Research Ethics and Church Interpreting

Abstract

This article applies recent discussions of ethical aspects of Interpreting Studies to research on church interpreting. Lessons from this case study are then applied to field research on interpreting more broadly, with an emphasis on the specific ethical and methodological issues that arise when examining client expectations of interpreters. It begins with an examination of the concepts of informed consent and reputational risk as explored in the work of Elisabet Tiselius (2021, 2019), as well as the concept of positionality in the work of Chris Mellinger (2020). These ethical concepts are then applied to a critical reading of the research that focuses on locating problems and challenges of church interpreting and evaluating the performance of church interpreters (hereafter called PCE). This research, which began with the work of Adewuni Salawu (2010), sees the goal of research as improving the quality of church interpreting by offering an evaluation of the practice, using criteria created by each researcher. This tends to lead to arguments that church interpreting should be professionalized via training existing interpreters or replacing them with professionals. It is argued that research on PCE is ethically questionable, in light of recent discussions of research ethics, due to the selection of data and the placement of the researcher as the sole arbiter of interpreting quality. These choices lead inexorably to reputational risk for research participants. The paper then reflects on how researchers could engage in the evaluation of church interpreting more helpfully, if important modifications are made to the PCE. This then allows the wider relevance of these concerns to field research in Interpreting Studies to be discussed with a special emphasis on research seeking to understand client expectations of interpreters. In all cases, it is argued that the views and interests of those experiencing and delivering the interpreting must be foregrounded, even at the expense of restricting the research that can take place. The results of refusing to do this will be the loss of access to research sites, broken trust with research participants, and ultimately, research that is theoretically and methodologically impoverished.