1887
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Interpreting Studies (IS) has emerged as an interdisciplinary enterprise, using a diverse array of research methods derived from postpositivist and constructivist paradigms to investigate interpreting/translational phenomena. Mixed-methods research (MMR), which should enable both (explanation) and (understanding), has for some years been gaining momentum in IS (Hild 2015Pöchhacker 2011). This article draws upon a collection of 312 empirical studies, sampled from 36 peer-reviewed T&I journals (2004‒2014), to provide insight into the practice of MMR in IS. The focus is on rationales, MMR designs and associated characteristics. Major findings are: (a) although over one third (36.2%,  = 113) of the empirical studies used MMR designs, explicit justification for doing so was lacking; (b) the four prototypical MMR designs identified, accounting for 60.2% of the 113 MMR studies, were parallel, sequential, conversion and ; (c) the prototype designs were innovatively combined by researchers, using addition, substitution, and embedment techniques, to form complex MMR variants suitable for the specificities of different research questions. These findings are discussed in relation to inference making and compared with MMR practice in cognate disciplines. Finally, the article provides a set of suggestions for writing and publishing MMR studies in IS.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00008.han
2018-09-24
2019-08-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alise, M. A. & Teddlie, C.
    (2010) A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research4, 103–126.10.1177/1558689809360805
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809360805 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartłomiejczyk, M.
    (2006) Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality. Interpreting8 (2), 149–174.10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.8.2.03bar [Google Scholar]
  3. Braun, S.
    (2013) Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice. Interpreting15 (2), 200–228.10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra [Google Scholar]
  4. Brewer, J. & Hunter, A.
    (1989) Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bryman, A.
    (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?Qualitative Research6 (1), 97–113.10.1177/1468794106058877
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2008) Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research?In M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 87–100.10.4135/9780857024329.d9
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024329.d9 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2012) Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang, C. -C. & Schallert, D. L.
    (2007) The impact of directionality on Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting9 (2), 137–176.10.1075/intp.9.2.02cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.2.02cha [Google Scholar]
  9. Cherryholmes, C. H.
    (1992) Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher21 (6), 13–17.10.3102/0013189X021006013
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X021006013 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chesterman, A.
    (2004) Paradigm problems?In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 52–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chmiel, A.
    (2008) Boothmates forever? – On teamwork in a simultaneous interpreting booth. Across Languages and Cultures9 (2), 261–276.10.1556/Acr.9.2008.2.6
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.9.2008.2.6 [Google Scholar]
  12. Christensen, T. P.
    (2011) User expectations and evaluation: A case study of a court interpreting event. Perspectives19 (1), 1–24.10.1080/09076761003728554
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09076761003728554 [Google Scholar]
  13. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L.
    (2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. de Wit, M. & Sluis, I.
    (2014) Sign language interpreter quality: The perspective of deaf sign language users in the Netherlands. The Interpreters’ Newsletter19, 63–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dean, R. K. & Pollard, R. Q.
    (2009) Effectiveness of observation-supervision training in community mental health interpreting settings. e-Journal of Didactics in Translation and Interpreting3, 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Englander, K.
    (2013) Writing and publishing science research papers in English: A global perspective. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fabbro, F. & Gran, L.
    (1994) Neurological and neuropsychological aspects of polyglossia and simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 273–317.10.1075/btl.3.21fab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.21fab [Google Scholar]
  18. Geertz, C.
    (1973) The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gile, D.
    (1990) Scientific research vs. personal theories in the investigation of interpretation. In L. Gran & C. Taylor (eds.), Aspects of applied and experimental research on conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto Editore, 28–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1994) Opening up in interpretation studies. In M. Snell-Hornby , F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies ‒ an interdiscipline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 149–158.10.1075/btl.2.20gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.2.20gil [Google Scholar]
  21. (2004a) Translation research versus interpreting research: Kinship, differences and prospects for partnership. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 10–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2004b) A response to the invited papers. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 124–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2005) Citation patterns in the T&I didactics literature. Forum3 (2), 85–103.10.1075/forum.3.2.05gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.3.2.05gil [Google Scholar]
  24. (2006) Conference interpreting. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier, Vol.3, 9–23.10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/04285‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04285-1 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) Interpreting Studies: A critical view from within. MonTI1, 135–155.10.6035/MonTI.2009.1.6
    https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2009.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2011) Preface. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, VII-X.10.1017/CBO9781139107471.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107471.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Grbić, G.
    (2007) Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? A bibliometrical analysis of writings and research on sign language interpreting. The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter1 (1), 15–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Grbić, N. & Pöllabauer, S.
    (2006) Community interpreting: Signed or spoken? Types, modes, and methods. Linguistica Antverpiensia5, 247–261.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2008) Counting what counts: Research on community interpreting in German-speaking countries – a scientometric study. Target20 (2), 297–332.10.1075/target.20.2.06grb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.20.2.06grb [Google Scholar]
  30. Greene, J. C.
    (2007) Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Greene, J. C. , Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F.
    (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis11, 255–274.10.3102/01623737011003255
    https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255 [Google Scholar]
  32. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S.
    (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage, 191–215.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hale, S. & Napier, J.
    (2013) Research methods in interpreting: A practical resource. London/New York: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hale, S.
    (2006) Themes and methodological issues in court interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia5, 205–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Han, C. & Riazi, M.
    (2017) Investigating the effects of speech rate and accent on simultaneous interpretation: A mixed-methods approach. Across Languages and Cultures18 (2), 237–259.10.1556/084.2017.18.2.4
    https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2017.18.2.4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hashemi, M. R. & Babaii, E.
    (2013) Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in Applied Linguistics. The Modern Language Journal97 (4), 828–852.10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.12049.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12049.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Hertog, E. , Van Gucht, J. & de Bontridder, L.
    (2006) Musings on methodology. Linguistica Antverpiensia5, 121–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hild, A.
    (2015) Mixed methods research. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2014) The role of self-regulatory processes in the development of interpreting expertise. Translation & Interpreting Studies9 (1), 128–149.10.1075/tis.9.1.07hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.9.1.07hil [Google Scholar]
  40. Jang, E. E. , Wagner, M. & Park, G.
    (2014) Mixed methods research in language testing and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics34, 123–153.10.1017/S0267190514000063
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000063 [Google Scholar]
  41. Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. B.
    (2010) Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Johnson, R. B. & Turner, L. S.
    (2003) Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 297–319.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Korak, C. A.
    (2012) Remote interpreting via Skype – a viable alternative to in situ interpreting?The Interpreters’ Newsletter17, 83–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Leanza, Y.
    (2005) Roles of community interpreters in pediatrics as seen by interpreters, physicians and researchers. Interpreting7 (2), 167–192.10.1075/intp.7.2.03lea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.2.03lea [Google Scholar]
  45. Lee, J.
    (2008) Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer2 (2), 165–184.10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772 [Google Scholar]
  46. Leung, E. & Gibbons, J.
    (2009) Interpreting Cantonese utterance-final particles in bilingual courtroom discourse. Interpreting11 (2), 190–125.10.1075/intp.11.2.05leu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.2.05leu [Google Scholar]
  47. Lincoln, Y. S. , Lynham, S. A. & Guba, E. G.
    (2011) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 97–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Liu, M.
    (2011) Methodology in interpreting studies: A methodological review of evidence-based research. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 85–119.10.1075/btl.99.08liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.08liu [Google Scholar]
  49. Lopez-Fernandez, O. & Molina-Azorin, J.
    (2011) The use of mixed methods research in interdisciplinary educational journals. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches5 (2), 269–283.10.5172/mra.2011.5.2.269
    https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2011.5.2.269 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mark, M. M. & Shotland, R. L.
    (1987) Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. InM. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 95–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. McDermid, C.
    (2014) Cohesion in English to ASL simultaneous interpreting. Translation & Interpreting6 (1), 76–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Mertens, D. M.
    (2010) Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M.
    (1994) Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Mo, Y. -J. & Hale, S.
    (2014) Translation and interpreting education and training: Student voices. International Journal of Interpreter Education6 (1), 19–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Morse, J. M.
    (1991) Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research40, 120–123.10.1097/00006199‑199103000‑00014
    https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199103000-00014 [Google Scholar]
  56. Moser-Mercer, B.
    (1994) Paradigms gained or the art of productive disagreement. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–23.10.1075/btl.3.03mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.03mos [Google Scholar]
  57. Pan, J. & Yan, J. X.
    (2012) Learner variables and problems perceived by students: An investigation of a college interpreting programme in China. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer20 (2), 199–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Penn, C. & Watermeyer, J.
    (2014) Features of cultural brokerage in interpreted child psychiatry interactions: A case of paradoxical practice. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer8 (3), 354–373.10.1080/1750399X.2014.968994
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.968994 [Google Scholar]
  59. Pluye, P. , Grad, R. M. , Levine, A. & Nicolau, B.
    (2009) Understanding divergence of quantitative and qualitative data (or results) in mixed methods studies. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches3 (1), 58–72.10.5172/mra.455.3.1.58
    https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.455.3.1.58 [Google Scholar]
  60. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2004) I in TS: On partnership in Translation Studies. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 104–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (2006) Research and methodology in healthcare interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia5, 135–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (2011) Researching interpreting: Approaches to inquiry. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 5–25.10.1075/btl.99.04poch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.04poch [Google Scholar]
  63. (2016) Introducing interpreting studies. (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Pöllabauer, S.
    (2006) “During the interview, the interpreter will provide a faithful translation.” The potentials and pitfalls of researching interpreting in immigration, asylum, and police settings: Methodology and research paradigms. Linguistica Antverpiensia5, 229–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Ra, S. & Napier, J.
    (2013) Community interpreting: Asian language interpreters’ perspectives. Translation & Interpreting5 (2), 45–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Riazi, M. & Candlin, C. N.
    (2014) Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching47 (2), 135–173.10.1017/S0261444813000505
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000505 [Google Scholar]
  67. Roberson, L. , Russell, D. & Shaw, R.
    (2012) A case for training signed language interpreters for legal specialization. International Journal of Interpreter Education4 (2), 52–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Rovira-Esteva, S. & Orero, P.
    (2011) A contrastive analysis of the main benchmarking tools for research assessment in translation and interpreting: The Spanish approach. Perspectives19 (3), 233–251.10.1080/0907676X.2011.590214
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2011.590214 [Google Scholar]
  69. Rudvin, M.
    (2006) The cultural turn in community interpreting: A brief analysis of epistemological developments in community interpreting literature in the light of paradigm changes in the humanities. Linguistica Antverpiensia5, 21–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Saldanha, G. & O’Brien, S.
    (2013) Research methodologies in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Setton, R. & Motta, M.
    (2007) Syntacrobatics: Quality and reformulation in simultaneous-with-text. Interpreting9 (2), 199–230.10.1075/intp.9.2.04set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.2.04set [Google Scholar]
  72. Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A.
    (2009) The foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Tiselius, E. & Jenset, G. B.
    (2011) Processes and products in simultaneous interpreting: What they tell us about experience and expertise. In C. Alvstad , A. Hild & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 269–301.10.1075/btl.94.20tis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.20tis [Google Scholar]
  74. Tiselius, E.
    (2011) Mixed-method design in interpreting studies: An untapped resource. www.researchgate.net/publication/265597408_Mixed_method_design_in_interpreting_research_Theory_of_Science_paper (accessed10 January 2015).
  75. Wadensjö, C.
    (1998) Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Walker, J. & Shaw, S.
    (2011) Interpreter preparedness for specialized settings. Journal of Interpretation21 (1). digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol21/iss1/8 (accessed28 March 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Wang, J.
    (2013) Bilingual working memory capacity of professional Auslan/English interpreters. Interpreting15 (2), 139–167.10.1075/intp.15.2.01wan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.01wan [Google Scholar]
  78. Wessling, D. M. & Shaw, S.
    (2014) Persistent emotional extremes and video relay service interpreters. Journal of Interpretation23 (1) digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol23/iss1/6 (accessed28 March 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Yan, J. -X. , Pan, J. , Wu, H. , & Wang, Y.
    (2013) Mapping Interpreting Studies: The state of the field based on a database of nine major Translation and Interpreting journals (2000–2010). Perspectives21 (3), 446–473.10.1080/0907676X.2012.746379
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.746379 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00008.han
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00008.han
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Interpreting Studies , mixed-methods research , multi-method , qualitative , quantitative and quasi-mixed
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error