Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly | ISSN 2206-2483

The Tower of Babel and Human Research Ethics

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Human Research Ethics
on February 23, 2021
1 Comment
Keywords Ethical review,Good practice,Institutional Responsibilities,Participant protection,Research Ethics Committees,Researcher responsibilities,Respect for persons
The fall of the Babylon. Sorcerer in hood standing in front of an ancient destructed Babylon tower with flood, fire & hurricane illustration.

.
Gary Allen and Mark Israel

Much human research is conducted in languages that are not the same as that used by the research ethics review body or the chief investigators. This can manifest in a number of ways including:

  • Recruitment and consent materials;
  • Data collection tools (surveys, interview instruments and observation matrices), and
  • Collected data.
  • return of results to participants

There is literature on the ethics of interpreting and translation (Drugan, 2017) as well as on the ethics of research in those fields (Tiselius, 2019). However, for our purposes, we want to focus on the first two situations.

The Australian National Statement (5.2.17) states that information needs to be provided to participants in ways that enable them to make good decisions about whether to participate, and that the way in which this is done considers ‘the need for accurate and reliable translation (written and/or oral) into a participant’s first language or dialect’ (5.2.17b) and ‘culture and its effects on how language (English or other) is understood’ (5.2.17c). This, in itself, does not offer much help to a research ethics committee seeking to assess the appropriateness of recruitment, consent and data collection instruments.

A review body will need to use a variety of approaches in this situation. Any approach should be proportional to the following factors. The:

  • level of risk associated with the proposed research project;
  • ethical sensitivity of the proposed research project;
  • nature of the potential participant pool;
  • research topic; and
  • context

So, where a particular linguistic group is not being specifically targeted by researchers, but participants might include people who are more comfortable in languages other than the main language or languages being used for the research, the cost of translating all materials may be prohibitive. As a result, it may be appropriate to just provide a short summary of the materials in participants’ preferred language and expand on the rest of the materials orally. This approach is explicitly allowed by the Common Rule in the United States, for example (45 C.F.R. 117(b)(2)).

The strategies a research team might use to inform the research ethics committee include:

  1. A bilingual member of the research team conducting the translation;
  2. A bilingual volunteer from the school/department/centre conducting the translation;
  3. Using a gig-based online service (e.g. fiverr.com); or
  4. A commercial translation service.

Of course, someone fluent in several languages may not be a good translator. Translation requires not a mechanical word-for-word conversation, but also an appreciation of social and cultural influences on how participants might understand meaning. Where the accuracy of the translation is critical, the translated text could be translated back into the first language and compared with the original text (Brelsford et al., 2018). This might be particularly important if data collection tools are standardised across different language groups or dialects, or where there are concerns that one of the languages does not have the technical language to convey the nuanced meaning required.

If (2)-(4), the useful and relevant ethical questions are:

  • Does the person doing the translation understand their ethical obligations with regard to the information/data with which they are working;
  • During the process where will any information/data be located, how secure is this and will access be controlled/logged;
  • How will the translation be returned to you; and
  • Do the participants know that you will be working with a translator?

These matters become especially critical if the information should be classified as sensitive under your jurisdiction (e.g. the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988) or if the information falls within the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation (for data from the EU).

Consequently, review bodies should see themselves as having a continuum of options available to them. It is good practice for a review body to invite an applicant to share their reflections on selecting an appropriate translator. An applicant’s response might be considered by the Chair or an experienced ethics officer.

If an applicant proposes using a commercial service, the Chair/Ethics officer should undertake some due diligence to confirm the bono fides of the potential service provider. Where an institution is likely to make repeated use of particular translators, a pool of approved providers could be created.

We should also distinguish between the work of a translator and an interpreter. Interpreters may be involved in negotiating consent with research participants in ways akin to fieldworkers. They may pick up nuances of comprehension and autonomy that may be invisible to researchers from outside the culture. As a result, some institutions and ethics statements (including the New Zealand National Ethical Standards for Health and Disability Research and Quality Improvement 7.6.a) require interpreters to co-sign consent documentation and attest to the voluntary and informed nature of that consent;

In the United States, problems have emerged for research teams when an interpreter has refused to do so (Barwise et al., 2019). While an interpreter who refuses to sign may be acting to protect the interest of participants, they may also be excluding particular linguistic groups from a study.

The ways in which a review body works through these matters are a great way to show that it is taking a proportional and project-specific approach.

REFERENCES

Barwise, A., Sharp, R. and Hirsch, J. (2019) Ethical Tensions Resulting from Interpreter Involvement in the Consent Process, Ethics & Human Research, 41: 31-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500025

Brelsford, K. M., Ruiz, E. and Beskow, L. M. (2018) Developing informed consent materials for non-English-speaking participants: An analysis of four professional firm translations from English to Spanish, Clinical Trials, 15(6): 557–566.  DOI:  10.1177/1740774518801591

Drugan, J. (2017) Ethics and social responsibility in practice: interpreters and translators engaging with and beyond the professions, The Translator, 23:2, 126-142, DOI: 10.1080/13556509.2017.1281204

Tiselius, E. (2019) The (un-) ethical interpreting researcher: ethics, voice and discretionary power in interpreting research, Perspectives, 27:5, 747-760, DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1544263

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G. & Israel, M  (23 February 2021) The Tower of Babel and Human Research Ethics. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/the-tower-of-babel-and-human-research-ethics/

Related reading

Heeding our stories: Getting the most from a reference group in disability research

First Nations Cultural and Intellectual Property in the Arts

How we interpret the words ‘proportional review’

Friday afternoon’s funny – Simple language

Smarter proportional research ethics review

Proportional processes can sometimes be the answer to a few (apparently competing) problems

Conducting research with (not on) consumers in health – exploring ethical considerations

Can Your HREC Benefit from Coaching?

Ethical by Design: Ethics Best Practices for Natural Language Processing (Papers: Jochen L. Leidner and Vassilis Plachouras | 2017)

“De-Colonizing Research Practice: Indigenous Methodologies, Aboriginal Methods, and Knowledge/Knowing”, in Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research (Chapter: Mike Evans et al 2014).

1 thought on “The Tower of Babel and Human Research Ethics”

  1. Mark Israel
    March 24, 2021 at 8:13 am

    Just came across NZ Health Research Council’s Pacific Health Research Guidelines (2014, p31):
    https://www.hrc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2019-05/Resource%20Library%20PDF%20-%20Pacific%20Health%20Research%20Guidelines%202014_0.pdf

    Use of Pacific languages and translation

    Sometimes questionnaires may need to be translated into the relevant Pacific language,
    particularly if some participants are not familiar with the English language. However,
    this may not be necessary, especially when dealing with younger participants. Some
    members of the Pacific communities who understand English may prefer to use their
    mother tongue because it enables them to express themselves in a deeper and
    meaningful way. If translation is required, it should be conducted by an expert in
    consultation with key members of the community. In this case, translation may be
    required at all stages of the research, from community consultation to the publication of
    the final report.
    Translation can be complex because it entails more than just the literal translation of the
    words. It also involves the deeper process of cultural meaning and representation.
    Because some verbal discourses in many Pacific communities are based on metaphors
    and symbolism, the Pacific language translators employed to undertake this task should
    be culturally and technically competent in that particular language and its use.

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Corresponding Author

Gary Allen

Sp-user Link
https://www.ahrecs.com/senior-consultants/gary-allen
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Sp-mail User

Other Authors

Mark Israel

https://www.ahrecs.com/senior-consultants/mark-israel

Sp-mail
User

About the blog

The senior consultants started AHRECS in 2007. We were looking for a way of responding to requests for advice on research ethics and integrity from the government, health and education sectors read more…

Comment rules

We decided to include comment functionality in the Blog because we want to encourage the Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics communities to contribute to public discourse about resourcing and improving practice. read more…

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A smiling group of multi-racial researchers

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in