Cover not available
Part of
Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies): A tribute to Franz Pöchhacker
Edited by Cornelia Zwischenberger, Karin Reithofer and Sylvi Rennert
[Benjamins Translation Library 160] 2023
► pp. 22–43

Exploring mixed methods in interpreting research

An example from a series of studies on court interpreting

| Heriot-Watt University , Scotland
| University of New South Wales , Australia

Much of the research into community interpreting has used different methodologies in order to test or explore the same phenomena from different perspectives (Hale and Napier 2013). This approach is typically referred to as mixed-methods or multi-method research. Pöchhacker (2011) considers that the use of mixed methods in interpreting research is appropriate in order to account for the complexity of interpreting processes and practices. This chapter presents an overview of interpreting research methodologies and explores the meaning of mixed methods. It then discusses a mixed-methods, longitudinal multi-stage project comprising a series of studies conducted by the authors that investigated the feasibility of deaf signers serving as jurors using professional sign language interpreting services. By showcasing our own studies and why these interlinked projects employed mixed methods, we highlight the benefits of exploring various approaches to interpreting research generally.

Keywords: court interpreting, deaf jurors, sign language interpreters, research methods, mixed methods
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research methods and paradigms
  • 3.Mixed methods
  • 4.Mixed-methods research in legal interpreting
    • 4.1Researching the feasibility of the inclusion of deaf jurors using a mixed-methods approach
      • 4.1.1Project 1: Quasi-experimental study
      • 4.1.2Project 2: Replication study
      • 4.1.3Project 3: Survey and interviews
      • 4.1.4Project 4: Mixed methods
        • 4.1.4.1Ethnographic observations and interviews
        • 4.1.4.2Simulation case study and interviews
        • 4.1.4.3Focus groups
      • 4.1.5The end of the research journey
  • 5.Transformative research impact and social change
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.160.02nap
References
Angelelli, Claudia V., and Brian James Baer
2015 Researching Translation and Interpreting. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barik, Henri C.
1973 “Simultaneous Interpretation: Temporal and Quantitative Data.” Language and Speech 16 (3): 237–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan
1990/2002/2017 The Bilingual Courtroom. Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blackledge, Adrian
2011 “Linguistic Ethnography.” In Bourdieu, Language and Linguistics, ed. by Michael James Grenfell, 121–146. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Brewer, John, and Albert Hunter
2006 Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles. Thousandoaks, CA.: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, John W.
2013 Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed-Methods Approaches. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
de Pedro Ricoy, Raquel, and Jemina Napier
2017 “Introduction: Innovations in Interpreting Research Methods.” International Journal of Translation & Interpreting Research 9 (1): 1–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, and Mary R. Rose
2018 “The Contemporary American Jury.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14: 239–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flick, Uwe
2007 Managing Quality in Qualitative Research. New York: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flick, Uwe, Vjenka Garms-Homolová, Wolfram J. Herrmann, Joachim Kuck, and Gundula Röhnsch
2012 “ ‘I Can’t Prescribe Something Just Because Someone Asks for It’... Using Mixed-Methods in the Framework of Triangulation.” Journal of Mixed-methods Research 6 (2): 97–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gastil, John, and Phillip J. Weiser
2006 “Jury Service as an Invitation to Citizenship: Assessing the Civic Value of Institutionalized Deliberation.” Policy Studies Journal 34 (4): 605–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerver, David
1969 “The Effects of Source Language Presentation Rate on the Performance of Simultaneous Conference Interpreters.” Proceedings of the 2nd Louisville Conference on Rate and/or Frequency Controlled Speech.Google Scholar
Greene, Jennifer C.
2007 Mixed-Methods in Social Inquiry. Vol. 9. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra
1996 “Pragmatic Considerations in Court Interpreting.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 19 (1): 61–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “The Treatment of Register in Court Interpreting.” The Translator 3 (1): 39–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 “The Interpreter’s Treatment of Discourse Markers in Courtroom Questions.” International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 6 (1): 57–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004/2010 The Discourse of Court Interpreting. Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Themes and Methodological Issues in Court Interpreting Research.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 5: 205–228.Google Scholar
2007 Community Interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, and Natalie Martschuk
2018 “Interpreter Performance in Police Interviews. Differences between Trained Professional Interpreters and Untrained Bilinguals.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “Interactional Management in a Simulated Police Interview: Interpreters’ Strategies.” In The Discourse of Police Interviews, ed. by Marianne Mason, and Frances Rock, 200–226. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, and Stephen Doherty
2021 “The Effects of Mode on Interpreting Performance in a Simulated Police Interview.” Translation and Interpreting Studies: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, and Julie Lim
2022. “Does Interpreter Location Make a Difference? A Study of Remote vs Face-to-Face Interpreting in Simulated Police Interviews.” Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24 (2): 221–253. DOI logo
Hale, Sandra, Natalie Martschuk, Uldis Ozolins, and Ludmila Stern
2017 “The Effect of Interpreting Modes on Witness Credibility Assessments.” Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 19 (1): 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra, and Jemina Napier
2013 Research Methods in Interpreting: A Practical Resource. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
2016 “ ‘We’re Just Kind Of There’: Working Conditions and Perceptions of Appreciation and Status in Court Interpreting.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 28 (3): 351–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra, Mehera San Roque, David Spencer, and Jemina Napier
2017 “Deaf Citizens as Jurors in Australian Courts: Participating via Professional Interpreters.” International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 24 (2): 151–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Chao
2018 “Mixed-Methods Research in Interpreting Studies: A Methodological Review (2004–2014).” Interpreting 20 (2): 155–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendren, Kathryn, Qian Eric Luo, and Sanjay K. Pandey
2018 “The State of Mixed-Methods Research in Public Administration and Public Policy.” Public Administration Review 78 (6): 904–916. 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
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Alan Bryman, and Tim Futing Liao
2003 The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Research Methods. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Liu, Minhua
2011 “Methodology in Interpreting Studies. A Methodological Review of Evidence-Based Research.” In Advances in Interpreting Research:Inquiry in Action, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus, and Laurie Swabey, 85–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Major, George, and Jemina Napier
2012 “Interpreting and Knowledge Mediation in the Healthcare Setting: What Do We Really Mean by ‘Accuracy’?” In Linguistica Antiverpiesa, ed. by Mark Shuttleworth, and Vincent Montalt, In New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 207–226. Antwerp: University Press Antwerp.Google Scholar
Mason, Ian
2000 “Models and Methods in Dialogue Interpreting Research.” In Intercultural Fault Lines: Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, ed. by Maeve Olohan, 215–232. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Mather, Susan, and Robert Mather
2003 “Court Interpreting for Signing Jurors: Just Transmitting or Interpreting.” In Language and the Law in Deaf Communities, ed. by Ceil Lucas, 60–81. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Meister, Lova
2018 “On Methodology: How Mixed-Methods Research Can Contribute to Translation Studies.” Translation Studies 11 (1): 66–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mertens, Donna M.
2010 “Transformative Mixed-Methods Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16 (6): 469–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Transformative Mixed-Methods: Addressing Inequities.” American Behavioral Scientist 56 (6): 802–813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Transformative Research: Personal and Societal.” International Journal for Transformative Research 4 (1): 18–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Melanie
2000 “Interactive Role-Plays as a Teaching Strategy.” In Innovative Practices for Teaching Sign Language Interpreters, ed. by C. B. Roy, 83–108. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Morse, Janice M., and Linda Niehaus
2009 Principles and Procedures of Mixed-Methods Design. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Moser-Mercer, Barbara
1997 “Process Models in Simultaneous Interpretation.” Machine Translation and Translation Theory 1 (3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munday, Jeremy
2012 Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-Making. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina
2002 Sign Language Interpreting. Linguistic Coping Strategies. Coleford: Douglas McLean.Google Scholar
2011 “ ‘It’s Not What They Say But the Way They Say It.’ A Content Analysis of Interpreter and Sonsumer Perceptions of Signed Language Interpreting in Australia.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language: Special Issue Translators and Interpreters: Geographic Displacement and Linguistic Consequences 207: 59–87Google Scholar
2013 “ ‘You Get That Vibe’: A Pragmatic Analysis of Clarification and Communicative Accommodation in Legal Video Remote Interpreting.” In Sign Language Research Uses and Practices: Crossing Views on Theoretical and Applied Sign Language Linguistics, ed. by Laurence Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Mieke Van Herreweghe, and Myriam Vermeerbergen, 85–110. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: De Gruyter Mouton and Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 Sign Language Brokering in Deaf-Hearing Families. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina, and Sandra Hale
2015 “Methodology.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 257–260. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Napier, Jemina, Katherine Lloyd, Robert Skinner, Graham H. Turner, and Mark Wheatley
2018 “Using Video Technology to Engage Deaf Sign Language Users in Survey Research: An Example from the ‘Insign’ Project.” International Journal of Translation & Interpreting Research 10 (2): 101–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina, and Alastair McEwin
2015 “Do Deaf People Have the Right to Serve as Jurors in Australia?” Alternative Law Journal 40: 23–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina, and Debra Russell
forthcoming. “An Ethnographic Sociolinguistic Case Study of Sign Language Interpreting for a Deaf Juror.”
Napier, Jemina, Debra Russell, Sandra Hale, David Spencer, and Mehera San Roque
2022 “Training Legal Interpreters to Work with Deaf Jurors.” In Legal Interpreting: Teaching, Research and Practice, ed. by Jeremy L. Brunson, 246–281. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina, Robert Skinner, and Graham H. Turner
2017 “ ‘It’s Good for Them But Not so for Me’: Inside the Sign Language Interpreting Call Centre.” International Journal of Translation & Interpreting Research 9 (2): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina, and David Spencer
2007 “A Sign of the Times: Deaf Jurors and the Potential for Pioneering Law Reform.” Reform: A Journal of National and International Law Reform 90: 35–7.Google Scholar
2008 “Guilty or Not Guilty? An Investigation of Deaf Jurors’ Access to Court Proceedings via Sign Language Interpreting.” In Interpreting in Legal Settings, ed. by Debra Russell, and Sandra Hale, 72–122. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
2017 “Jury Instructions: Comparing Hearing and Deaf Jurors’ Comprehension via Direct or Interpreter-Mediated Communication.” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 24 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina, David Spencer, and Joe Sabolcec
2007 Guilty or Not Guilty? An Investigation of Deaf Jurors’ Access to Court Proceedings via Sign Language Interpreting. Research Report No. 14. Macquarie University & NSW Law Reform Commission (Sydney).Google Scholar
2009 “A Shared Responsibility in the Administration of Justice: A Pilot Study of Sign Language Interpretation Access for Deaf Jurors.” In The Critical Link 5: Quality in Interpreting – a Shared Responsibility, ed. by Sandra Hale, Uldis Ozolins, and Ludmila Stern, 99–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, Jemina, David Spencer, Sandra Hale, Mehera San Roque, Gerry Shearim, and Debra Russell
2019 “Changing the International Justice Landscape: Perspectives on Deaf Citizenship and Jury Service.” Sign Language Studies 19 (2): 240–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niemants, Natacha
2013 “From Role-Playing to Role-Taking: Interpreter Role(s) in Healthcare.” In Interpreting in a Changing Landscape, ed. by Krzysztof Kredens, 305–319. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004 Introducing Interpreting Studies. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Researching Interpreting. Approaches to Inquiry.” In Advances in Interpreting Research. Inquiry in Action, ed. by Brenda Nicodemus, and Laurie Swabey, 5–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, Cynthia
1996 “An Interactional Sociolinguistic Analysis of Turntaking in an Interpreted Event.” Interpreting 1 (1): 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, Debra
2002 Interpreting in Legal Contexts: Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpretation. Burtonsville, MD: Sign Media.Google Scholar
Shaw, Sara, Fiona Copland, and Julia Snell
2015 “An Introduction to Linguistic Ethnography: Interdisciplinary Explorations.” In Linguistic Ethnography, ed. by Sara Shaw, Fiona Copland, and Julia Snell, 1–13. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, David, Mehera San Roque, Sandra Hale, and Jemina Napier
2017a “The High Court Considers Participation of Deaf People in Jury Duty.” Law Society Journal 33 (May): 80–81. [URL]
Spencer, David, Mehera San Roque, Jemina Napier, and Sandra Hale
2017b “Justice Is Blind As Long As It Isn’t Deaf: Excluding Deaf People from Jury Duty – an Australian Human Rights Breach.” Australian Journal of Human Rights 23 (3): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stern, Ludmila, Uldis Ozolins, and Sandra Hale
2015 “Inefficiencies of Court Administration despite Participants’ Goodwill.” Journal of Judicial Administration 25 (2): 76–95.Google Scholar
Turner, Graham H., Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Mark Wheatley
2017 “Telecommunication Relay Services as a Tool for Deaf Political Participation and Citizenship.” Information, Communication & Society 20 (10): 1521–1538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vargas-Urpi, Mireia
2017 “Combining Different Methods of Data Collection in Public Service Interpreting Doctoral Research: Examples from the Spanish Context.” International Journal of Translation & Interpreting Research 9 (1): 88–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia
1998/2014 Interpreting as Interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
2014 “Perspectives on Role Play: Analysis, Training and Assessments.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (3): 437–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar