Complexities in the process of translating research documents in cross-cultural settings.

In multilingual societies, where researchers and participants often do not speak the same language, research is a challenge as a mismatch of understanding between researchers, research instruments and participants often occurs. Reporting on the translation process is crucial because of the potential implications for the validity of the data that follow from it. We aimed to report on the complexities of such a translation process and many considerations that came to our attention. Methodologically, we used a detailed case study to demonstrate that the complexity of translation might be underestimated by researchers who may neglect to report on the challenges that they experience to benefit the wider research community. We emphasise that translating documents, particularly between languages that are not cognate, requires time and financial resources that researchers often do not anticipate or plan for. By discussing what happened to texts that were translated, and how we as researchers were challenged by considerations that were primarily linguistic but also straddled cultural and socio-political domains, we hope to encourage a deeper understanding of the translation task. We conclude that consideration of these complexities is necessary if the aim is the development of translated documents which complement the researchers' goals.

The potential consequences of informal interpreting practices for assessment of patients in a South African psychiatric hospital.

In South Africa health care practitioners are commonly professionals who speak only one, or at most two, of the languages spoken by their patients. This provides for language provision challenges, since many patients are not proficient in English or Afrikaans and ad hoc and haphazard arrangements are made for interpreting by untrained personnel. As part of a larger study (conducted in 2010) in a public psychiatric hospital, we report here on the potential consequences for diagnostic assessments of 13 psychiatric evaluations mediated by ad hoc interpreters who were employed as health care workers and household aides. The psychiatric evaluations were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The first author checked for accuracy of transcription and translations, and the two members of the author team who are both senior African language academics rechecked transcription and translation. We used the typology developed by Vasquez and Javier (1991) to study interpreter errors (i.e. omissions, additions and substitutions). All errors were independently rated by a senior psychiatrist and a senior clinical psychologist to determine whether the errors were likely to have a bearing on clinical decisions concerning the patient and to rate whether errors deemed clinically significant contributed to making the patient appear more ill psychiatrically, or less ill. Of the 57 errors recorded, 46% were rated as likely to have an impact on the goal of the clinical session. Raters concurred that the clinically significant errors contributed towards potentially making the patient look more psychiatrically ill. Detailed analyses of evaluations demonstrate the complexity of informal interpreter positioning regarding issues of diagnosis and cultural factors in illness. Evaluations conducted where clinicians and interpreters are not trained in language and interpreting issues may create a distorted picture of the patients' mental health conditions.