Cover not available
Part of
Research Methods in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies
Edited by Ana María Rojo López and Ricardo Muñoz Martín
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 10] 2025
► pp. 69–91

Chapter 3
Surveys and interviews

 | GESIS — Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
 | University of Wrocław
 | University of Warwick | University of the Free State
 | University of Vienna
Surveys and interviews have been used in CTIS both as standalone methods as well as in the context of mixed-, multi-methods or triangulation settings. Surveys and interviews have key similarities: both ask questions and use the responses as research data. This chapter outlines how these methods are designed and implemented in CTIS projects, covering aspects such as the instruments, modes of administration, selecting and motivating participants, as well as anonymity and confidentiality. Surveys and interviews can be administered in diverse ways, including online, face-to-face, or via telephone. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages which will be outlined in this chapter.
Article outline
  • 1.The methods, and key concepts
    • 1.1Ethical considerations for surveys and interviews
  • 2.Conceptual aspects
    • 2.1Sampling/Selecting participants
    • 2.2Motivating participants
    • 2.3Types of questionnaires for CTIS
    • 2.4Survey modes
    • 2.5Interview modes
  • 3.Implementations
    • 3.1Surveys and questionnaires
      • 3.1.1Questionnaire design
      • 3.1.2Answer scales
      • 3.1.3Pretesting
    • 3.2Interviews
      • 3.2.1Topics
      • 3.2.2Designing and conducting an interview
  • 4.Closing remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Further readings on surveys and questionnaires
  • Further readings on interviews
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (77)
Further readings on surveys and questionnaires
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr., F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Mellinger, C. D., & Hanson, T. A. (2020). Methodological considerations for survey research: Validity, reliability, and quantitative analysis. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies, 19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T., & Fu, Y.-C. (2016). The Sage handbook of survey methodology. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
GESIS Survey Guidelines. [URL]
Cross-Cultural Survey Guidelines. [URL]
Further readings on interviews
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (Eds.). (2009). Interviewing experts. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews. Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
Chan, A. L. J. (2011). Effectiveness of translator certification as a signaling device. In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Identity and status in the translational professions (pp. 31–48). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. Sage.Google Scholar
Riondel, A. (2022). Source first or target first? Insight into the order of reading in revision using in-depth interviews. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 62, 73–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
References
Abdallah, K. (2012). Translators in production networks. Reflections on agency, quality and ethics. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.Google Scholar
Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public opinion quarterly, 71(2), 287–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behr, D., Braun, M., Kaczmirek, L., & Bandilla, W. (2014). Item comparability in cross-national surveys: Results from asking probing questions in cross-national web surveys about attitudes towards civil disobedience. Quality & Quantity, 48, 127–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design — For market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2015). Challenges and opportunities in accessing discourse data in business settings: Some reflections on research experiences. Hermes–Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 54, 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., de Groot, A. M. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 324–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffelt, T. (2017). Confidentiality and anonymity of participants. Iowa State University Digital Repository. [URL]Google Scholar
Doherty, S., & Kruger, J.-L. (2018). Assessing quality in human- and machine-generated subtitles and captions. In J. Moorkens, S. Castilho, F. Gaspari, & S. Doherty (Eds.). Translation quality assessment (pp. 179–197). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dong, Y., Liu, Y., & Cai, R. (2018). How does consecutive interpreting training influence working memory: A longitudinal study of potential links between the two. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 875. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dorer, B. (2020). Advance translation as a means of improving source questionnaire translatability? Findings from a think-aloud study for French and German. Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2014). Challenges of translation process research at the workplace. MonTI, Special Issue 1, 355–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., & Massey, G. (2019). Socio-technical issues in professional translation practice. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Milošević (Eds.), Translation practice in the field. Current research on socio-cognitive processes (pp. 105–122). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Heeb, A. H., Massey, G., Meidert, U., Neumann, S., & Becker, H. (2016). An international survey of the ergonomics of professional translation. ILCEA, 27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler Jr., F. J., & Fowler, F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Sage.Google Scholar
GESIS Survey Guidelines (s.d.). Home–survey guidelines. Retrieved on 4 November 2024 from [URL]
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967/1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Griebel, C. (2013). Rechtsübersetzung und Rechtswissen: kognitionstranslatologische Überlegungen und empirische Untersuchung des Übersetzungsprozesses. Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Harkness, J. A., Edwards, B., Hansen, S. E., Miller, D. R., & Villar, A. (2010). Designing questionnaires for multipopulation research. In J. A. Harkness, M. Braun, B. Edwards, T. P. Johnson, L. Lyberg, P. P. Mohler, B.-E. Pennell, & T. Smith (Eds.). Survey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts (pp. 31–57). Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhne, J. K., Revilla, M., & Lenzner, T. (2018). Comparing the performance of agree/disagree and item-specific questions across PCs and smartphones. Methodology, 14(3), 109–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katan, D. (2011). Occupation or profession. A survey of the translators’ world. In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Identity and status in the translational professions (pp. 65–87). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolb, W. (2019). ‘It was on my mind all day’: Literary translators working from home–some implications of workplace dynamic. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Milošević (Eds.), Translation practice in the field. Current research on socio-cognitive processes (pp. 25–42). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, I., Alasuutari, P., & Peltonen, T. (2005). Laadulliset menetelmät kauppatieteissä [Qualitative methods in the science of commerce]. Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Kuznik, A. (2012). El contenido de los puestos de trabajo de los traductores. El caso de los traductores internos en las empresas de traducción de Barcelona. AV Akademikerverlag/ Editorial Académica Española.Google Scholar
(2016). La traduction comme travail: Perspectives croisées en ergonomie, sociologie et traductologie. ILCEA, 27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019a). Les conceptualisations contemporaines de l’activité de traduction élaborées par les responsables d’entreprises de traduction françaises. Między Oryginałem a Przekładem, 25(4), 25–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). L’organisation des services dans les PME de traduction françaises. Des Mots aux Actes, 8, 289–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019c). Entre la traduction intralinguale et intersémiotique. L’innovation dans les services de traduction vue par les responsables des entreprises de traduction françaises. Meta, 64(1), 194–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Comment les responsables de PME de traduction françaises parlent-elles de leurs services de traduction? La traduction intralinguale, interlinguale et intersémiotique analysées à travers le lexique utilisé dans des entretiens exploratoires. Orbis Linguarum, 56, 493–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznik, A., Hurtado Albir, A., & Espinal Berenger, A. (2010). The use of social surveys in translation studies. Methodological characteristics. MonTI, 2, 315–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznik, A., Verd, J. M., & Olalla Soler, C., (2016). Mixed methods, mixed tools. The use of computer software for integrated qualitative and quantitative analysis. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science [JRDS], 3(1), 76–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenzner, T., & Menold, N. (2016). Question wording. In GESIS (Ed.), GESIS Survey Guidelines. GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenzner, T., Neuert, C., & Otto, W. (2016). Cognitive pretesting. In GESIS (Ed.), GESIS Survey Guidelines. GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, M., Kurz, I., Moser-Mercer, B., & Shlesinger, M. (2020). The interpreter’s aging: A unique story of multilingual cognitive decline? Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 3(2), 287–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menold, N., & Bogner, K. (2016). Design of rating scales in questionnaires. In GESIS (Ed.), GESIS Survey Guidelines. GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milošević, J., & Risku, H. (2020). Situated cognition and the ethnographic study of translation processes: Translation scholars as outsiders, consultants and passionate participants. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies, 19, 111–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neuert, C., Meitinger, K., Behr, D., & Schonlau, M. (2021). The use of open-ended questions in surveys. Methods, Data, Analyses. A Journal for Quantitative Methods and Survey Methodology (MDA), 15(1), 3–6.Google Scholar
Neunzig, W. (2017). Methodological background. In A. Hurtado Albir (Ed.), Researching translation competence by PACTE group (pp. 43–59). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, M. (2019). Knowing in translation practice: A practice-theoretical perspective. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Milošević (Eds.), Translation practice in the field. Current research on socio-cognitive processes (pp. 161–182). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orrego-Carmona, D. (2014). Subtitling, video consumption and viewers: The impact of the young audience. Translation Spaces, 3(1), 51–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). A reception study on non-professional subtitling: Do audiences notice any difference? Across Languages and Cultures, 17(2), 163–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, D. (2019). Managing transcreation projects: An ethnographic study. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Milošević (Eds.), Translation practice in the field. Current research on socio-cognitive processes (pp. 43–59). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2011). Conference interpreting. Surveying the profession. In R. Sela-Sheffy & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Identity and status in the translational professions (pp. 49–63). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Revilla, M., & Höhne, J. K. (2020). How long do respondents think online surveys should be? New evidence from two online panels in Germany. International Journal of Market Research, 62(5), 538–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H. (2014). Translation process research as interaction research: From mental to socio-cognitive processes. MonTI, Special Issue 1, 331–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H., Rogl, R., & Milošević, J. (2019). Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Milošević (Eds.). Translation practice in the field. Current research on socio-cognitive processes (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H., & Schlager, D. (2021). Epistemologies of translation expertise: Notions in research and praxis. In Á. Marín García & S. Halverson (Eds.), Contesting epistemologies in cognitive translation and interpreting studies (pp. 11–31). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H., Milošević, J., & Rogl, R. (2021). Responsibility, powerlessness and conflict: An ethnographic case study of boundary management in translation. In O. Carbonell i Cortés & E. Monzó-Nebot (Eds.), Translating asymmetry–Rewriting power (pp. 145–169). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H., & Rogl, R. (2022). Praxis and process meet halfway: The convergence of sociological and cognitive approaches in translation studies. Translation & Interpreting, 14(2), 32–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojo López, A. M. (2013). Diseños y métodos de investigación en traducción. Síntesis.Google Scholar
Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S. (2013). Research methodologies in translation studies. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. N. (2014). Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saris, W. E., Revilla, M., Krosnick, J. A., & Shaeffer, E. M. (2010). Comparing questions with agree/disagree response options to questions with construct-specific response options. Survey Research Methods, 4(1), 61–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, L., Kunz, T. & Naumann, E. (2023). Questionnaire design in the FReDA panel recruitment: Challenges in transitioning from a face-to-face to a self-administered mixed-mode design. Survey methods: Insights from the field. Retrieved on 4 November 2024 from [URL]Google Scholar
Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1996). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Sage.Google Scholar
Teixeira, C. S. C., & O’Brien, S. (2019). Investigating the cognitive ergonomic aspects of translation tools in a workplace setting. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Milošević (Eds.), Translation practice in the field. Current research on socio-cognitive processes (pp. 79–103). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verd Pericàs, J. M., & López Roldán, P. (2008). La eficiencia teórica y metodológica de los diseños multimétodo. EMPIRIA. Revista de Metodología de Ciencias Sociales, 16, 13–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verd Pericàs, J. M., & Lozares Colina, C. (2016). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Fases, métodos y técnicas. Síntesis.Google Scholar
Vieira, L. N. (2016). How do measures of cognitive effort relate to each other? A multivariate analysis of post-editing process data. Machine Translation, 30(1), 41–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T. E., Smith, T. W., & Fu, Y.-c. (2016). The Sage handbook of survey methodology. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Züll, C. (2016). Open-ended questions. In GESIS (Ed.). GESIS Survey Guidelines. GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. Retrieved on 4 November 2024 from DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwischenberger, C. (2009). Conference interpreters and their self-representation: A worldwide web-based survey. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 4(2), 239–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen Konferenzdolmetschen. Frank & Timme.Google Scholar