Article published in:
Vol. 20:2 (2018) ► pp. 155187


Alise, M. A. & Teddlie, C.
(2010) A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4, 103–126.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bartłomiejczyk, M.
(2006) Strategies of simultaneous interpreting and directionality. Interpreting 8 (2), 149–174.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braun, S.
(2013) Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice. Interpreting 15 (2), 200–228.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, J. & Hunter, A.
(1989) Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bryman, A.
(2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6 (1), 97–113.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research? In M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 87–100.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, C. -C. & Schallert, D. L.
(2007) The impact of directionality on Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting 9 (2), 137–176.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 182 ]
Cherryholmes, C. H.
(1992) Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher 21 (6), 13–17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A.
(2004) Paradigm problems? In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 52–56.Google Scholar
Chmiel, A.
(2008) Boothmates forever? – On teamwork in a simultaneous interpreting booth. Across Languages and Cultures 9 (2), 261–276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T. P.
(2011) User expectations and evaluation: A case study of a court interpreting event. Perspectives 19 (1), 1–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L.
(2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
de Wit, M. & Sluis, I.
(2014) Sign language interpreter quality: The perspective of deaf sign language users in the Netherlands. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 19, 63–85.Google Scholar
Dean, R. K. & Pollard, R. Q.
(2009) Effectiveness of observation-supervision training in community mental health interpreting settings. e-Journal of Didactics in Translation and Interpreting 3, 1–17.Google Scholar
Englander, K.
(2013) Writing and publishing science research papers in English: A global perspective. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Fabbro, F. & Gran, L.
(1994) Neurological and neuropsychological aspects of polyglossia and simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 273–317.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C.
(1973) The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gile, D.
(1990) Scientific research vs. personal theories in the investigation of interpretation. In L. Gran & C. Taylor (eds.), Aspects of applied and experimental research on conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto Editore, 28–41.Google Scholar
(1994) Opening up in interpretation studies. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies ‒ an interdiscipline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 149–158.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004a) Translation research versus interpreting research: Kinship, differences and prospects for partnership. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 10–34.Google Scholar
(2004b) A response to the invited papers. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 124–127.Google Scholar
(2005) Citation patterns in the T&I didactics literature. Forum 3 (2), 85–103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Conference interpreting. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier, Vol. 3, 9–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Interpreting Studies: A critical view from within. MonTI 1, 135–155.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Preface. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, VII-X.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grbić, G.
(2007) Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? A bibliometrical analysis of writings and research on sign language interpreting. The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1 (1), 15–51.Google Scholar
[ p. 183 ]
Grbić, N. & Pöllabauer, S.
(2006) Community interpreting: Signed or spoken? Types, modes, and methods. Linguistica Antverpiensia 5, 247–261.Google Scholar
(2008) Counting what counts: Research on community interpreting in German-speaking countries – a scientometric study. Target 20 (2), 297–332.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. C.
(2007) Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F.
(1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11, 255–274.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 184 ]
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S.
(2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage, 191–215.Google Scholar
Hale, S. & Napier, J.
(2013) Research methods in interpreting: A practical resource. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hale, S.
(2006) Themes and methodological issues in court interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia 5, 205–228.Google Scholar
Han, C. & Riazi, M.
(2017) Investigating the effects of speech rate and accent on simultaneous interpretation: A mixed-methods approach. Across Languages and Cultures 18 (2), 237–259.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hashemi, M. R. & Babaii, E.
(2013) Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in Applied Linguistics. The Modern Language Journal 97 (4), 828–852.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hertog, E., Van Gucht, J. & de Bontridder, L.
(2006) Musings on methodology. Linguistica Antverpiensia 5, 121–132.Google Scholar
Hild, A.
(2015) Mixed methods research. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2014) The role of self-regulatory processes in the development of interpreting expertise. Translation & Interpreting Studies 9 (1), 128–149.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jang, E. E., Wagner, M. & Park, G.
(2014) Mixed methods research in language testing and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 34, 123–153.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. B.
(2010) Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. B. & Turner, L. S.
(2003) Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 297–319.Google Scholar
Korak, C. A.
(2012) Remote interpreting via Skype – a viable alternative to in situ interpreting? The Interpreters’ Newsletter 17, 83–102.Google Scholar
Leanza, Y.
(2005) Roles of community interpreters in pediatrics as seen by interpreters, physicians and researchers. Interpreting 7 (2), 167–192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.
(2008) Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 2 (2), 165–184.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leung, E. & Gibbons, J.
(2009) Interpreting Cantonese utterance-final particles in bilingual courtroom discourse. Interpreting 11 (2), 190–125.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A. & Guba, E. G.
(2011) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 97–128.Google Scholar
Liu, M.
(2011) Methodology in interpreting studies: A methodological review of evidence-based research. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 85–119.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Fernandez, O. & Molina-Azorin, J.
(2011) The use of mixed methods research in interdisciplinary educational journals. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 5 (2), 269–283.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mark, M. M. & Shotland, R. L.
(1987) Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 95–100.Google Scholar
McDermid, C.
(2014) Cohesion in English to ASL simultaneous interpreting. Translation & Interpreting 6 (1), 76–101.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. M.
(2010) Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M.
(1994) Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mo, Y. -J. & Hale, S.
(2014) Translation and interpreting education and training: Student voices. International Journal of Interpreter Education 6 (1), 19–34.Google Scholar
Morse, J. M.
(1991) Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research 40, 120–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moser-Mercer, B.
(1994) Paradigms gained or the art of productive disagreement. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pan, J. & Yan, J. X.
(2012) Learner variables and problems perceived by students: An investigation of a college interpreting programme in China. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 20 (2), 199–218.Google Scholar
Penn, C. & Watermeyer, J.
(2014) Features of cultural brokerage in interpreted child psychiatry interactions: A case of paradoxical practice. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (3), 354–373.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pluye, P., Grad, R. M., Levine, A. & Nicolau, B.
(2009) Understanding divergence of quantitative and qualitative data (or results) in mixed methods studies. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 3 (1), 58–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F.
(2004) I in TS: On partnership in Translation Studies. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 104–115.Google Scholar
(2006) Research and methodology in healthcare interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia 5, 135–159.Google Scholar
(2011) Researching interpreting: Approaches to inquiry. In B. Nicodemus & L. Swabey (Eds.), Advances in interpreting research: Inquiry in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 5–25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Introducing interpreting studies. (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
[ p. 185 ]
Pöllabauer, S.
(2006) “During the interview, the interpreter will provide a faithful translation.” The potentials and pitfalls of researching interpreting in immigration, asylum, and police settings: Methodology and research paradigms. Linguistica Antverpiensia 5, 229–244.Google Scholar
Ra, S. & Napier, J.
(2013) Community interpreting: Asian language interpreters’ perspectives. Translation & Interpreting 5 (2), 45–61.Google Scholar
Riazi, M. & Candlin, C. N.
(2014) Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching 47 (2), 135–173.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberson, L., Russell, D. & Shaw, R.
(2012) A case for training signed language interpreters for legal specialization. International Journal of Interpreter Education 4 (2), 52–73.Google Scholar
Rovira-Esteva, S. & Orero, P.
(2011) A contrastive analysis of the main benchmarking tools for research assessment in translation and interpreting: The Spanish approach. Perspectives 19 (3), 233–251.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rudvin, M.
(2006) The cultural turn in community interpreting: A brief analysis of epistemological developments in community interpreting literature in the light of paradigm changes in the humanities. Linguistica Antverpiensia 5, 21–41.Google Scholar
Saldanha, G. & O’Brien, S.
(2013) Research methodologies in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Setton, R. & Motta, M.
(2007) Syntacrobatics: Quality and reformulation in simultaneous-with-text. Interpreting 9 (2), 199–230.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A.
(2009) The foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Tiselius, E. & Jenset, G. B.
(2011) Processes and products in simultaneous interpreting: What they tell us about experience and expertise. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 269–301.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, E.
Wadensjö, C.
(1998) Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
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).
Wang, J.
(2013) Bilingual working memory capacity of professional Auslan/English interpreters. Interpreting 15 (2), 139–167.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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).
Yan, J. -X., Pan, J., Wu, H., & Wang, Y.
(2013) Mapping Interpreting Studies: The state of the field based on a database of nine major Translation and Interpreting journals (2000–2010). Perspectives 21 (3), 446–473.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Han, Chao
2018. Martín de León, Celia and González-Ruiz, Víctor (2016): From the Lab to the Classroom and Back Again: Perspectives on Translation and Interpreting Training. Bern: Peter Lang, 369 p. . Meta: Journal des traducteurs 63:3  pp. 832 ff. Crossref logo
Han, Chao & Qin Fan
2020. Using self-assessment as a formative assessment tool in an English-Chinese interpreting course: student views and perceptions of its utility. Perspectives 28:1  pp. 109 ff. Crossref logo
Napier, Jemina
2021.  In Sign Language Brokering in Deaf-Hearing Families,  pp. 111 ff. Crossref logo

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.