Advertisement

The Role of Research Assistants in Qualitative and Cross-Cultural Social Science Research

  • Sara StevanoEmail author
  • Kevin Deane
Reference work entry

Abstract

Cross-cultural research frequently involves working with research assistants to conduct data collection activities. Due to the range of different functions that research assistants end up fulfilling, from translator to guide to gatekeeper, it is clear that their participation in the research project has implications for the quality of the study design, its process and outcomes. However, their role is not always explored. Drawing on our own research as well as that of others, this chapter discusses a set of key practical decisions researchers need to make when planning their fieldwork – from assessing whether a research assistant is needed to managing a work relation. We show how these practical considerations are intertwined with the power asymmetries rooted in the employment relation between researcher and research assistant. We also explore how the triangular power dynamics between research participants, research assistants, and researchers influence the research process and outcomes, as well as how these power dynamics reflect the broader institutional research landscape, in which questions of power, ownership, and extraction are prominent. Researchers need to reflect, discuss, and write more on this topic to fulfil a crucial gap in the literature on research methodology, to provide practical guidance for future researchers, and to identify the basis for fairer collaborations between North and South research institutions.

Keywords

Research assistants Qualitative research Social science Development Fieldwork Africa 

References

  1. Berman RC, Tyyskä V. A critical reflection on the use of translators/interpreters in a qualitative cross-language research project. Int J Qual Methods. 2011;10(2):178–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley M. North-South research partnerships: literature review and annotated bibliography: Special Initiatives Division, International Development Research Centre; 2006.Google Scholar
  3. Bujra J. Lost in translation? The use of interpreters in fieldwork. In: Desai V, Potter RB, editors. Doing development research. London: SAGE; 2006. p. 172–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caretta MA. Situated knowledge in cross-cultural, cross-language research: a collaborative reflexive analysis of researcher, assistant and participant subjectivities. Qual Res. 2015;15(4): 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cramer C, Johnston D, Oya C, Sender J. Research note: mistakes, crises, and research independence: the perils of fieldwork as a form of evidence. Afr Aff. 2016;115(458):145–60.Google Scholar
  6. Deane K, Stevano S. Towards a political economy of the use of research assistants: reflections from fieldwork in Tanzania and Mozambique. Qual Res. 2016;16(2):213–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deane K, Samwell P, Ngalya L, Boniface GB, Urassa M. Exploring the relationship between population mobility and HIV risk: evidence from Tanzania. Glob Public Health. 2016. Published online May 27th 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2016.1178318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devereux S, Hoddinott J. Fieldwork in developing countries. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf; 1992.Google Scholar
  9. England KVL. Getting personal: reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. Prof Geogr. 1994;46(1):80–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE; 2009.Google Scholar
  11. Flores-Macias F, Lawson C. Effects of interviewer gender on survey responses: findings from a household survey in Mexico. Int J Public Opin Res. 2008;20(1):100–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freed AO. Interviewing through an interpretor, Social work. 1988 July–August, p. 315–19.Google Scholar
  13. Grosh M, Glewwe P. Designing household survey questionnaires for developing countries: lessons from 15 years of the living standards measurement study, vol. 1, 2 & 3. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2000.Google Scholar
  14. Harding S. Feminism and methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  15. Iarossi G. The power of survey design: a user’s guide for managing surveys, interpreting results, and influencing respondents. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ICF Macro. Training field staff for DHS surveys. Calverton: ICF Macro; 2009.Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins SA. Assistants, guides, collaborators, friends: the concealed figures of conflict research. J Contemp Ethnogr. 2015. Published online December 18th 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241615619993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liamputtong P. Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  20. MacKenzie CA. Filtered meaning: appreciating linguistic skill, social position and subjectivity of interpreters in cross-language research. Qual Res. 2016;16(2):167–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mandel JL. Negotiating Expectations in the Field: Gatekeepers, Research Fatigue and Cultural Biases. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography. 2003;24(2):198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Wiley; 2015.Google Scholar
  23. Middleton T, Cons J. Coming to terms: reinserting research assistants into ethnography’s past and present. Ethnography. 2014;15(3):279–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Molony T, Hammett H. The friendly financier: talking money with the silenced assistant. Hum Organ. 2007;66(3):292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Molyneux C, Goudge J, Russell S, Chuma J, Gumede T, Gilson L. Conducting health-related social science research in low income settings: ethical dilemmas faced in Kenya and South Africa. J Int Dev. 2009;21(2):309–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murphy J, Hatfield J, Afsana K, Neufeld V. Making a commitment to ethics in global health research partnerships: a practical tool to support ethical practice. J Bioeth Inq. 2015;12(1): 137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pack S. How they see me vs. how I see them: the ethnographic self and the personal self. Anthropol Q. 2006;79(1):105–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pitchforth E, Van Teijlingen E. International public health research involving interpreters: a case study from Bangladesh. BMC Public Health. 2005;5(71):1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-5-71.
  29. Randall S, Coast E, Compaore N, Antoine P. The power of the interviewer: a qualitative perspective on African survey data collection. Demogr Res. 2013;28(27):763–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE; 2003.Google Scholar
  31. Ryan L. “Inside” and “outside” of what or where? Researching migration through multi-positionalities. Forum: Qual Soc Res. 2015;16(2):Art. 17. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1502175.Google Scholar
  32. Silverman D. Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. London: SAGE; 2013.Google Scholar
  33. Spiegel JM, Breilh J, Yassi A. Why language matters: insights and challenges in applying a social determination of health approach in a north-south collaborative research program. Glob Health. 2015;11(9):1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-015-0091-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevano S. Women’s work, food and household dynamics: a case study of northern Mozambique. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Economics, SOAS University of London. 2014.Google Scholar
  35. Suwankhong D, Liamputtong P. Cultural insiders and research fieldwork: case examples from cross-cultural research with Thai people. Int J Qual Methods. 2015;14(5):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Temple B, Edwards R. Interpreters/translators and cross-language research: reflexivity and border crossings. Int J Qual Methods. 2002;1(2):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Temple B, Young A. Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qual Res. 2004;4(2):161–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tinkler C, Armstrong N. From the outside looking in: how an awareness of difference can benefit the qualitative research process. Qual Rep. 2008;13(1):53–60.Google Scholar
  39. Turner S. Research note: the silenced assistant. Reflections of invisible interpreters and research assistants. Asia Pac Viewpoint. 2010;51(2):206–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williamson DL, Choi J, Charchuk M, Rempel GR, Pitre N, Breitkreuz R, Kushner KE. Interpreter-facilitated cross-language interviews: a research note. Qual Res. 2011;11(4):381–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of the West of England (UWE) BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of Economics, International Development and International RelationsThe University of NorthamptonNorthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations