I've been following this with some interest and I think I'm beginning to
see how this is like nesting dolls. In the kernel is the actual
interview in the native language - the primary source(s) which is
actually a video or audio recording. The next layer is the interviewers
transcription layer - a secondary source that may or may not compare &
contrast various primary sources to create a collective composite which
others who can read the native language are free to comment, modify,
dispute, etc.
That's great - don't monkey with success. So far all that has been done
is to convert one or more oral sources into a written condensation that
is now open to all native readers (or listeners if you use text to
speech technology) and that information is coherent within the context
of that culture.
Where all this seems to fall down is that some insist on forcing? this
material into English so a researcher will not be inconvenienced with
the task of learning the native language. That doesn't make much sense,
as the ethnographer or other researcher needs to understand that culture
enough to access the primary source and understand the cultural context
- which means they must know the native language anyway.
Work based on this cultural collection of material that will ultimately
be published in English should be written by this researcher or a
translator who can make it make sense in English. Running the original
material through a mechanical translator is fraught with errors and
misunderstandings.