One of the key learning targets whilst in Ghana was to conduct in-depth interviews with locals regarding their experiences with climate change. We had particular interest in if and how climate change affected their everyday lives and livelihoods, as well as whether they needed to adapt their ways to accustom themselves to this problem. In-depth interviews are a key tool in gaining qualitative, first-hand insight into people’s thought process that may otherwise not be able to be gained through other data collection methods. A benefit of using interviews is that it allows the interviewer to respond to and ask further questions related to what has been mentioned to maximise the knowledge gained from the participant (The Wallace Foundation, not dated).
This task took us to a coastal community in the Volta Delta region, called Totope. Residents of Totope had the local language of Dangme and their English skills were varied. With lack of translators, the issue of language barriers was a struggle to overcome. These issues not only limited the amount of information we could gain from participants, but also led to discussions around ethical research guidelines. One issue that arose in particular was with gaining informed consent.
The basis of informed consent is that prospective participants must be given sufficient information about the research in which they may be partaking to decide whether they wish to consent for participation (Crow et al. 2006). To achieve informed consent participants are given a participant information sheet containing the purpose of the research, why they have been chosen to participate and the potential benefits and risks that they will be subjected to. The participant information sheet will involve information regarding who is financing the study and how the results will be used as well as explaining how anonymity and confidentiality will be kept (ESRC, 2015). The sheet will also remind participants of their right to decline participation in the study and right to withdraw at any time without any subsequent consequences (Crow et al. 2006). Reminding subjects of their rights as a participant is important to avoid risk of coercion. Similarly, giving participants information about the study minimises risk of deception, another of the ethical guidelines.
Participants must read all the given information on the participant information sheet and sign to stipulate that they are willing to participate in your interview. In our case the participants had the option of having the participant information sheet read to them, to eliminate issues if they couldn’t read English, or they could read it themselves. Where language issues exist it is possible that a participant could read and sign the sheet but without actually fully understanding what it said. This could breach ethical guidelines as despite giving consent for their participation, it is not necessarily informed consent as desired due to their lack of knowledge about their rights. For example, participants may wish to withdraw during the interview however may not have understood their right to do so. This may lead participants to disclose less information as they want the interview to finish quickly as they feel uncomfortable. This issue could also potentially taint the future participant pool for other scholars, limiting future research and knowledge.
Another issue related to language barriers is the possibility for it to limit the amount of information obtained from participants. The participant may not understand what you are asking or alternatively may not have the language ability to respond in the best manner. This means the interviews are not as useful in gaining as much information as they potentially could. From experience with interviewing, when participants don’t understand the question often the interviewer needs to probe the participant by asking more questions, and this could result in leading questions being asked. This would mean that the conclusions drawn may not be valid as the participant is responding in a manner in which to simply agree with what the interviewer is asking – this may not be their real opinions and can lead to bias. Furthermore, language barriers may lead to miscommunication as the interviewer may interpret something the participant had said in a different way than had been intended. This would limit the validity of the results as they are not accurate to what the participant was trying to portray, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions being drawn.
If this procedure could be redone it could be preferable to use a translator to help overcome the language barriers. Translators require specific training however and would make the process more expensive and time-consuming (Wallace Foundation, not dated). There is also the issue that by having another member there, the participant may feel less comfortable to elicit as much information. A risk with translators is that you are unsure if the translator is truly relaying what the participant feels, or whether they are incorporating their own opinions which would alter your results. Alternatively, the participant information sheet could be translated to ensure the participants fully understand what they are consenting to, then the interview could continue to take place in English. This would minimise ethical issues related to consent but the issues regarding gaining information would still remain.
Claire Cheung
References:
Crow, G., Wiles, R., Heath, S. and Charles, V. 2006 ‘Research Ethics and Data Quality: The Implications of Informed Consent’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 83-95.
The Wallace Foundation. ‘Conducting In-Depth Interviews’, [Online], Available: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/after-school/collecting-and-using-data/Documents/Workbook-E-Indepth-Interviews.pdf [accessed April 12].
ESRC, 2015. ‘Framework for research ethics’, [Online], Available:http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/funding/guidance-for-applicants/esrc-framework-for-research-ethics-2015/ [accessed April 14].
Fishing boats at Totope
Pop and Geog in Accra 2016 