10 / 156
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