Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  10 / 156 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 10 / 156 Next Page
Page Background

112

JCPSLP

Volume 18, Number 3 2016

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology

transcript of the English translation of a meeting in which

the key concept of “reflection” is explored:

In the research, “reflect” means to think about your

practice as speech therapists

3

, and about the main

issues you might wish to investigate further. Ms Tran,

“reflect” in Vietnamese, how would you translate that?

(Primary author)

.

[Ms Tran confers with PRG members]

I gave out to the group a translation that I think kind

of pretty much covers the idea of “reflect” and I am

asking to see what they think.

(Ms Tran)

It is similar to “reflect” in English….

(Ms Bich)

It means it’s like a process of thinking back, and then

speak out what you think.

(Ms Giang)

[Further discussion between PRG members]

They are saying there is not a direct translation for

“reflect”. It is a very common thing to do in the West.

And back when they were doing the course [PNTU

Speech Therapy Training Program], the teachers,

the lecturers were constantly asking them to reflect

every time they write the report, every time they say

something. The translation I gave out doesn’t really

cover the entire meaning of it.

(Ms Tran)

It is not within the scope of this paper to discuss

the technical aspects or complexities of translation

and interpretation in cross-cultural research (for further

information see Squires, 2009; Temple & Young, 2004;

Wong & Poon, 2010). However, the time spent revisiting

key research concepts proved critical to heightening the

understanding of the researcher, members of the PRG and

the interpreter to the influence of language and culture upon

the research. In particular, it was during these discussions

that the primary author’s assumption of concept

equivalence between languages was challenged. The

concepts of “reflection” and “collaboration” were identified

by the interpreter and PRG as having different meanings in

English and Vietnamese. Further, while the interpreter and

members of the PRG are all Vietnamese, their individual

interpretation of these concepts varied. Caretta (2015) and

Turner (2010) draw attention to this latter issue, arguing

that the gender, personal experiences, cultural influences,

preconceptions, and belief systems of those involved in the

research will influence the intended meaning of a concept,

how individuals interpret the meaning of a concept,

and how this meaning is communicated. Such insights

highlighted how critical it is for all members of a research

team to engage in dialogue as a means of facilitating

mutual understanding of research principles, concepts and

objectives.

Cycle 3 of the research also provided opportunity

to consider how the research might progress into the

future. The excerpt below, taken from the transcript of

the English translation of one of the meetings, highlights

PRG members’ uncertainty as to the future direction of the

research and its anticipated outcomes:

What is the project aiming to obtain? We know we

want to identify our needs in professional development

but are there any other aims?

(Ms Bich)

When we do this project, how do we measure its

success?

(Mr Jach)

communication via email would offer more flexibility in terms

of their participation.

Momentum for the research slowed at this point.

Sporadic email communication and the need for all

communication to be translated influenced the frequency

of contact. PRG members described their increasing

workloads and other demands associated with their roles

as “pioneers” of the SLP profession (e.g., training of staff in

SLP) as influencing their ability to engage in the research. At

least one member of the PRG commenced providing SLP

services in a private capacity outside normal work hours.

A further issue arising was the introduction of Ms Tran

to replace Ms Mai as interpreter. Notes from the primary

author’s reflective diary highlight to concerns as to how the

research might be impacted, not only in terms of the quality

of the interpretation and translation, but also with regard to

group dynamics, interaction and collaboration (Figure 3).

I am wondering how the introduction of Ms Tran to

the research will play out this evening. Ms Mai was

part of the research from its inception and familiar with

the PRG and with the research plan, so introducing

someone new may change dynamics. ??impact on

collaboration

A positive note – Ms Tran has been undertaking

translation of resources for the PRG meeting … so

hopefully an understanding of methodology and

concepts – will need to follow this up.

Am also wondering whether the difficulties with

internet connection may deter Ms Tran from wanting to

be involved in the research.

(Dated 18 September 2014)

Figure 3. Notes from primary author’s reflective diary

The use of Skype for real-time collaboration had been

considered an ideal vehicle through which the active and

participatory nature of the research could be supported.

However, detailed planning, including consideration of “a

second plan of attack”, proved necessary when seeking

to incorporate technology such as Skype into a setting

where internet connection was unreliable. In addition, the

demands arising from the role of members of the PRG as

“pioneers” of the profession and increasing workloads,

including the expansion of the profession into the private

sector, were significant and had not been anticipated. The

“tyranny of distance” was never more evident than during

this cycle of the research, and facilitated key learnings with

regard to the impact of technology, the increasing profile

of the profession in Vietnam, and of the influence of local

context upon the research.

Cycle 3. Revisiting collaboration

The third cycle of research collaboration was via two

face-to-face meetings between the primary author and

PRG in HCMC in October–November 2014. These

meetings were important in re-establishing open and

extended dialogue regarding the research, and supporting

re-engagement of members of the PRG who had not

maintained communication via email. The face-to-face

meetings also provided opportunity for the primary author

and the new interpreter to meet in person.

Revisiting the key research concepts of “reflection” and

“collaboration” was another important outcome from this

cycle of the research. The excerpt below is taken from the