Cover not available
Part of
Field Research on Translation and Interpreting
Edited by Regina Rogl, Daniela Schlager and Hanna Risku
[Benjamins Translation Library 165] 2025
► pp. 1–33

Introduction

Searching and researching the field of translation and interpreting

ORCID logo | University of Vienna
ORCID logo | University of Vienna
ORCID logo | University of Vienna
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Of field research and fieldwork
  • 3.In search of ‘the field’
  • 4.Current methodological and conceptual issues
  • 5.Tapping the potentials of field research
    • Contextualisation
    • Authenticity
    • Developmental perspective
    • Innovation
    • Explanation
    • Participant perspective
    • Transformational power
    • Didactic relevance
    • Research-practice cooperation
  • 6.The contributions in this volume
  • Part I.Delving into specific ethnographic approaches
  • Part II.Centring on positionality, reflexivity and ethics
  • Part III.Zooming in on processes and materiality
  • Part IV.Integrating marginalised groups and phenomena
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (83)
References
Amit, Vered. 2000. “Constructing the Field.” In Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World, ed. by Vered Amit, 1–18. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Angelelli, Claudia V. 2015. “Ethnographic Methods.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker, 148–150. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Asare, Edmund. 2016. “Ethnography of Communication.” In Researching Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Claudia V. Angelelli, and Brian J. Baer, 212–219. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bailey, Carol A. 2018. A Guide to Qualitative Field Research. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baraldi, Claudio, and Laura Gavioli. 2007. “Dialogue Interpreting as Intercultural Mediation: An Analysis in Healthcare Multicultural Settings.” In Dialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein, and Edda Weigand, 155–175. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Billo, Emily, and Nancy Hiemstra. 2013. “Mediating Messiness: Expanding Ideas of Flexibility, Reflexivity, and Embodiment in Fieldwork.” Gender, Place & Culture 20 (3): 313–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Edited and introduced by Randal Johnson. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Buzelin, Hélène. 2015. “Traduire pour le Centre national du livre.” Contextes: Revue de sociologie de la littérature. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. “Ethnography in Translation Studies: An Object and a Research Methodology.” Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 13 (1): 32–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caputo, Virginia. 2000. “At ‘Home’ and ‘Away’: Reconfiguring the Field for Late Twentieth-Century Anthropology.” In Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World, ed. by Vered Amit, 19–31. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carey, Martha A., and Janice Swanson. 2003. “Funding for Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Health Research 13 (6): 852–856. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheek, Julianne. 2018. “The Marketization of Research: Implications for Qualitative Inquiry.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. by Norman K. Denzin, and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 569–599. Los Angeles, London & New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Cheung, Andrew K. F. (ed). 2022. “Teaching and Practice of Distant Interpreting in the Pandemic Era.” Special issue, INContext 2(2). [URL]
Clift, Bryan C., Julie Gore, Sheree Bekker, Ioannis Costas Batlle, Katharina Chudzikowski, and Jenny Hatchard (eds). 2019. Myths, Methods, and Messiness: Insights for Qualitative Research Analysis. Bath: University of Bath.Google Scholar
Coleman, Simon, and Pauline von Hellerman. 2011. “Introduction: Queries, Collaborations, Calibrations.” In Multi-Sited Ethnography: Problems and Possibilities in the Translocation of Research Methods, ed. by Simon Coleman, and Pauline von Hellerman, 1–15. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael, and Sherry Simon. 2014. “Introduction: The City as Translation Zone.” Translation Studies 7 (2): 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duflou, Veerle. 2016. Be(com)ing a Conference Interpreter: An Ethnography of EU Interpreters as a Professional Community. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Carolyn. 2007. “Telling Secrets, Revealing Lives: Relational Ethics in Research with Intimate Others.” Qualitative Inquiry 13 (1): 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, James. 2011. “Novelty and Method: Reflections on Global Fieldwork.” In Multi-Sited Ethnography: Problems and Possibilities in the Translocation of Research Methods, ed. by Simon Coleman, and Pauline von Hellerman, 194–207. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fheodoroff, Marlene. 2022. “The Agent-Centred Translation Zone: Researching the People Within Translational Spaces.” Translation in Society 1 (2): 177–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel. 1994. “Opening Up in Interpretation Studies.” In Translation Studies as an Interdiscipline: Selected Papers from the Translation Studies Congress, Vienna, 9–12 September 1992, ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 149–158. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodnough, Karen. 2008. “Dealing with Messiness and Uncertainty in Practitioner Research: The Nature of Participatory Action Research.” Canadian Journal of Education 31 (2): 431–458.Google Scholar
Grbić, Nadja, and Pekka Kujamäki. 2019. “Professional vs Non-Professional? How Boundary Work Shapes Research Agendas in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” In Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, ed. by Helle V. Dam, Matilde N. Brøgger, and Karen K. Zethsen, 113–131. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Günel, Gökçe, and Chika Watanabe. 2024. “Patchwork ethnography.” American Ethnologist 51 (1): 131–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson. 1997. “Discipline and Practice: ‘The Field’ as Site, Method, and Location in Anthropology.” In Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science, ed. by Akhil Gupta, and James Ferguson, 1–46. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hine, Christine. 2016. “Ethnographies of Online Communities and Social Media: Modes, Varieties, Affordances.” In The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods, ed. by Nigel Fielding, Raymond M. Lee, and Grant Blank, 556–576. Los Angeles & London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hokkanen, Sari, and Kaisa Koskinen. 2016. “Affect as a Hinge: The Translator’s Experiencing Self as a Sociocognitive Interface.” In Cognitive Space: Exploring the Situational Interface, ed. by Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, and Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, 78–96. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, Chi-hua. 2014. “The Cultural Translation of U.S. Television Programs and Movies: Subtitle Groups as Cultural Brokers in China.” Dissertation, University of California.
Huang, Boyi, Patrick Cadwell, and Ryoko Sasamoto. 2023. “Challenging Ethical Issues of Online Ethnography: Reflections from Researching in an Online Translator Community.” The Translator 29 (2): 157–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubscher-Davidson, Severine. 2011. “A Discussion of Ethnographic Research Methods and Their Relevance for Translation Process Research.” Across Languages and Cultures 12 (1): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapiszewski, Diana, Lauren M. MacLean, and Benjamin Lelan Read. 2015. Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1995. “Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, 140–166. Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2008. An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Krane, Vikki. 2016. “Embracing the Messiness of Qualitative Research: Challenges and Opportunities for Qualitative Researchers in Sport and Exercise.” In Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, ed. by Brett Smith, and Andrew C. Sparkes, 472–475. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krause, Peter, Ora Szekely, Mia Bloom, Fotini Christia, Sarah Zukerman Daly, Chappell Lawson, Zoe Marks, Aidan Milliff, Kacie Miura, Richard Nielsen, William Reno, Emil Aslan Souleimanov, and Aliyu Zakayo. 2021. “COVID-19 and Fieldwork: Challenges and Solutions.” PS: Political Science & Politics 54 (2): 264–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lather, Patti. 2007. “Postmodernism, Post-Structuralism and Post(Critical) Ethnography: Of Ruins, Aporias and Angels.” In Handbook of Ethnography, 2nd edition, ed. by Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, and Lyn Lofland, 477–492. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LeBlanc, Matthieu. 2013. “Translators on Translation Memory (TM). Results of an Ethnographic Study in Three Translation Services and Agencies.” The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research 5 (2): 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Traduction, bilinguisme et langue de travail: une étude de cas au sein de la fonction publique fédérale canadienne.” Meta 59 (3): 537–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LeCompte, Margaret. D. 2002. “The Transformation of Ethnographic Practices: Past and Current Challenges.” Qualitative Research 2 (3): 283–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Dang. 2015. “Amateur Translation and the Development of a Participatory Culture in China: A Netnographic Study of the Last Fantasy Fansubbing Group.” Dissertation, School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, University of Manchester.
Liu, Kanglong, and Andrew K. F. Cheung. (eds). 2022. Translation and Interpreting in the Age of COVID-19. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, Sijing, and Siwen Lu. 2022. “Methodological Concerns in Online Translation Community Research: A Reflexive Netnography on Translator’s Communal Habitus.” Perspectives 30 (4): 695–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacLean, Lauren M., Nabila Rahman, Robin L. Turner, and Jack Corbett. 2020. “Disrupted Fieldwork: Navigating Innovation, Redesign, and Ethics during an Ongoing Pandemic.” Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 18 (2): 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, George E. 1995. “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography.” Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. “Multi-Sited Ethnography: Five or Six Things I Know About It Now.” In Multi-Sited Ethnography: Problems and Possibilities in the Translocation of Research Methods, ed. by Simon Coleman, and Pauline von Hellerman, 16–32. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marin-Lacarta, Maialen. 2019. “Characteristics of a Digital Literary Translation Publisher: Revisiting Bourdieu’s Mapping of the Publishing Field.” The Translator 25 (1): 27–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marin-Lacarta, Maialen, and Mireia Vargas-Urpi. 2018. “When the Translator Does More Than Translate: A Case Study of Translator Roles in a Digital Publishing Initiative.” Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication Studies 58: 117–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Translators Revising Translators: A Fruitful Alliance.” Perspectives 27 (3): 404–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marin-Lacarta, Maialen, and Chuan Yu. (eds). 2023a. “Ethnographic Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” Special issue, The Translator 29 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023b. “Ethnographic Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” The Translator 29 (2): 147–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marzano, Marco. 2012. “Informed Consent.” In The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft, 2nd edition, ed. by Jaber F. Gubrium, James A. Holstein, Amir B. Marvasti, and Karyn D. McKinney, 443–456. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milošević, Jelena, and Hanna Risku. 2020. “Situated Cognition and the Ethnographic Study of Translation Processes: Translation Scholars as Outsiders, Consultants and Passionate Participants.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 19: 111–131.Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 2007. “Empirical Studies of Revision: What We Know and Need to Know.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 8: 5–20.Google Scholar
Noddings, Nel. 2003. Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics & Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nowotny, Helga, and Karin D. Knorr. (1975) 2015. “Die Feldforschung.” In Techniken der empirischen Sozialforschung: Band 2: Untersuchungsformen, ed. by Jürgen van Koolwijk, and Maria Wieken-Mayser, 82–112. München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Nyoni, Phefumula, and Olaide Agbaje. 2022. “Fieldwork Dynamics in a Higher Education Setting amid the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning 10 (1): 63–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve. 2021. Translation and Practice Theory. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Olohan, Maeve, and Elena Davitti. 2017. “Dynamics of Trusting in Translation Project Management: Leaps of Faith and Balancing Acts.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 46 (4): 391–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Structure of Human Behavior. 2nd rev. edition. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Punch, Samantha. 2012. “Hidden Struggles of Fieldwork: Exploring the Role and Use of Field Diaries.” Emotion, Space and Society 5 (2): 86–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna. 2000. “Situated Translation und Situated Cognition: ungleiche Schwestern.” In Translationswissenschaft. Festschrift für Mary Snell-Hornby zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Mira Kadrić, Klaus Kaindl, and Franz Pöchhacker, 81–91. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Situatedness in Translation Studies.” Cognitive Systems Research 3 (3): 523–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Translationsmanagement. Interkulturelle Fachkommunikation im Informationszeitalter. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Ethnographies of Translation and Situated Cognition.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by John W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 290–310. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2024. “Reflections on Individualized and Extended Translator Studies.” In Translation als Gestaltung: Beiträge für Klaus Kaindl zur translatorischen Theorie und Praxis, ed. by Mira Kadrić, Waltraud Kolb, and Sonja Pöllabauer, 65–74. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna, Maija Hirvonen, Regina Rogl, and Jelena Milošević. 2022. Ethnographic Research. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Methodology, ed. by Federico Zanettin, and Christopher Rundle, 324–339. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Richard Pircher. 2006. “Translatory Cooperation: Roles, Skills and Coordination in Intercultural Text Design.” In Übersetzen –Translating — Traduire: Towards a “Social Turn”?, ed. by Michaela Wolf, 253–264. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna, and Regina Rogl. 2021. “Translation and Situated, Embodied, Distributed, Embedded and Extended Cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by Fábio Alves, and Arnt L. Jakobsen, 478–499. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2022. “Praxis and Process Meet Halfway: The Convergence of Sociological and Cognitive Approaches in Translation Studies.” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 14 (2): 32–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl, and Jelena Milošević. 2017. “Introduction. Translation Practice in the Field: Current Research on Socio-Cognitive Processes.” Translation Spaces 6 (1): 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogl, Regina. 2022. “Die Verwobenheit von technischen Strukturen und sozialen Praxen im Kontext gemeinschaftsbasierter Übersetzung im Web 2.0.” Dissertation, University of Vienna.
Salovaara, Perttu. 2018. “Accounting for the Messiness of the Research Process: The Fieldpath Approach.” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management 13 (4): 315–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Jonathan. 2007. “Ethnography After Postmodernism.” In Handbook of Ethnography, 2nd edition, ed. by Paul Atkinson, Amanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland, and Lyn Lofland, 443–452. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Suchman, Lucy. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tesseur, Wine. 2022. Translation as Social Justice: Translation Policies and Practices in Non-Governmental Organisations. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warf, Barney, and Santa Arias. 2009. “Introduction: The Reinsertion of Space in the Humanities and Social Sciences.” In The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Barney Warf, and Santa Arias, 1–10. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Watson, Ash, and Deborah Lupton. 2022. “Remote Fieldwork in Homes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Video-Call Ethnography and Map Drawing Methods.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 21: 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Michaela. 2002. “Culture as Translation: Ethnographic Models of Representation in Translation Studies.” In Crosscultural Transgressions: Research Models in Translation Studies II. Historical and Ideological Issues, ed. by Theo Hermans, 180–192. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Wongseree, Thandao. 2017. “Understanding Thai Fansubbing: Collaboration in Fan Communities Translating a Korean TV Show.” Dissertation, School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies, Dublin City University.
Yu, Chuan. 2019. “Negotiating Identity Roles During the Process of Online Collaborative Translation: An Ethnographic Approach.” Translation Studies 12 (2): 231–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Online Collaborative Translation in China and Beyond: Community, Practice, and Identity. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar