1887
Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article presents the results of three studies on practices in and attitudes toward replication in empirical translation and interpreting studies. The first study reports on a survey in which 52 researchers in translation and interpreting with experience in empirical research answered questions about their practices in and attitudes toward replication. The survey data were complemented by a bibliometric study of publications indexed in the Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation (BITRA) (Franco Aixelá 2001–2019) that explicitly stated in the title or abstract that they were derived from a replication. In a second bibliometric study, a conceptual replication of Yeung’s (2017) study on the acceptance of replications in neuroscience journals was conducted by analyzing 131 translation and interpreting journals. The article aims to provide evidence-based arguments for initiating a debate about the need for replication in empirical translation and interpreting studies and its implications for the development of the discipline.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/target.18159.ola
2019-12-19
2020-04-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor da Silva
    2011 “Towards an Investigation of Reading Modalities in/for Translation: An Exploratory Study Using Eye-Tracking Data.” InCognitive Explorations of Translation, edited bySharon O’Brien, 175–196. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Monya, and Dan Penny
    2016 “Is There a Reproducibility Crisis?” Nature533 (7604): 452–454. 10.1038/533452a
    https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a [Google Scholar]
  3. Begley, C. Glenn
    2013 “Six Red Flags for Suspect Work.” Nature497 (7450): 433–434. 10.1038/497433a
    https://doi.org/10.1038/497433a [Google Scholar]
  4. Biblioteca d’Humanitats
    Biblioteca d’Humanitats 2013–2019 RETI: revistes dels estudis de Traducció i Interpretació: Indicadors de qualitat. AccessedNovember 14, 2018. www.bib.uab.cat/human/acreditacions/planes/publiques/revistes/eti.php?area=eti&menuidioma=eng
  5. Cesario, Joseph
    2014 “Priming, Replication, and the Hardest Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science9 (1): 40–48. 10.1177/1745691613513470
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613513470 [Google Scholar]
  6. Crandall, Christian S., and Jeffrey W. Sherman
    2016 “On the Scientific Superiority of Conceptual Replications for Scientific Progress.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology66: 93–99. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Everitt, Brian S.
    1998The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fabrigar, Leandre R., and Duane T. Wegener
    2016 “Conceptualizing and Evaluating the Replication of Research Results.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology66: 68–80. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fanelli, Daniele
    2009 “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data.” PLoS ONE4 (5): 1–11. 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 “‘Positive’ Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences.” PLoS ONE5 (4): e10068. 10.1371/journal.pone.0010068
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010068 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2018 “Opinion: Is Science Really Facing a Reproducibility Crisis, and Do We Need It To?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115 (11): 2628–2631. 10.1073/pnas.1708272114
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708272114 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferguson, Christopher J., and Moritz Heene
    2012 “A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories.” Perspectives on Psychological Science7 (6): 555–561. 10.1177/1745691612459059
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059 [Google Scholar]
  13. Feyerabend, Paul
    1978Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fiedler, Klaus, and Norbert Schwarz
    2016 “Questionable Research Practices Revisited.” Social Psychological and Personality Science7 (1): 45–52. 10.1177/1948550615612150
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150 [Google Scholar]
  15. Franco Aixelá, Javier
    2001–2019 BITRA (Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation). AccessedNovember 13, 2018. https://dti.ua.es/en/bitra/introduction.html
  16. Gile, Daniel
    1991 “Methodological Aspects of Interpretation (and Translation) Research.” Target3 (2): 153–174. 10.1075/target.3.2.03gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.3.2.03gil [Google Scholar]
  17. 2000 “The History of Research into Conference Interpreting.” Target12 (2): 297–321. 10.1075/target.12.2.07gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.12.2.07gil [Google Scholar]
  18. Graham, Loren, and Jean-Michel Kantor
    2007 ““Soft” Area Studies versus “Hard” Social Science: A False Opposition.” Slavic Review66 (1): 1–19. 10.2307/20060144
    https://doi.org/10.2307/20060144 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gupta, Brij Mohan, and S. M. Dhawan
    2019 “Machine Translation Research: A Scientometric Assessment of Global Publications Output during 2007 16.” DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology39 (1): 31–38. 10.14429/djlit.39.1.13558
    https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.1.13558 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hale, Sandra, and Jemina Napier
    2013Research Methods in Interpreting. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hedges, Larry V.
    1987 “How Hard Is Hard Science, How Soft Is Soft Science? The Empirical Cumulativeness of Research.” American Psychologist42 (5): 443–455. 10.1037/0003‑066X.42.5.443
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.5.443 [Google Scholar]
  22. Holmes, James S.
    (1972) 1988 “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” InTranslated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, edited byRaymond van den Broeck, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. House, Juliane
    2013 “Towards a New Linguistic-Cognitive Orientation in Translation Studies.” Target25 (1): 46–60. 10.1075/target.25.1.05hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.05hou [Google Scholar]
  24. Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Sarah E. Shannon
    2005 “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research15 (9): 1277–1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hüffmeier, Joachim, Jens Mazei, and Thomas Schultze
    2016 “Reconceptualizing Replication as a Sequence of Different Studies: A Replication Typology.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology66: 81–92. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hurtado Albir, Amparo, and Fabio Alves
    2009 “Translation as a Cognitive Activity.” InThe Routledge Companion to Translation Studies, edited byJeremy Munday, 54–73. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ioannidis, John P. A.
    2005 “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine2 (8): 696–701. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jussim, Lee, Jarret T. Crawford, Stephanie M. Anglin, Sean T. Stevens, and Jose L. Duarte
    2016 “Interpretations and Methods: Towards a More Effectively Self-Correcting Social Psychology.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology66: 116–133. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuhn, Thomas S.
    1962The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, Defeng
    2004 “Trustworthiness of Think-Aloud Protocols in the Study of Translation Processes.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics14 (3): 301–313. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2004.00067.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00067.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Minhua
    2011 “Methodology in Interpreting Studies: A Methodological Review of Evidence-Based Research.” InAdvances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action, edited byBrenda Nicodemus and Lauria A. Swabey, 85–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.99.08liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.08liu [Google Scholar]
  32. Makel, Matthew C., Jonathan A. Plucker, and Boyd Hegarty
    2012 “Replications in Psychology Research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science7 (6): 537–542. 10.1177/1745691612460688
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460688 [Google Scholar]
  33. Martin, G. N., and Richard M. Clarke
    2017 “Are Psychology Journals Anti-Replication? A Snapshot of Editorial Practices.” Frontiers in Psychology8: 1–6. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00523
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00523 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
    2017Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Moonesinghe, Ramal, Muin J. Khoury, and A. Cecile J. W. Janssens
    2007 “Most Published Research Findings Are False – But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way.” PLoS Medicine4 (2): 218–221. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028 [Google Scholar]
  36. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2010 “Leave No Stone Unturned: On the Development of Cognitive Translatology.” Translation and Interpreting Studies5 (2): 145–162. 10.1075/tis.5.2.01mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.5.2.01mun [Google Scholar]
  37. 2014 “A Blurred Snapshot of Advances in Translation Process Research.” MonTIspecial issue – Minding Translation1: 49–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Neunzig, Wilhelm, and Helena Tanqueiro
    2007Estudios empíricos en traducción. Enfoques y métodos. Girona: Documenta Universitaria.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. O’Brien, Sharon
    ed. 2011Cognitive Explorations of Translation. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2013 “The Borrowers: Researching the Cognitive Aspects of Translation.” Target25 (1): 5–17. 10.1075/target.25.1.02obr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.02obr [Google Scholar]
  41. Open Science Collaboration
    Open Science Collaboration 2015 “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science349 (6251): aac4716. 10.1126/science.aac4716
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 [Google Scholar]
  42. Orero, Pilar, Stephen Doherty, Jan-Louis Kruger, Anna Matamala, Jan Pedersen, Elisa Perego, Pablo Romero-Fresco, Sara Rovira-Esteva, Olga Soler-Vilageliu, and Agnieszka Szarkowska
    2018 “Conducting Experimental Research in Audiovisual Translation (AVT): A Position Paper.” Journal of Specialised Translation30: 105–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pardo, Antonio, and Ricardo San Martín
    2012Análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud II. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Pashler, Harold, and Christine R. Harris
    2012 “Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined.” Perspectives on Psychological Science7 (6): 531–536. 10.1177/1745691612463401
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463401 [Google Scholar]
  45. Polit, Denise F., and Cheryl Tatano Beck
    2010 “Generalization in Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Myths and Strategies.” International Journal of Nursing Studies47 (11): 1451–1458. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  46. Popper, Karl
    1959The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ravitch, Sharon M., and Nicole Mittenfelner Carl
    2016Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Rovira-Esteva, Sara, and Javier Franco Aixelá
    2018 “Bibliometric Tools.” InA History of Modern Translation Knowledge: Sources, Concepts, Effects, edited byLieven D’hulst and Yves Gambier, 117–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.142.15rov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.142.15rov [Google Scholar]
  49. Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien
    2014Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315760100
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760100 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schmidt, Stefan
    2009 “Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication Is Neglected in the Social Sciences.” Review of General Psychology13 (2): 90–100. 10.1037/a0015108
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015108 [Google Scholar]
  51. Simons, Daniel J.
    2014 “The Value of Direct Replication.” Perspectives on Psychological Science9 (1): 76–80. 10.1177/1745691613514755
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514755 [Google Scholar]
  52. Snell-Hornby, Mary
    2006The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints?Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.66
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.66 [Google Scholar]
  53. Tymoczko, Maria
    2002 “Connecting the Two Infinite Orders: Research Methods in Translation Studies.” InCrosscultural Transgressions: Research Models in Translation Studies II: Historical and Ideological Issues, edited byTheo Hermans, 9–25. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2005 “Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies.” Meta50 (4): 1082–1097. 10.7202/012062ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/012062ar [Google Scholar]
  55. Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Ruud Wetzels, Denny Borsboom, Han L. J. van der Maas, and Rogier A. Kievit
    2012 “An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science7 (6): 632–638. 10.1177/1745691612463078
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463078 [Google Scholar]
  56. Way, Catherine
    2014 “Structuring a Legal Translation Course: A Framework for Decision-Making in Legal Translator Training.” InThe Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation, edited byLe Cheng, King-Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner, 135–152. Aldershot: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Yeung, Andy W. K.
    2017 “Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience11: 1–6. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00468
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00468 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zanettin, Federico, Gabriela Saldanha, and Sue-Ann Harding
    2015 “Sketching Landscapes in Translation Studies: A Bibliographic Study.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology23 (2): 37–41. 10.1080/0907676X.2015.1010551
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1010551 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/target.18159.ola
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/target.18159.ola
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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