CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Methodology
A qualitative research methodology has been employed in this study on court
interpreting in Taiwan. The main obstacles this researcher encountered for duration of
the study were a lack of academic studies, scarce data on the subject, and difficulty
locating persons with pertinent knowledge and experience for interviews. Qualitative
data was gathered from available writings and interviews to investigate past and
current court interpreting trends in the Taiwan legal system. In this study, the US state
of California was chosen for its abundant information and statistical data on court
interpreting to serve as a benchmark for discussion. Other countries and regions were
considered for comparison, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia, but there
was not as much information available at the time of writing.
Major themes in court interpreting have been drawn upon from the literature
review to design interview questions conducive to gathering comprehensive
knowledge on court interpreting in Taiwan. The interviews were conducted with
persons directly involved with court interpreting and the court system in Taiwan,
including a Judicial Yuan official, a court clerk in the Taiwan High Court, a criminal
official in the Taipei District Court, two staff interpreters in Taipei District Court, and
seven interpreters who have served as contract court interpreters, who have provided
interpretation services for private legal counsel, or who have accompanied
non-Mandarin-speaking witnesses in court but did not serve as the court appointed
interpreter. The interviews were conducted in English or in Mandarin. Table 1 of this
study provides a complete list of interviewees. Interview questions may be found in
Appendix A.
3.2 Interview Questions
Questions listed in Appendix A were written after extensive research of the
literature review to determine what information is pertinent to make an accurate
assessment of court interpreting in Taiwan. Two sets of questions were prepared for
interpreters and for court staff or government officials. The first set for those who
have actually interpreted in court or observed interpreted proceedings primarily
focuses on learning the interviewee’s background, interpreting experience, court
requirements and procedures, the role of the interpreter, whether there were any role
conflicts, ensuing results of such conflicts, and interpreter pay and training. The
second set of questions is aimed at learning the administrative aspect of court
with the subject, whether any written procedures existed for interpreted proceedings,
what requirements interpreters had to meet, how interpreters were assigned to cases,
and whether data on court interpreter usage were being gathered.
When actually conducting the interviews, however, this researcher found that
more information could be obtained by asking interviewees different questions from
both sets. For example, some court staff and government officials had observed or
heard anecdotes of cases that used interpreters and could provide insight on
interpreting aspects (e.g. role, turn-taking) in addition to administrative aspects (e.g.
compiling statistics on interpreter usage, court requirements for interpreters).
Vice-versa, staff interpreters and contract court interpreters were found to have
knowledge of administrative aspects because (1) staff interpreters rarely or never
interpret taking on more of an administrative role anyhow, and (2) contract court
interpreters could more coherently inform this researcher what requirements and
procedures they had to go through before interpreting in court. The most conspicuous
finding in this regard was that court officials could not verify if contract court
interpreters had attended the three-day training workshop promised in the April 21
2006 Taiwan High Court announcement; this could only be confirmed by three
interpreters on the contract court interpreter list.
3.3 Finding Interviewees
Suitable persons for interviews were difficult to come by for the duration of this
study. Inquiries were made with interpreting instructors, conference interpreters,
non-governmental organizations who assist persons with limited Mandarin
proficiency, the Taipei District Court, the Taiwan High Court, and the Judicial Yuan.
Once interviewees consented to an interview, a time was arranged to meet in person
or hold the interview over the telephone.
Due to privacy concerns, the courts were at first reluctant to permit access to the
newly compiled contract court interpreter list when an official request was placed
with the Taipei District Court and Taiwan High Court in February 2007 by this
researcher through the Office of the President of National Taiwan Normal University.
At first, the courts only arranged interviews with a criminal court official and two
staff interpreters. The courts finally granted access to the list after a second
university-endorsed request was placed in June 2007.
3.4 Conducting the Interviews
Most of the interviewees were located in the Taipei area and were interviewed in
person while a few were only available for telephone interviews (Subjects A, D and
after the interview to ask additional questions or to verify information they provided
in the original interview. Though questions listed in Appendix A are numbered,
interviewees often volunteered information from the beginning and answered
questions before they were actually asked. A sheet was prepared beforehand to check
off questions as they were answered and to keep track of those which had not.
Note-taking was employed for most interviews, but where permission was granted by
interviewees, audio recordings were also made.
