Mixed-methods research in interpreting studies
A methodological review (2004–2014)
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
Published online: 24 September 2018
Alise, M. A. & Teddlie, C.
Chang, C. -C. & Schallert, D. L.[ p. 182 ]
Cherryholmes, C. H.
Christensen, T. P.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L.
de Wit, M. & Sluis, I.
Dean, R. K. & Pollard, R. Q.
Fabbro, F. & Gran, L.
Grbić, G.[ p. 183 ]
Grbić, N. & Pöllabauer, S.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F.[ p. 184 ]
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S.
Hale, S. & Napier, J.
Han, C. & Riazi, M.
Hashemi, M. R. & Babaii, E.
Hertog, E., Van Gucht, J. & de Bontridder, L.
Jang, E. E., Wagner, M. & Park, G.
Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. B.
Johnson, R. B. & Turner, L. S.
Korak, C. A.
Leung, E. & Gibbons, J.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A. & Guba, E. G.
Lopez-Fernandez, O. & Molina-Azorin, J.
Mark, M. M. & Shotland, R. L.
Mertens, D. M.
Mo, Y. -J. & Hale, S.
Morse, J. M.
Pan, J. & Yan, J. X.
Penn, C. & Watermeyer, J.
Pluye, P., Grad, R. M., Levine, A. & Nicolau, B.
[ p. 185 ]
Ra, S. & Napier, J.
Riazi, M. & Candlin, C. N.
Roberson, L., Russell, D. & Shaw, R.
Rovira-Esteva, S. & Orero, P.
Saldanha, G. & O’Brien, S.
Setton, R. & Motta, M.
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A.
Tiselius, E. & Jenset, G. B.
(2011) Mixed-method design in interpreting studies: An untapped resource. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265597408_Mixed_method_design_in_interpreting_research_Theory_of_Science_paper (accessed 10 January 2015).
Walker, J. & Shaw, S.
(2011) Interpreter preparedness for specialized settings. Journal of Interpretation 21 (1). http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol21/iss1/8 (accessed 28 March 2015).
Wessling, D. M. & Shaw, S.
(2014) Persistent emotional extremes and video relay service interpreters. Journal of Interpretation 23 (1) http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol23/iss1/6 (accessed 28 March 2015).
Cited by 3 other publications
Han, Chao & Qin Fan
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2021. 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.