to the ethical clearance for the project. These processes delayed the case studies by several weeks. Two of the organisations were not able to assist with referrals, however the third, the Refugee Health Services ⁴ (RHS) identified five families eligible for participation and confirmed their interest in the study, bringing the total to seven participants. While these referrals were vital to the research, it meant that a relationship was not formed between participants and researchers prior to the interviews, which resulted in less initial rapport. This particularly impacted the interviews with children, as research shows that spending time with children involved in research is essential in building rapport and trust (Due et al., 2014).

Recommendation 8: Reciprocity is a key ethical consideration in research, especially with communities experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage. When working with refugee communities, researchers must consider reciprocity beyond standard practices, including compensation, support, and using the insights gained to advocate more broadly. Reciprocity extends to responsibility to disseminate research findings to support effective change, and informing participants of these actions.

In the case studies, the research team aimed to minimise the burden on participants, offering financial compensation for parents’ time. This comprised of a $50 AUD gift card (not tied to any store) at the first session, and another at the last session. We provided children with colouring pencils and scrapbooks for the activity, which they were able to take home with them. Both gift cards and drawing materials were provided even if the session was not completed. In one case, for a parent struggling to find preschool placement for her child, we connected her with a relevant organisation with her permission. This exemplified the strength of the research, where participants directly benefited from their involvement.

The research aims of the case studies were to help inform future policy and practice around transitions. As such, the likely benefits are at a community level, rather than for the participants themselves. This is an important acknowledgement for researchers to make, and to look for opportunities to share findings and recommendations gathered from participants’ contribution to benefit the research field, in this case, transition to school. There are ongoing obligations of the research team to disseminate research findings from the case studies. This includes feeding the findings back to participants and partner organisations, as well as forwards through publications and proactive engagement with relevant policy areas of government, conferences and other forums relevant to the field of study.

Translation Services

As the research team was not fluent in languages other than English, an over the phone translation service was available for interviews (made possible through partnership with RSS) to ensure people without high English proficiency were able to participate. In-person translation was not available due to both low availability and high costs of this service. Interviews with three parents were conducted with a translator, while all child participants spoke English.

The use of translators presents a challenging dilemma for researchers. While they enable participation for many who would otherwise be unable to engage, they are costly and create barriers to building a strong rapport between participant and interviewer, limiting the depth of information shared. The flow of conversation is tampered and the presence of a third party inevitably influences what a participant is willing to say, placing a barrier between participant and researcher (Due et al., 2014). During the case studies, we encountered these challenges. In an environment where we were trying to build relational trust with participants, the role of the translator was challenging as they were someone neither of us knew and were not physically present.

In terms of practice and logistics, Yunus et al. (2022), identified that there is little guidance around the use of translators in research interviews, and there is a need for guidelines on reporting on the role translators take in research. As raised by Wagner and Naidoo (2023), the use of translators in interviews and focus groups is both an enabler and a limitation. Interpreters inevitably influence how participant’s statements are presented. Nuance and tone are difficult to capture when working with a translator, and the specific choice of words used is not necessarily a reliable or accurate representation of the participant’s intent as it is filtered through the interpreter’s understanding and representation.

Who the translator is, including their gender, can also influence the information participants choose to share during interviews. For the case studies we used a national translation service, which limited the possibility the translator was known to the participant. While this helped to preserve the participants’ privacy, it also introduced a third party without an established relationship with the participant to the discussion.

An alternative approach in interviews is inviting a person known and trusted by the participant to translate for the interview (such as a family member). However, this comes with privacy considerations and may also limit what the participant is willing to share. In addition, it impacts the power dynamic between interviewer, participant and translator, and the connection between interviewer and participant in ways that may not be easily identifiable.

The meaning and intent of participants in research interviews is always subject to the interpretation of the researcher. Conducting research through translation heightens this disconnect as ideas, tone and intent are subject to linguistic norms. As such, through analysis it should not be assumed that a direct translation of meaning has been achieved, or indeed, is possible in all circumstances.

