It seems easy enough: visit a church, collect data, analyse the data, and write up the findings. What could possibly be controversial or difficult about that? Yet, for some time now researchers have argued that interpreting in churches is emotionally[i] and spiritually[ii] sensitive. This is before we get into issues around confidentiality and reputational risk for churches and interpreters.
While there are entire articles on interpreting research ethics[iii] and even a new one on the ethics of church interpreting research[iv], there are some quick checks we can do to ensure our research is ethically sound.
General Checks Before Data Gathering
Is the research question clearly defined?
Have the possible applications and implications been thought through?
Is there a list somewhere of the people involved in the research in any capacity? This should include, the researcher, supervisors, anyone involved in data analysis, those participating in the research, those affected by the activity being researched but who are not directly involved.
Are any possible conflicts of interest detailed?
Is there a clear data management strategy, including the safe handling of personally identifiable information, any sensitive data, and noting any risks if information gets into the wrong hands? Is this clear and in accordance with all local data protection regulations?
Are there clear protocols for adding respondents to the study? Are there protocols for removing respondents from the study or are clear explanations as to why this is not possible available upon signup?
Will the data be pseudonymised or anonymised or are the reasons why this is not possible made clear?
Have any relevant ethical clearances and/or informed consent procedures been used?
Checks for Writing Up
What are the reputational, personal, emotional, or spiritual risks to those involved? How have these been mitigated?
Have you thought through your own positionality as a researcher? How will you responsibly use the power that gives you?
Has the research been related to the specific church context?
Are the analytical tools and procedures clear and without bias?
Have those involved been informed of the procedures used, to the greatest extent that is appropriate?
Which variables have you deliberately not covered and how might they have affected your conclusions?
Have you ensured humility in your analysis and conclusions? Where might you be overclaiming?
Going through these procedures carefully and checking each stage will not only lead to more ethical research but will ensure a long and prosperous research future for all church interpreting research.
[i] Sari Hokkanen, ‘Experiencing the Interpreter’s Role: Emotions of Involvement and Detachment in Simultaneous Church Interpreting’, Translation Spaces 6, no. 1 (2017): 62–78, https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.6.1.04hok; Duygu Tekgül, ‘Faith-Related Interpreting as Emotional Labour: A Case Study at a Protestant Armenian Church in Istanbul’, Perspectives 28, no. 1 (2020): 43–57, https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1641527.
[ii] Adelina Hild, ‘The Role and Self-Regulation of Non-Professional Interpreters in Religious Settings: The VIRS Project’, in Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation, ed. Rachele Antonini et al. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017), 177–94; Teresa Parish, ‘A Homiletic for Interpreted Preaching’ (Unpublished PhD Thesis, Australia, Charles Sturt University, 2018).
[iii] Elisabet Tiselius, ‘The (Un-) Ethical Interpreting Researcher: Ethics, Voice and Discretionary Power in Interpreting Research’, Perspectives 27, no. 5 (2019): 747–60, https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1544263; Elisabet Tiselius, ‘Informed Consent: An Overlooked Part of Ethical Research in Interpreting Studies’, INContext: Studies in Translation and Interculturalism 1, no. 1 (2021); Christopher D. Mellinger, ‘Positionality in Public Service Interpreting Research’, FITISPos International Journal 7, no. 1 (28 April 2020): 92–109, https://doi.org/10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2020.7.1.250.
[iv] Jonathan Downie, ‘Research Ethics and Church Interpreting’, INContext: Studies in Translation and Interculturalism 3, no. 2 (2023): 139–64. https://doi.org/10.54754/incontext.v3i2.64