Ethical issues in multilingual research situations: a focus on interview-based research

Abstract

Interview-based research in multilingual situations can present researchers with specific ethical challenges relating to language-based power play, data handling and presentation. Studies indicate favouring the L1 (first language) as an interviewing language may produce better quality data, but external pressures can favour English as the dominant research language. This article examines researcher perceptions and experiences of the ethical consequences of language choice and the practical issues involved. Interviews were conducted with five European researchers working on an interview-based project with experiences of diverse interviewing scenarios. The four moral principles of respect for autonomy, justice, beneficence and non-maleficence were used as a framework for analysis. The analysis revealed a nuanced picture of ethical issues in both L1- and English-oriented scenarios. This included potential misrepresentation and deculturalisation of the data in the former, and language-based power asymmetries in the latter. The findings highlight the importance of documenting ethics-related methodological details of language use, and advocates publication practices favouring the inclusion and foregrounding of L1 data.

Language dynamics and agency in multilingual research interviews

“…It is essential to engage in researcher reflexivity (Holmes et al., 2016; Holmes et al., 2022), a process of ongoing dialogical interaction between the researcher and research to heighten awareness of biases and reveal power structures, particular in relation to language use (Polo‐Pérez, 2023; Polo‐Pérez & Holmes, 2023). The linguistic affordances provided by the interview context can significantly impact on the co‐construction of meaning and the ability of the interviewee to narrate their experiences (Busch, 2016; Pavlenko, 2007; Rolland et al., 2023) and on quality and validity of data (Kosny et al., 2014; Murray & Wynne, 2001; Pavlenko, 2007; Schembri & Jašić, 2022). Further, language choices also take on ethical and political dimensions as the exclusive use of a dominant research language may disempower participants and also privilege some groups and exclude others based on their available linguistic resources (Holmes et al., 2022; Schembri & Jašić, 2022).…”

“…The linguistic affordances provided by the interview context can significantly impact on the co‐construction of meaning and the ability of the interviewee to narrate their experiences (Busch, 2016; Pavlenko, 2007; Rolland et al., 2023) and on quality and validity of data (Kosny et al., 2014; Murray & Wynne, 2001; Pavlenko, 2007; Schembri & Jašić, 2022). Further, language choices also take on ethical and political dimensions as the exclusive use of a dominant research language may disempower participants and also privilege some groups and exclude others based on their available linguistic resources (Holmes et al., 2022; Schembri & Jašić, 2022). At the same time, insisting on learners engaging exclusively in their first language may deny them opportunities to practice an additional language and present themselves as competent language users (Polo‐Pérez, 2023; Polo‐Pérez & Holmes, 2023).…”

“…At the same time, insisting on learners engaging exclusively in their first language may deny them opportunities to practice an additional language and present themselves as competent language users (Polo‐Pérez, 2023; Polo‐Pérez & Holmes, 2023). The approach that best aligns with a dialogical perspective where individual uniqueness is acknowledged (Kostogriz & Doecke, 2007), as well as with current advice on researching multilingually, is to allow for participant autonomy and agency in terms of language choice (Rolland et al., 2023; Schembri & Jašić, 2022). This may mitigate power imbalances (Polo‐Pérez & Holmes, 2023; Schembri & Jašić, 2022) and allow participants greater freedom in constructing their linguistic identities (Ganassin & Holmes, 2020).…”

“…Any research carried out in linguistically diverse contexts will thus need to take into consideration these factors and how languages, language use and linguistic affordances are conceptualised and operationalised in data collection and analysis (Holmes et al., 2013, 2016; Pavlenko, 2007). This is particularly the case for qualitative research carried out through interviews, where the choices made in relation to language can have significant impact on the quality of the data and the experience of the participants (Busch, 2016; Kosny et al., 2014; Murray & Wynne, 2001; Pavlenko, 2007; Rolland et al., 2023; Schembri & Jašić, 2022). The qualitative interview, even in a monolingual context, is always about the co‐construction of meaning (Pavlenko, 2007; Talmy, 2011), and this co‐construction becomes even more salient in interviews where a range of linguistic resources are at play (Polo‐Pérez & Holmes, 2023; Rolland, 2023).…”

“…The qualitative interview, even in a monolingual context, is always about the co‐construction of meaning (Pavlenko, 2007; Talmy, 2011), and this co‐construction becomes even more salient in interviews where a range of linguistic resources are at play (Polo‐Pérez & Holmes, 2023; Rolland, 2023). While this area has traditionally been underresearched (Holmes et al., 2013; Williamson et al., 2011), a recent and increasing body of literature on researching multilingually (Ganassin & Holmes, 2020; Holmes et al., 2016, 2022; Rolland et al., 2023) emphasises the need for researcher transparency (Backhaus, 2022; Holmes et al., 2022; Resch & Enzenhofer, 2018; Tesseur, 2022) as well as participant agency in terms of language use (Ganassin & Holmes, 2020; Polo‐Pérez & Holmes, 2023; Rolland et al., 2023; Schembri & Jašić, 2022). The facilitation of participant agency, their ‘socioculturally mediated capacity to act’ (Ahearn, 2010, p. 28) may mitigate power imbalances in the research process, which is particularly important in research with vulnerable groups (Ganassin & Holmes, 2020).…”