Recommendation 9: The presence of translators in the case studies was critical for ensuring the perspectives of people without high English proficiency were heard. This is essential for research seeking to understand the experiences of people from refugee backgrounds in Australia. However, researchers need to be aware of the implications the use of translators will have on participant privacy, rapport with participants, and accuracy of data gathered, and ensure that the safety and wellbeing of participants is prioritised in decisions around translator use.

Cost and Availability of Translation Services

Translation services are expensive and often hard to access. When working with translators from small language groups, such as those in these case studies, bookings need to be made several days or even a week in advance to ensure availability. This limits the flexibility researchers can offer participants regarding interview timing.

The cost of translation posed challenges for the research team. Although translation services for interviews were included in the project budget, the team relied on a partner organisation to arrange the initial interviews. While a staff member at RHS was able to make initial contact with participants and confirm their interest in the research, they did not have capacity to assist with additional phone calls to arrange interview times and locations. The research team explored several options to find a Karen, Chin, or Burmese speaker to assist with scheduling. While payment for this support wasn’t possible, alternative forms of reciprocity were considered.

This delay posed a risk to the project. Given the research topic—transition to school, which required interviews both before and after the start of school—a significant delay in arranging interviews could have meant postponing the project by 12 months and finding new participants starting school in 2025.

Fortunately, after several weeks, a contact was found who could arrange the initial interviews. During these interviews, participants were asked how they preferred to schedule future sessions. All agreed that direct text messages in English would be suitable, eliminating the need for language support in scheduling future interviews.

Recommendation 10: Research projects using translators require adequate funding for this service for both interviews and scheduling.

Quality of Translation

The quality of the translation services varied significantly. Of the seven interviews conducted with translators, only two were without problems. The following issues were encountered:

(1) Poor call quality: Some interviews suffered from poor call quality, leading to missed information for both the interviewer and participant.

(2) Unavailability of translators: Although all translators were pre-booked, there were times when a translator could not be reached. This resulted in the interview ending early, or with an alternative translator being called in (in one case this was a Burmese translator rather than a Chin Zomi translator, the participant’s second language rather than their first, and not a neutral second language due to conflict in Myanmar). Participants were always given the option to end the interview early and reschedule rather than continue in the alternate language.

(3) Call disconnections: Calls occasionally cut out. While some could be reconnected, several could not.

(4) Inconsistent translation quality: The quality of translation was sometimes poor, evidenced by unclear English responses, long exchanges between participants and translators that were not translated into English, or short English translations indicating missed content.

These issues are experienced in other studies that utilise translators (Warner et al., 2021). JG noted during the interviews that responses made to the research prompts with the use of the translator tended to be shorter than responses in interviews conducted in English, and to focus on specific facts, rather than providing longer, more reflective considerations that the prompts sought to draw out.

The presence of translators inevitably impacts the rapport between researcher and participant. For this reason, researchers in other studies have avoided using translators (Due et al., 2014). In the case studies, the impact was shown most clearly in the round two interview with Hayma. This interview was conducted with a translator, however the call with the translator disconnected part way through the interview and the translation service was not able to find a replacement. JG asked Hayma if she would like to end the interview there or if she would be comfortable continuing in English. She agreed to continue. The second half of the interview resulted in much longer and more detailed responses to questions. Hayma was more agentic, and took more control of the interview’s direction during the second half, and raised a range of points that were not prompted or directed by JG. While conducting the interview in Hayma’s additional language also poses limitations to topics covered and interpretation of responses, it was clear that the interview was able to be more free flowing without the presence of a translator. This was largely due to the ability to have a more direct relationship between the participant and the interviewer.

In another instance, there was significant discussion between the translator and the interview participants that was not translated into English. For example, in interactions that occurred during an interview with Pemala (a parent) and Shenden (Pemala’s friend), significant conversation occurred between the participants that was not translated into English, or was condensed to a very short response, removing any detail or nuance in the response. In these circumstances the translator influenced what information was deemed relevant to translate, and how it was translated.

Recommendation 11: The challenges and limitations of translator use highlight the high value multilingual researchers have to engaging with refugee communities, and to cross-language research more broadly. There is great value in researchers fluent in multiple languages, and with knowledge of the cultural context the participants have come from engaging in research (Flores, 2024). An alternate approach is also engaging and training community fieldworkers to support data collection. While this option was not considered for the case studies, due to the time and resources available for the PhD research project, it is an approach that has the potential to mitigate many of the challenges encountered during the case studies.

In the current study, the challenges faced with the cost, availability and quality of translation also meant that seeking direct feedback from participants on how the research experience could be improved has been limited. While processes are planned to inform participants of the outcomes of the research, and provide them with the opportunity to give feedback, this will be without the aid of translation.

Recommendation 12: Capturing participant perspectives on how the research process could be improved would greatly inform ongoing discourse amongst researchers, to improve future studies with children and families from refugee backgrounds. Future studies would benefit from including supported feedback processes for participants.

Conclusion – Where to from Here…

Power imbalances between researchers and participants are inevitable, especially with populations facing systemic social disadvantage, like refugees in Australia. To mitigate this, research should ideally be led by individuals with lived refugee experience and an understanding of the participants’ cultural context. Research institutions should prioritise funding and supporting such initiatives. However, to address systemic disadvantage there remains a need for researchers without shared backgrounds and experiences to also engage with this research field.

By presenting the case studies as an account of the practical realities of conducting research in Australia with children and families from refugee backgrounds, this paper seeks to contribute to the broader understandings of meaningful and ethical research engagement in this context. While we offer recommendations and lessons learned, this advice is intended as part of an ongoing reflective discussion on conducting research across cultural boundaries, rather than as definitive approaches or actions.

Within the case studies we attempted to lessen the power imbalance between researchers and participants by using a critical theoretical approach, selecting appropriate research methods, building flexibility into the design, engaging translators, and implementing systems for reciprocity. We also maintain an ongoing acknowledgment of power relations within the research.

For researchers who do not identify with the engaged community, we recommend that people with lived experience are engaged to support and guide the design of the research, in the form of a critical friend, or on an advisory panel. Financial compensation is essential for these roles to acknowledge the value this contribution has to research. There is need for greater acknowledgement of these expenses and their necessity when funding research projects. In addition, researchers, particularly those from non-refugee and English speaking backgrounds, need to be aware of their positionality in relation to the research participants and the research topics.

Qualitative case studies, flexible in design and implementation to meet participants' needs, have great potential for engaging children and families from refugee backgrounds in meaningful, high-quality research. Removing rigidity from the research design improves access and supports participants' comfort, enjoyment, and agency, allowing them to engage in ways that suit them.

Ethical considerations should be at the core of all research projects, particularly those who work with communities that have a higher likelihood of a history of trauma, such as refugee communities. However, ethics committees should consider broader ways of evaluating and approving research projects to allow for flexibility and partnerships that best serve the communities in question. This may require a shift in institutional willingness for the required reforms. Without this willingness, broader structural and institutional barriers will limit researchers’ ability to implement such ideals.

Researchers should be aware of the time and resource commitments required by support organisations, and should look to minimise these as much as possible. Where possible, research topics should be guided by the interests and needs of organisations with strong understandings of the needs and interests of refugee communities. For example, agreement in principle options could be considered.

To ensure that research with refugee communities is of a high quality, projects require sufficient funding to cover costs of translation both in person and in written materials, and with additional funds available to assist in language support for other small engagements such as scheduling. In addition, when working with families from refugee background, it is strongly recommended that researchers be open to a broad range of supports and forms of reciprocity.

These case studies were specifically designed to engage children and families from refugee backgrounds. However, it is also important to consider the inclusion of refugee families in broader research that may not have a specific focus on this cohort. Such research should reflect on how accessible it is to refugee families as part of the wider community. In addition, while this paper focuses on case studies with refugee families, the approach and lessons learned may be applicable to other priority cohorts experiencing social disadvantage or marginalisation, ensuring meaningful engagement in research.

While the presented case studies can serve as guidance for future research, it is also important for researchers and research institutions to consider ways to support research outside the Western university framework, led by and for the benefit of communities. University structures hold power and authority that devalue forms of knowledge outside the Western education paradigm, and there are systemic barriers to equal participation. Opportunities to address and mitigate these barriers need to be maximised and supported.