Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 20:2 (2018) ► pp.155–187

Mixed-methods research in interpreting studies

A methodological review (2004–2014)

| Southwest University

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 Erklärung (explanation) and Verstehen (understanding), has for some years been gaining momentum in IS (Hild 2015; Pöchhacker 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%, n = 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 Survey (Qual & Quan); (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.

Keywords: Interpreting Studies, mixed-methods research, multi-method, quasi-mixed, qualitative, quantitative
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Emergence of mixed-methods research
    • 2.2Theoretical and methodological issues in mixed-methods research
    • 2.3Mixed-methods research in Interpreting Studies
  • 3.Research questions
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1Selection of T&I journals
    • 4.2Definition of time period
    • 4.3Selection of empirical studies
    • 4.4Data analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Prevalence rates of research designs
    • 5.2Analysis of truly mixed studies
      • 5.2.1Philosophical worldview(s) and rationale(s) behind MMR
      • 5.2.2MMR designs
        • 5.2.2.1Prototype designs
          • Parallel mixed designs
          • Sequential mixed designs
          • Conversion mixed designs
        • 5.2.2.2Complex design variants
          • Quan + Qual + Qual
          • (Qual » Quan) + Qual
          • (Qual » Quan) + (Qual ↔ Quan)
          • Qual → Quan → Qual
          • Survey (Qual & Quan) → Survey (Qual & Quan)
          • [(Qual » Quan) + Qual + Qual] → Qual
      • 5.2.3Self-labeled MMR designs
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Philosophical worldview(s) and rationale(s) of MMR
    • 6.2Prevalence rates of MMR studies
    • 6.3MMR labeling and procedural notations
    • 6.4Issues in MMR designs and inference making
    • 6.5Suggestions for writing and publishing MMR studies
  • 7.Limitations and conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00008.han
References
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 Research 41, 103–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartłomiejczyk, M.
(2006) Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality. Interpreting 8 (2), 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brewer, J. & Hunter, A.
(1989) Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bryman, A.
(2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6 (1), 97–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, C. -C. & Schallert, D. L.
(2007) The impact of directionality on Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 9 (2), 137–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cherryholmes, C. H.
(1992) Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher 21 (6), 13–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A.
(2004) Paradigm problems? In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 52–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chmiel, A.
(2008) Boothmates forever? – On teamwork in a simultaneous interpreting booth. Across Languages and Cultures 9 (2), 261–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T. P.
(2011) User expectations and evaluation: A case study of a court interpreting event. Perspectives 19 (1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L.
(2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
de Wit, M. & Sluis, I.
(2014) Sign language interpreter quality: The perspective of deaf sign language users in the Netherlands. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 191, 63–85.Google Scholar
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 Interpreting 31, 1–17.Google Scholar
Englander, K.
(2013) Writing and publishing science research papers in English: A global perspective. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C.
(1973) The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
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
(1994) Opening up in interpretation studies. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies ‒ an interdiscipline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 149–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Citation patterns in the T&I didactics literature. Forum 3 (2), 85–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Conference interpreting. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier, Vol. 31, 9–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Interpreting Studies: A critical view from within. MonTI 11, 135–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Preface. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, VII-X. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Interpreter 1 (1), 15–51.Google Scholar
Grbić, N. & Pöllabauer, S.
(2006) Community interpreting: Signed or spoken? Types, modes, and methods. Linguistica Antverpiensia 51, 247–261.Google Scholar
Greene, J. C.
(2007) Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F.
(1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 111, 255–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Hale, S. & Napier, J.
(2013) Research methods in interpreting: A practical resource. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hale, S.
(2006) Themes and methodological issues in court interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia 51, 205–228.Google Scholar
Han, C. & Riazi, M.
(2017) Investigating the effects of speech rate and accent on simultaneous interpretation: A mixed-methods approach. Across Languages and Cultures 18 (2), 237–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hashemi, M. R. & Babaii, E.
(2013) Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in Applied Linguistics. The Modern Language Journal 97 (4), 828–852. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hertog, E., Van Gucht, J. & de Bontridder, L.
(2006) Musings on methodology. Linguistica Antverpiensia 51, 121–132.Google Scholar
Hild, A.
(2015) Mixed methods research. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2014) The role of self-regulatory processes in the development of interpreting expertise. Translation & Interpreting Studies 9 (1), 128–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jang, E. E., Wagner, M. & Park, G.
(2014) Mixed methods research in language testing and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 341, 123–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. B.
(2010) Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
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
Korak, C. A.
(2012) Remote interpreting via Skype – a viable alternative to in situ interpreting? The Interpreters’ Newsletter 171, 83–102.Google Scholar
Lee, J.
(2008) Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 2 (2), 165–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leung, E. & Gibbons, J.
(2009) Interpreting Cantonese utterance-final particles in bilingual courtroom discourse. Interpreting 11 (2), 190–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Fernandez, O. & Molina-Azorin, J.
(2011) The use of mixed methods research in interdisciplinary educational journals. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 5 (2), 269–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mark, M. M. & Shotland, R. L.
(1987) Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 95–100.Google Scholar
McDermid, C.
(2014) Cohesion in English to ASL simultaneous interpreting. Translation & Interpreting 6 (1), 76–101.Google Scholar
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
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M.
(1994) Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mo, Y. -J. & Hale, S.
(2014) Translation and interpreting education and training: Student voices. International Journal of Interpreter Education 6 (1), 19–34.Google Scholar
Morse, J. M.
(1991) Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research 401, 120–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Trainer 20 (2), 199–218.Google Scholar
Penn, C. & Watermeyer, J.
(2014) Features of cultural brokerage in interpreted child psychiatry interactions: A case of paradoxical practice. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (3), 354–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Approaches 3 (1), 58–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Research and methodology in healthcare interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia 51, 135–159.Google Scholar
(2011) Researching interpreting: Approaches to inquiry. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 5–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Introducing interpreting studies. (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Antverpiensia 51, 229–244.Google Scholar
Ra, S. & Napier, J.
(2013) Community interpreting: Asian language interpreters’ perspectives. Translation & Interpreting 5 (2), 45–61.Google Scholar
Riazi, M. & Candlin, C. N.
(2014) Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching 47 (2), 135–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberson, L., Russell, D. & Shaw, R.
(2012) A case for training signed language interpreters for legal specialization. International Journal of Interpreter Education 4 (2), 52–73.Google Scholar
Rovira-Esteva, S. & Orero, P.
(2011) A contrastive analysis of the main benchmarking tools for research assessment in translation and interpreting: The Spanish approach. Perspectives 19 (3), 233–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Antverpiensia 51, 21–41.Google Scholar
Saldanha, G. & O’Brien, S.
(2013) Research methodologies in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Setton, R. & Motta, M.
(2007) Syntacrobatics: Quality and reformulation in simultaneous-with-text. Interpreting 9 (2), 199–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, E.
(2011) Mixed-method design in interpreting studies: An untapped resource. [URL] (accessed 10 January 2015).
Wadensjö, C.
(1998) Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Walker, J. & Shaw, S.
(2011) Interpreter preparedness for specialized settings. Journal of Interpretation 21 (1). [URL] (accessed 28 March 2015).
Wang, J.
(2013) Bilingual working memory capacity of professional Auslan/English interpreters. Interpreting 15 (2), 139–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wessling, D. M. & Shaw, S.
(2014) Persistent emotional extremes and video relay service interpreters. Journal of Interpretation 23 (1) [URL] (accessed 28 March 2015).
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). Perspectives 21 (3), 446–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Han, Chao
2018. Martín de León, Celia and González-Ruiz, Víctor (2016): From the Lab to the Classroom and Back Again: Perspectives on Translation and Interpreting Training. Bern: Peter Lang, 369 p. . Meta: Journal des traducteurs 63:3 ► pp. 832 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao
2023. Interrogating the predictive validity of aptitude testing for interpreting: a systematic methodological review. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 17:1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao
2023. Translation and Interpreting: Mixed‐Methods Research. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao & Qin Fan
2020. Using self-assessment as a formative assessment tool in an English-Chinese interpreting course: student views and perceptions of its utility. Perspectives 28:1 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao, Xiaolei Lu & Peixin Zhang
2023. Use of statistical methods in translation and interpreting research. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 35:4 ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Hu, Ting, Xinyu Wang & Haiming Xu
2022. Eye-Tracking in Interpreting Studies: A Review of Four Decades of Empirical Studies. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Napier, Jemina
2021. Doing Research on Sign Language Brokering. In Sign Language Brokering in Deaf-Hearing Families, ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Napier, Jemina & Sandra Hale
2023. Exploring mixed methods in interpreting research. In Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies) [Benjamins Translation Library, 160], ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Ngulube, Patrick & Scholastica C Ukwoma
2022. Mixed methods research in open distance learning: a content analysis of the literature. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 may 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.