The comparison of something pedagogical in multilingual contexts to reflect and understand literary teaching and learning is still fraught with difficulties because the meaning of teaching and learning to write and read and its scope for setting object have also changed (cf. New London Group 2000). The similarity can also be observed in the field of qualitative research with narrative interviews in a foreign language and their translation process to understand what we can make possible for (re)reading and (re)writing. The focus of this paper is therefore on whether and how it is possible to approach the (re)reading and (re)writing of textual content from narrative interviews in a foreign language methodologically in order to reflect something pedagogical in multilingual contexts.

Scholars in German-speaking countries have been concerned with changes in pedagogical vocabulary. Nowadays, they tend to do so by analysing, and interpreting the process by which something pedagogical emerges from the actions, interactions, and cultural conditions of individuals. In doing so, they distinguish two German concepts of education (e.g. Koller: 2022, Nohl: 2022), from other concepts and practises in order to (re)read and (re)write the pedagogical by comparing it with social conditions and interactions. And on this basis, it seeks to (re)read and (re)write the uniqueness of pedagogy as distinct from other disciplines (cf. Liesner and Lohmann: 2010). Both in intercultural pedagogy and in qualitative educational research, the above-mentioned perspectives are combined with language and migration as the objects of analysis. This is done not only to examine how pedagogy is (re)readable and (re)writable, but also to provide new pedagogical perspectives on multilingualism (cf. Gogolin and Duarte: 2018, Krüger-Potratz: 2018). 

Meanwhile, scholars of intercultural education outside the German-speaking world have pointed to the difficulty of developing different ways of doing intercultural research. One of the main reasons for this difficulty stems from the different interests by researcher's backgrounds for choosing a research topic, concept and method (Bhatti and Leeman: 2011). Moreover, this problem is clarified through methodological reflection on the relevance of narrative interviews as an approach for analysing and interpreting their structures in the context of migration and languages. Despite the great interest in qualitative research with foreign or multilingual narrative interviews (Hangertner: 2012, Temple and Edwards: 2002, Tempel:2008), research process of a narrative interview in a foreign language viewed from its translating in transcription is still unclear.

For this purpose, a narrative interview with a Japanese person was chosen as the source of data. In 2020, when I conducted my interviews, my interviewee was a regular international student at a German university. A transcription of the interview with her is presented in the original (Japanese) and translated into English. In order to consider the methodological reflection on the relevance of narrative interviews for the analysis and interpretation of their structures in the context of migration in multilingualism, I translated the original into English using the formulating interpretation according to the documentary and narrative structure analysis by Nohl (2006/2012). I then attempted to reflect on the translated sentences using Fritz Schütze's 'narrator's interest constellations'. While formulating interpretation and narrator's interest constellations are methodologically compared to narrative structures (cf. Franz and Griese: 2010), the discussion of foreign languages and their translation by researchers is not yet sufficiently developed (cf. Bittner and Günther: 2012). This kind of interpretation can show that the translation process should also be reflected in the analysis and interpretation of the narrative structure in interlingual storytelling.

Combined with a discussion of the methodological relevance of narrative interviews in foreign languages in intercultural education, this study provides important insights into the potential for developing a multi-literacy pedagogy.

The selected Japanese interview was conducted in 2020 via Zoom video. My interviewee, whose interview excerpt will be presented at the conference, was studying in Germany. The content of the selected interview passage in Japanese is a story about her challenging experience as a international students and her conflict with her ‘integration’ in Germany. In view of the linguistic aspects of Japanese, which can express various social aspects (cf. Löbner: 2002/2013), this passage can also show the possibilities and risks of translation as well as of formulating and reflecting interpretation to analyse and interpret the narrative structure in English. In order to consider the methodological reflection on the relevance of narrative interviews in the context of migration in multilingualism, I translated the original into English using the formulating interpretation according to the documentary and narrative structure analysis by Arndt-Michael Nohl (2006/2012) combined with ‘narrator's interest constellations’ according to Fritz Schütze (1976). The ‘formulating interpretation’ is generally understood to be a reference to what is being said (e.g., finding main and sub-topics from the selected passage). This interpretation allows us to write down as many translation variants as possible, compare them with each other, and then to decide on a translation variant. The 'narrator's interest constellations' make it possible to reflect on the translating process of storytelling from the point of view of the narrator (interviewee) on the one hand, and from the point of view of another "new" narrator (researcher and translator) on the other, and to produce a translated transcription that reflects the narrative. This combination can provide a basis for discussing the question not only of translating as research action, but also of how translated elements can be mediated to methodologically compare narrative structure analysis between languages. Although both interpretations are only one part of the analysis and evaluation process, they have great potential to point out the importance of methodological reflection on the relevance of narrative interviews and the important role of language, both of which have already been indicated by Franz and Griese (2010).

My research should provide thee benefits for developing the concept of a pedagogy of multiliteracies. The first is that researchers who have multilingual access to the object of their research will be able to be more sensitive in their procedures of interpretation and analysis. My research project will support the proposition that the approach presented should not be limited to the school context and language education there. Secondly, my research will be able to demonstrate a possibility for a pedagogy of multiliteracies in which ‘designs of meaning’(cf. New London Group 2000) can also be applied to qualitative educational research in order to reflect on the methodological relevance of narrative interviews with foreign languages. Finally, this paper aims to contribute to a proposed solution to the problem of the dilemma in the network for social justice and intercultural pedagogy (cf. Bhatti and Leeman 2011) by exemplifying two aspects of the dilemma, namely the different interests by researchers and the use of different languages. This allows to reflect on previous selected research objects, aims and language(s) for developing the contents in the network.

Bhatti, G., Leeman, Y. (2011). Convening a Network within the European Conference on Educational Research: a history of the Social Justice and Intercultural Education Network. European Educational Research Journal Volume 10 Nr. 1, 129–142. Bittner, M., Günther, M. (2013). Verstehensprozesse in interkulturellen Forschungsgruppen. Übersetzung als eine Herausforderung qualitativer Forschung. In M. Roslon and R. Bettmann (eds.). Going the Distance. Impulse für die interkulturelle Qualitative Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden, Springer, 185–202. Franz, J., Griese, B. (2010). Dokumentarische Methode und Narrationsstrukturanalyse - ein Vergleich. In B. Griese (eds.). Subjekt - Identität - Person? Reflexionen zur Biographieforschung. Wiesbaden, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 271–310. Gogolin, I., Duarte, J. (2018). Migration und sprachliche Bildung. In I. Gogolin et al. (eds.). Handbuch Interkulturelle Pädagogik. Bad Heilbrunn, Julius Klinkhardt, 67–72. Hangartner, J. (2012). Verstehen und 'kulturelles Übersetzen' in einer anthropologischen Feldforschung. In J. Kruse et al. (eds.). Qualitative Interviewforschung in und mit fremden Sprachen. Eine Einführung in Theorie und Praxis. Weinheim, Beltz Juventa, 136–150. Koller, H-C. (2022). Bildung. In M. Rieger-Ladich et al. (eds.). Schlüsselbegriffe der Allgemeinen Erziehungswissenschaft. Pädagogisches Vokabular in Bewegung. Weinheim, Beltz Juventa, 55–62. Krüger-Potratz, M. (2018). Interkulturelle Pädagogik. In I. Gogolin et al. (eds.). Handbuch Interkulturelle Pädagogik. Bad Heilbrunn, Julius Klinkhardt, 183–190. Löbner, S. (2013). Understanding Semantics. 2. Edition. UK, Routledge. New London Group (2000). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. UK, Routledge, 9–37. Nohl, A-M. (2006/2012). Interview und dokumentarische Methode. Anleitungen für die Forschungspraxis. 4. Edition. Wiesbaden, Springer. Nohl, A-M. (2022). Erziehung. In M. Rieger-Ladich et al. (eds.). Schlüsselbegriffe der Allgemeinen Erziehungswissenschaft. Pädagogisches Vokabular in Bewegung. Weinheim, Beltz Juventa, 151–158. Rieger-Ladich, M. et al. (2022). In Begriff, sich zu verändern. Zur Einleitung in das pädagogische Vokabular. In M. Rieger-Ladich et al. (eds.). Schlüsselbegriffe der Allgemeinen Erziehungswissenschaft. Pädagogisches Vokabular in Bewegung. Weinheim, Beltz Juventa, 7–14. Schittenhelm, K. (2017). Mehrsprachigkeit als methodische Herausforderung in transnationalen Forschungskontexten. Zeitschrift für Qualitative Forschung 18 (1), 101–115. Schütze, F. (1976). Zur soziologischen und linguistischen Analyse von Erzählungen. In Dux, G. and Luckmann, T. (eds.), Beiträge zur Wissenssoziologie - Beiträge zur Religionssoziologie, Opladen, Westdt. Verlag, 7–41. Temple, B., Edwards, R. (2002). Interpreters/Translators and Cross-Language Research: Reflexivity and Border Crossings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1 (2), 1–12. Temple, B. (2008). Narrative Analysis of Written Texts: Reflexivity in Cross Language Research. Qualitative Research 8 (3), 355–365.