Cover not available
Article published In:
Methodological Issues in Experimental Research in Audiovisual Translation and Media Accessibility
Edited by Gian Maria Greco, Anna Jankowska and Agnieszka Szarkowska
[Translation Spaces 11:1] 2022
► pp. 38–59

Physiological instruments meet mixed methods in Media Accessibility

ORCID logo | Autonomous University of Barcelona
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.
Keywords: Media Accessibility, experimental research, physiological instruments, methodology, mixed methods, research design
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Core mixed methods designs
  • 3.Physiological instruments in Media Accessibility: A literature review
  • 4.Mixed methods in Media Accessibility
    • 4.1Implicit mixed methods
    • 4.2Explicit mixed methods
  • 5.Adapting mixed methods designs to experimental research with physiological instruments
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 30 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.21020.her
References (67)
References
Agulló, Belén, and Anna Matamala. 2020. “Subtitles in Virtual Reality: Guidelines for the Integration of Subtitles in 360º Content.” Íkala, 25 (3): 643–661. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryman, Alan. 2006. “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How is it Done?” Qualitative Research, 6 (1): 97–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2017. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Di Giovanni, Elena. 2014. “Visual and Narrative Priorities of the Blind and Non-Blind: Eye Tracking and Audio Description.” Perspectives, 22 (1): 136–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Participatory Accessibility: Creating Audio Description with Blind and Non-Blind Children.” Journal of Audiovisual Translation, 1 (1): 155–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erzberger, Christian, and Udo Kelle. 2003. “Making Inferences in Mixed Methods: The Rules of Integration.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 457–488. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Gambier, Yves. 2012. “The Position of Audiovisual Translation Studies.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Carmen Millán and Francesca Bartrina, 45–59. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua. 2018. “Tablet Interpreting: Consecutive Interpreting 2.0.” Translation and Interpreting Studies, 13 (3): 342–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco, Gian M. 2018. “The Nature of Accessibility Studies.” Journal of Audiovisual Translation, 1 (1): 205–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. “Accessibility Studies: Abuses, Misuses and the Method of Poietic Design.” In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, edited by Constantine Stephanidis, 15–27. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hammersley, Martyn. (2008). “Troubles with Triangulation.” In Advances in Mixed Methods Research, edited by Manfred M. Bergman, 22–36. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Harrison, Robert L., and Timothy M. Reilly. 2011. “Mixed Methods Designs in Marketing Research.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 14 (1): 7–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, Ke, Sharon O’Brien, and Dorothy Kenny. 2020. “A Reception Study of Machine Translated Subtitles for MOOCs.” Perspectives, 28 (4): 521–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jankowska, Anna. 2019. “Audiovisual Media Accessibility.” In The Bloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies, edited by Erik Angelone, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, and Gary Massey, 231–260. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. Burke, and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.” Educational Researcher, 33 (7): 14–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Jan-Louis. 2012. “Making Meaning in AVT: Eye Tracking and Viewer Construction of Narrative.” Perspectives, 20 (1): 67–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Psycholinguistics and Audiovisual Translation.” Target, 28 (2): 276–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leavy, Patricia. 2017. Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts-based, and Community-based Participatory Research Approaches. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Mangiron, Carme. 2016. “Reception of Game Subtitles: An Empirical Study.” The Translator, 22 (1): 72–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Maxwell, Joseph A. 2016. “Expanding the History and Range of Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10 (1): 12–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meister, Lova. 2018. “On Methodology: How Mixed Methods Research Can Contribute to Translation Studies.” Translation Studies, 11 (1): 66–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, David L. 2019. “Commentary: After Triangulation, What Next?” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13 (1): 6–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moseholm, Ellen, and Michael D. Fetters. 2017. “Conceptual Models to Guide Integration during Analysis in Convergent Mixed Methods Studies.” Methodological Innovations, 10 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orero, Pilar, Stephen Doherty, Jan-Louis Kruger, Anna Matamala, Jan Pedersen, Elisa Perego, Pablo Romero-Fresco, et al. 2018. “Conducting Experimental Research in Audiovisual Translation (AVT): A Position Paper.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 301: 105–126.Google Scholar
Orrego-Carmona, David. 2016. “A Reception Study on Non-Professional Subtitling. Do Audiences Notice any Difference?” Across Languages and Cultures, 17 (2): 163–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perego, Elisa, Fabio Del Missier, Marco Porta, and Mauro Mosconi. 2010. “The Cognitive Effectiveness of Subtitle Processing.” Media Psychology, 131: 243–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plano Clark, Vicki L., and Nataliya V. Ivankova. 2015. Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramos, Marina. 2015. “The Emotional Experience of Films: Does Audio Description Make a Difference?” The Translator, 21 (1): 68–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Testing Audio Narration: The Emotional Impact of Language in Audio Description.” Perspectives, 24 (4): 606–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero-Fresco, Pablo. 2019. Accessible Filmmaking: Integrating Translation and Accessibility into the Filmmaking Process. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “The Dubbing Effect: An Eye-Tracking Study on How Viewers Make Dubbing Work.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 331: 17–40.Google Scholar
Shannon-Baker, Peggy. 2016. “Making Paradigms Meaningful in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10 (4): 319–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szarkowska, Agnieszka. 2011. “Text-to-Speech Audio Description: Towards Wider Availability of AD.” The Journal of Specialised Translation, 151: 142–162.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tardel, Anke. 2020. “Effort in Semi-Automatized Subtitling Processes: Speech Recognition and Experience during Transcription.” Journal of Audiovisual Translation, 3 (1): 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Peer, Willie, Frank Hakemulder, and Sonia Zyngier. 2012. Scientific Methods for the Humanities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Walczak, Agnieszka, and Louise Fryer. 2018. “Vocal Delivery of Audio Description by Genre: Measuring Users’ Presence.” Perspectives, 26 (1): 69–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehrmeyer, Jennifer. 2014. “Eye-tracking Deaf and Hearing Viewing of Sign Language Interpreted News Broadcasts.” Journal of Eye Movement Research, 7 (1): 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Brescia-Zapata, Marta, Krzysztof Krejtz, Andrew T. Duchowski, Chris J. Hughes & Pilar Orero
2023. Subtitles in VR 360° video. Results from an eye-tracking experiment. Perspectives ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.