Cross-Cultural Issues in Survey Translation: Translation of Meaning and Meaning of Translation

The paper outlines the translation process involved in the ORC Macro’s evaluation of the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia. The IVLP is a long-running program in which foreign professionals and prospective leaders from all over the world have the opportunity to participate in funded short-term visits to the United States to improve their professional practices and career positions, as well as to provide opportunities for them to learn first-hand how democratic institutions and processes, free-market economies, and other values of Western democracy and American society are manifested in professional and daily life. The present paper adds to the growing literature on translation issues by delineating a step-by-step translation process that could be used as a blueprint for adjusting translation methods of a survey instrument to fit a particular cultural context. The paper also highlights the importance of attending to the theoretical issues in the translation process, outlines specific phases of the translation process, presents the modified de-centering translation technique adapted for the project, describes the types of translation equivalences that were addressed, and discusses contextual factors inherent in the translation process. In the process of addressing such a variety of issues, the paper underscores that the meaning and the purpose of the translation process is to provide a qualitative approach for the instrument development that maps contexts of people’s lives, documents emic-etic aspects of cross-cultural research, and fosters collaborations with all stakeholders of the research project. Cross-Cultural Issues in Survey Translation: Translation of Meaning and Meaning of Translation The research context of our exploration of cross-cultural issues in the translation of survey instruments involved ORC Macro’s evaluation of the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) in Russia and three other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Georgia. The IVLP is a long-running program in which established or potential foreign leaders, chosen for their professional merit and leadership potential in a variety of professions, have the opportunity to participate in funded short-term visits to the United States. During these professionally focused group visits, they meet with their American professional counterparts to learn about American practices in the field, travel to several cities to observe American life and culture, and establish informal contacts with Americans. These visits, lasting up to 3 weeks, are intended to improve the professional practices and career positions of participants, as well as to provide opportunities for them to learn firsthand how democratic institutions and processes, free-market economies, and other values of Western democracy and American society are manifested in professional and daily life. Thousands of people from all over the world participate in the IVLP each year. The overall objectives of the IVLP program evaluation were: 1) to determine the immediate and long-term outcomes of the program experiences on the participants, their institutions, and their home countries; 2) to assess the levels of participation in and the value of the IVLP for alumni and their affiliated organizations; and 3) to document alumni’s demographic and professional characteristics. ORC Macro subcontracted the data collection to the Institute for Comparative Social Research (CESSI, based on the Russian acronym, a major research company in CIS) that conducted face-to-face, questionnaire-driven, structured interviews with 90 percent of the sample, as well as, open-ended, indepth interviews with the remaining 10 percent of the sample. These interviews with the IVLP alumni from the four countries inquired about their views of the program; measured the impact of the program on their perceptions of democracy, American government, its institutions, culture, society, and people; assessed the effects of the program on participants’ professional development; and determined how program alumni disseminate acquired professional and cultural information to people and institutions in their native country. The interviewing was done in respondents’ native language and required translation of the structured and the open-ended instruments, as well as other supporting documentation to provide valid comparisons across the four countries. The overwhelming majority of the translation issues that we encountered involved the structured questionnaire, while the instrument for the open-ended interviews provided enough flexibility that virtually eliminated the translation issues with respect to the precise wording of the items. Therefore, this paper focuses on the translation issues pertaining to the structured questionnaire, while acknowledging that some of the issues might also be relevant to the open-ended, indepth interviews. Issues of translation are long standing and are well addressed in cross-cultural research literature (Brislin, 1986; Brislin, 1976; Loner, 1981). Unfortunately, some issues still persist. Studies seldom delineate a clear theoretical framework underlying the translation process; often fail to document and address contextual factors influencing the translation; and still lack the consensus regarding the relative importance of various types of translation equivalences and translation techniques. The present paper attempts to add to the growing literature on translation issues by delineating a step-by-step translation process that could be used as a blueprint for adjusting translation methods to fit a particular cultural context. In this process, the paper highlights the importance of attending to the theoretical issues in the translation process, outlines the phases of the translation process, presents a translation technique adapted for the project, describes the types of translation equivalences that were addressed, presents findings that 1 In 2004 the International Visitor Program was renamed the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP).