1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Translation Spaces
  4. Volume 11, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-3711
  • E-ISSN: 2211-372X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Mixed methods have an established trajectory in the social sciences. Audiovisual Translation and Media Accessibility (MA) Studies are also increasingly applying the “third research paradigm” (Johnson et al., 2007, 112). Yet, publications in our field often fail to discuss the mixed-method nature of the study in depth, be it because of space limitations or a lack of deliberate integration of the methods. Concurrently, MA has seen a boom in experimental research, as descriptive approaches have given way to reception and user-centred studies that engage in the cognitive processes and immersion of audiences (Orero et al. 2018). This article proposes a methodological basis for MA researchers to design studies employing physiological instruments within a mixed methods framework. The core mixed methods designs (convergent, explanatory, and exploratory) are presented, and examples of their applications to research employing physiological instruments are discussed.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ts.21020.her
2022-05-30
2023-03-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ts.21020.her
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agulló, Belén, and Anna Matamala
    2020 “Subtitles in Virtual Reality: Guidelines for the Integration of Subtitles in 360º Content.” Íkala, 25 (3): 643–661. 10.17533/udea.ikala.v25n03a03
     https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v25n03a03 [Google Scholar]
  2. Black, Sharon
    2020 “Could Integrated Subtitles Benefit Young Viewers? Children’s Reception of Standard and Integrated Subtitles: A Mixed Methods Approach Using Eye Tracking.” Perspectives: 1–17. 10.1080/0907676X.2020.1849324
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2020.1849324 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bosch-Baliarda, Marta, Olga Soler-Vilageliu, and Pilar Orero
    2020 “Sign Language Interpreting on TV: A Reception Study of Visual Screen Exploration in Deaf Signing Users.” MonTi: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, 121: 108–143. 10.6035/MonTI.2020.12.04
     https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2020.12.04 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bryman, Alan
    2006 “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How is it Done?” Qualitative Research, 6 (1): 97–113. 10.1177/1468794106058877
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cambra, Cristina, Olivier Penacchio, Núria Silvestre, and Aurora Leal
    2014 “Visual Attention to Subtitles when Viewing a Cartoon by Deaf and Hearing Children: An Eye-Tracking Pilot Study.” Perspectives, 22 (4): 607–617. 10.1080/0907676X.2014.923477
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2014.923477 [Google Scholar]
  6. Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark
    2017 Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Di Giovanni, Elena
    2014 “Visual and Narrative Priorities of the Blind and Non-Blind: Eye Tracking and Audio Description.” Perspectives, 22 (1): 136–153. 10.1080/0907676X.2013.769610
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2013.769610 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2018 “Participatory Accessibility: Creating Audio Description with Blind and Non-Blind Children.” Journal of Audiovisual Translation, 1 (1): 155–169. 10.47476/jat.v1i1.50
     https://doi.org/10.47476/jat.v1i1.50 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2019 “Reception Studies and Audiovisual Translation: Eye Tracking Research at the Service of Training in Subtitling.” Cultus, the Intercultural Journal of Mediation and Communication, 121: 174–193.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Elling, Sanne, Leo Lentz, and Menno de Jong
    2012 “Combining Concurrent Think-Aloud Protocols and Eye-Tracking Observations: An Analysis of Verbalizations and Silences.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55 (3): 206–220. 10.1109/TPC.2012.2206190
     https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2012.2206190 [Google Scholar]
  11. Erzberger, Christian, and Udo Kelle
    2003 “Making Inferences in Mixed Methods: The Rules of Integration.” InHandbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited byAbbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 457–488. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fernández-Torné, Anna, Anna Matamala, and Anna Vilaró
    2014 “The Reception of Subtitled Colloquial Language in Catalan: An Eye Tracking Exploratory Study.” Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 111: 63–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fetters, Michael D., and José F. Molina-Azorin
    2017 “The Journal of Mixed Methods Research Starts a New Decade: Principles for Bringing in the New and Divesting of the Old Language of the Field.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11 (1): 3–10. 10.1177/1558689816682092
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816682092 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fetters, Michael D., Leslie A. Curry, and John W. Creswell
    2013 “Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods Designs: Principles and Practices.” Health Services Research, 48 (6–2): 2134–2156. 10.1111/1475‑6773.12117
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117 [Google Scholar]
  15. Flis, Gabriela, Adam Sikorski, and Agnieszka Szarkowska
    2020 “Does the Dubbing Effect Apply to Voice-Over? A Conceptual Replication Study on Visual Attention and Immersion.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 33 (3): 41–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gambier, Yves
    2012 “The Position of Audiovisual Translation Studies.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, edited byCarmen Millán and Francesca Bartrina, 45–59. London: Routledge. 10.1075/hts.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.3 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gerber-Morón, Olivia, and Agnieszka Szarkowska
    2018 “Line Breaks in Subtitling: An Eye Tracking Study on Viewer Preferences.” Journal of Eye Movement Research, 11 (3): 1–22. 10.16910/jemr.11.3.2
     https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.11.3.2 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldsmith, Joshua
    2018 “Tablet Interpreting: Consecutive Interpreting 2.0.” Translation and Interpreting Studies, 13 (3): 342–365. 10.1075/tis.00020.gol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00020.gol [Google Scholar]
  19. Greco, Gian M.
    2018 “The Nature of Accessibility Studies.” Journal of Audiovisual Translation, 1 (1): 205–232. 10.47476/jat.v1i1.51
     https://doi.org/10.47476/jat.v1i1.51 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2019 “Accessibility Studies: Abuses, Misuses and the Method of Poietic Design.” InInternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, edited byConstantine Stephanidis, 15–27. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑30033‑3_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30033-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  21. Greene, Jennifer C., Valerie J. Caracelli, and Wendy F. Graham
    1989 “Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3): 255–274. 10.3102/01623737011003255
     https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hammersley, Martyn
    (2008) “Troubles with Triangulation.” InAdvances in Mixed Methods Research, edited byManfred M. Bergman, 22–36. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Harrison, Robert L., and Timothy M. Reilly
    2011 “Mixed Methods Designs in Marketing Research.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 14 (1): 7–26. 10.1108/13522751111099300
     https://doi.org/10.1108/13522751111099300 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hu, Ke, Sharon O’Brien, and Dorothy Kenny
    2020 “A Reception Study of Machine Translated Subtitles for MOOCs.” Perspectives, 28 (4): 521–538. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1595069
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1595069 [Google Scholar]
  25. Iturregui-Gallardo, Gonzalo, and Anna Matamala
    2021 “Audio Subtitling: Dubbing and Voice-Over Effects and their Impact on User Experience.” Perspectives, 29 (1): 64–83. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1702065
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1702065 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ivankova, Nataliya V., John W. Creswell, and Sheldon L. Stick
    2006 “Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice.” Field Methods, 18 (1): 3–20. 10.1177/1525822X05282260
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jankowska, Anna
    2019 “Audiovisual Media Accessibility.” InThe Bloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies, edited byErik Angelone, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, and Gary Massey, 231–260. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jensema, Carl J., Ramalinga S. Danturthi, and Robert Burch
    2000 “Time Spent Viewing Captions on Television Programs.” American Annals of the Deaf, 145 (5): 464–468. 10.1353/aad.2012.0144
     https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0144 [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, R. Burke, and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
    2004 “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.” Educational Researcher, 33 (7): 14–26. 10.3102/0013189X033007014
     https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014 [Google Scholar]
  30. Johnson, R. Burke, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Lisa A. Turner
    2007 “Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2): 112–133. 10.1177/1558689806298224
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224 [Google Scholar]
  31. Krejtz, Izabela, Agnieszka Szarkowska, and Krzysztof Krejtz
    2013 “The Effects of Shot Changes on Eye Movements in Subtitling.” Journal of Eye Movement Research, 6 (5): 1–12. 10.16910/jemr.6.5.3
     https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.6.5.3 [Google Scholar]
  32. Krejtz, Izabela, Agnieszka Szarkowska, and Maria Łogińska
    2016 “Reading Function and Content Words in Subtitled Videos.” The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21 (2): 222–232. 10.1093/deafed/env061
     https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env061 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kruger, Jan-Louis
    2012 “Making Meaning in AVT: Eye Tracking and Viewer Construction of Narrative.” Perspectives, 20 (1): 67–86. 10.1080/0907676X.2011.632688
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2011.632688 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2016 “Psycholinguistics and Audiovisual Translation.” Target, 28 (2): 276–287. 10.1075/target.28.2.08kru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/target.28.2.08kru [Google Scholar]
  35. Kruger, Jan-Louis, Stephen Doherty, and Ronny Ibrahim
    2017 “Electroencephalographic Beta Coherence as an Objective Measure of Psychological Immersion in Film.” Rivista Internazionale di Tecnica della Traduzione, 191: 99–111. 10.13137/2421‑6763/17353
     https://doi.org/10.13137/2421-6763/17353 [Google Scholar]
  36. Leavy, Patricia
    2017 Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts-based, and Community-based Participatory Research Approaches. Guilford Press: New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mangiron, Carme
    2016 “Reception of Game Subtitles: An Empirical Study.” The Translator, 22 (1): 72–93. 10.1080/13556509.2015.1110000
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2015.1110000 [Google Scholar]
  38. Matamala, Anna, Olga Soler-Vilageliu, Gonzalo Iturregui-Gallardo, Anna Jankowska, Jorge L. Méndez-Ulrich, and Anna Serrano
    2020 “Electrodermal Activity as a Measure of Emotions in Media Accessibility Research: Methodological Considerations.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 331: 129–151.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Maxwell, Joseph A.
    2016 “Expanding the History and Range of Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10 (1): 12–27. 10.1177/1558689815571132
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815571132 [Google Scholar]
  40. Meister, Lova
    2018 “On Methodology: How Mixed Methods Research Can Contribute to Translation Studies.” Translation Studies, 11 (1): 66–83. 10.1080/14781700.2017.1374206
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2017.1374206 [Google Scholar]
  41. Morgan, David L.
    2019 “Commentary: After Triangulation, What Next?” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13 (1): 6–11. 10.1177/1558689818780596
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818780596 [Google Scholar]
  42. Moseholm, Ellen, and Michael D. Fetters
    2017 “Conceptual Models to Guide Integration during Analysis in Convergent Mixed Methods Studies.” Methodological Innovations, 10 (2). 10.1177/2059799117703118
     https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799117703118 [Google Scholar]
  43. Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., and Nancy L. Leech
    2005 “On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (5): 375–387. 10.1080/13645570500402447
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447 [Google Scholar]
  44. Orero, Pilar, and Anna Vilaró
    2012 “Eye Tracking Analysis of Minor Details in Films for Audio Description.” MonTI: Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, 41: 295–319. 10.6035/MonTI.2012.4.13
     https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2012.4.13 [Google Scholar]
  45. Orero, Pilar, Stephen Doherty, Jan-Louis Kruger, Anna Matamala, Jan Pedersen, Elisa Perego, Pablo Romero-Fresco,
    2018 “Conducting Experimental Research in Audiovisual Translation (AVT): A Position Paper.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 301: 105–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Orrego-Carmona, David
    2016 “A Reception Study on Non-Professional Subtitling. Do Audiences Notice any Difference?” Across Languages and Cultures, 17 (2): 163–181. 10.1556/084.2016.17.2.2
     https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2016.17.2.2 [Google Scholar]
  47. Orrego-Carmona, David, Łukasz Dutka, and Agnieszka Szarkowska
    2018 “Using Translation Process Research to Explore the Creation of Subtitles: An Eye Tracking Study Comparing Professional and Trainee Subtitlers.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 301: 150–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Perego, Elisa, David Orrego-Carmona, and Sara Bottiroli
    2016 “An Empirical Take on the Dubbing vs. Subtitling Debate: An Eye Movement Study.” Lingue e Linguaggi, 191: 255–274. CitetononCRdoi:10.1285/i22390359v19p255
     https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.1285/i22390359v19p255 [Google Scholar]
  49. Perego, Elisa, Fabio Del Missier, Marco Porta, and Mauro Mosconi
    2010 “The Cognitive Effectiveness of Subtitle Processing.” Media Psychology, 131: 243–272. 10.1080/15213269.2010.502873
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2010.502873 [Google Scholar]
  50. Plano Clark, Vicki L., and Nataliya V. Ivankova
    2015 Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Ragni, Valentina
    2020 “More than Meets the Eye: An Eye-Tracking Study on the Effects of Translation on the Processing and Memorisation of Reversed Subtitles.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 331: 99–128.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Rajendran, Dhevi J., Andrew T. Duchowski, Pilar Orero, Juan Martínez, and Pablo Romero-Fresco
    2013 “Effects of Text Chunking on Subtitling: A Quantitative and Qualitative Examination.” Perspectives, 21 (1): 5–21. 10.1080/0907676X.2012.722651
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.722651 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ramos, Marina
    2015 “The Emotional Experience of Films: Does Audio Description Make a Difference?” The Translator, 21 (1): 68–94. 10.1080/13556509.2014.994853
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2014.994853 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2016 “Testing Audio Narration: The Emotional Impact of Language in Audio Description.” Perspectives, 24 (4): 606–634. 10.1080/0907676X.2015.1120760
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1120760 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rojo, Ana M., Marina Ramos, and Laura López
    2021 “Audio Described vs. Audiovisual Porn: Cortisol, Heart Rate and Engagement in Visually Impaired vs. Sighted Participants.” Frontiers in Psychology, 121. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661452
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661452 [Google Scholar]
  56. Romero-Fresco, Pablo
    2019 Accessible Filmmaking: Integrating Translation and Accessibility into the Filmmaking Process. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429053771
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429053771 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2020 “The Dubbing Effect: An Eye-Tracking Study on How Viewers Make Dubbing Work.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 331: 17–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Shannon-Baker, Peggy
    2016 “Making Paradigms Meaningful in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10 (4): 319–334. 10.1177/1558689815575861
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861 [Google Scholar]
  59. Szarkowska, Agnieszka
    2011 “Text-to-Speech Audio Description: Towards Wider Availability of AD.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 151: 142–162.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Szarkowska, Agnieszka, and Olivia Gerber-Morón
    2019 “Two or Three Lines: A Mixed-Methods Study on Subtitle Processing and Preferences.” Perspectives, 27 (1): 144–164. 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1520267
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1520267 [Google Scholar]
  61. Szarkowska, Agnieszka, Izabela Krejtz, Olga Pilipczuk, Łukasz Dutka, and Jan-Louis Kruger
    2016 “The Effects of Text Editing and Subtitle Presentation Rate on the Comprehension and Reading Patterns of Interlingual and Intralingual Subtitles among Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Hearing Viewers.” Across Languages and Cultures, 17 (2): 183–204. 10.1556/084.2016.17.2.3
     https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2016.17.2.3 [Google Scholar]
  62. Szarkowska, Agnieszka, Krzysztof Krejtz, Lukasz Dutka, and Olga Pilipczuk
    2016 “Cognitive Load in Intralingual and Interlingual Respeaking: A Preliminary Study.” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52 (2): 209–233. 10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0008 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tardel, Anke
    2020 “Effort in Semi-Automatized Subtitling Processes: Speech Recognition and Experience during Transcription.” Journal of Audiovisual Translation, 3 (1): 79–102. 10.47476/jat.v3i2.2020.131
     https://doi.org/10.47476/jat.v3i2.2020.131 [Google Scholar]
  64. van Peer, Willie, Frank Hakemulder, and Sonia Zyngier
    2012 Scientific Methods for the Humanities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lal.13
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.13 [Google Scholar]
  65. Vilaró, Anna, and Pilar Orero
    2013 “Leitmotif in Audio Description: Anchoring Information to Optimise Retrieval.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3 (5): 56–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Walczak, Agnieszka, and Louise Fryer
    2018 “Vocal Delivery of Audio Description by Genre: Measuring Users’ Presence.” Perspectives, 26 (1): 69–83. 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1298634
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1298634 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wehrmeyer, Jennifer
    2014 “Eye-tracking Deaf and Hearing Viewing of Sign Language Interpreted News Broadcasts.” Journal of Eye Movement Research, 7 (1): 1–16. 10.16910/jemr.7.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.7.1.3 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ts.21020.her
Loading
Physiological instruments meet mixed methods in Media Accessibility
Translation Spaces 11, 38 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.21020.her
/content/journals/10.1075/ts.21020.her
/content/journals/10.1075/ts.21020.her
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): experimental research; Media Accessibility; methodology; mixed methods; physiological instruments; research design

Most Cited

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