Cover not available
Part of
Research Methods in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies
Edited by Ana María Rojo López and Ricardo Muñoz Martín
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 10] 2025
► pp. 108–132

Chapter 5
Observations and diaries

 | University of Malta
 | Aarhus University
 | University of Vienna
Observation and introspection are qualitative, cognitive ethnographic research methods. Qualitative field observation allows researchers to study translators, interpreters and other relevant actors in situ. Introspective diaries facilitate a deeper understanding of the cognitive processes of note takers. Both are rooted in ethnographic research principles, which is reflected in the data collection techniques, observational modes and ethical considerations described in this chapter. They support the understanding of activities in their social and material environments and histories. This chapter introduces these two research methods and examines ethical issues, conceptual aspects and implementations of observational and diary research. It discusses advantages and disadvantages of the two methods, considers their relevance for translation and interpreting studies research and provides practical recommendations for research projects.
Article outline
  • 1.The methods, and key concepts
    • 1.1The state of the art in observations and diaries
    • 1.2Qualitative data analysis in observations and diaries
    • 1.3Ethical issues in observations and diaries
  • 2.Conceptual aspects
  • 3.Implementation
  • 4.Closing remarks
    • 4.1Advantages and disadvantages of observations and diaries
    • 4.2Practical recommendations for observational and diary research
  • Notes
  • Further readings on observation and diaries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (68)
Further readings on observation and diaries
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
Gibbs, G. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd ed.). Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: Principles in practice (4th ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B., Saldaña, J., & Huberman, A. M. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
References
Angelone, E. (2013). The impact of process protocol self-analysis on errors in the translation product. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 8(2), 253–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angrosino, M. (2007). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J., & Jie, D. (2010). Ethnographic fieldwork: A beginner’s guide. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonz, J., Eisch-Angus, K., Hamm, M., & Sülzle, A. (Eds.). (2017). Ethnografie und Deutung. Gruppensupervision als Methode reflexiven Forschens. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borg, C. (2022). A literary translation in the making: A process-oriented perspective. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, S., Davitti, E., & Dicerto, S. (2018). Video-mediated interpreting in legal settings: Assessing the implementation. In J. Napier, R. Skinner, & S. Braun (Eds.). Here or there: Research on interpreting via video link (pp. 144–179). Gallaudet. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brewer, J. D. (2000). Ethnography. Open University Press.Google Scholar
Buzelin, H. (2006). Independent publisher in the networks of translation. TTR, 19(1), 135–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Translations “in the making”. In M. Wolf & A. Fukari (Eds.), Constructing a sociology of translation (pp. 135–169). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dam, H. V. (2004a). Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of form and language. In G. Hansen, K. Malmkjær, & D. Gile (Eds.), Claims, changes and challenges in translation studies (pp. 251–261). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004b). Interpreters’ notes: On the choice of language. Interpreting, 6(1), 3–17. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dam-Jensen, H., & Heine, C. (2009). Process research methods and their application in the didactics of text production and translation: Shedding light on the use of research methods in the university classroom. trans-kom, 2(1), 1–25. [URL]Google Scholar
Désilets, A., Brunette, L., Melançon, C., & Patenaude, G. (2008). Reliable innovation: A tecchie’s travels in the land of translators. In Proceedings of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (pp. 339–345). [URL]Google Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2014). Challenges of translation process research at the workplace. MonTI, Special Issue 1, 355–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., & Massey, G. (2013). Indicators of translation competence: Translators’ self-concepts and the translation of titles. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 103–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Socio-technical issues in professional translation practice. In H. Risku, R., Rogl, & J. Milosevic (Eds.), Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes (pp. 105–122). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. 2000. Expertise in interpreting: An expert-performance perspective. Interpreting, 5(2), 187–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1997). Cognitive and developmental factors in expert performance. In P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in context: Human and machine (pp. 3–41). The MIT Press. (Reprinted in modified form from American Psychologist, 49(8), 1994, pp. 725–747).Google Scholar
Flick, U. (2007). Editorial introduction. In M. Angrosino, Doing ethnographic and observational research (pp. vii–xi). Sage.Google Scholar
Fox, O. (2000). The use of translation diaries in a process-oriented translation teaching methodology. In C. Schäffner & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. 115–130). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Álvarez, A. M. (2007). Evaluating students’ translation process in specialised translation: Translation commentary. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 7. [URL]Google Scholar
Gibbs, G. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd ed.). Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, D. (2004). Integrated problem and decision reporting as a translator training tool. The Journal of Specialized Translation. [URL]Google Scholar
Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. Continuum.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
González Davies, M., & Scott-Tennent, C. (2005). A problem-solving and student-centred approach to the translation of cultural references. Meta, 50(1), 160–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar
Heine, C. (2019). Integrated problem decision reports in Schreibdidaktik und Beratung. JoSch — Journal der Schreibberatung, 17(1), 48–51.Google Scholar
Hokkanen, S. (2016). To serve and to experience: An autoethnographic study of simultaneous church interpreting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tampere University.Google Scholar
(2019). Experiencing the interpreter’s role: Emotions of involvement and detachment in simultaneous church interpreting. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Milosevic (Eds.), Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes (pp. 61–77). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, J. (1984). Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Hughes, S. A., & Pennington, J. L. (2017). Autoethnography: Process, product, and possibility for critical social research. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 256–270). Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinnunen, T. (2010). Agency, activity and court interpreting. In T. Kinnunen, & K. Koskinen (Eds.), Translators’ agency (pp. 126–164). Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Kolb, W. (2019). ‘It was on my mind all day’: Literary translators working from home — Some implications of workplace dynamics. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Milosevic (Eds.), Translation practice in the field (pp. 25–42). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, K. (2006). Going into the field: Ethnographic methods in translation studies. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Übersetzen — Translating — Traduire: Towards a ‘Social Turn’ (pp. 109–120). LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
(2008). Translating institutions: An ethnographic study of EU translation. St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Labov W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauffer, S. (2002). The translation process: An analysis of observational methodology. Cadernos de Tradução, 2(10), 59–74.Google Scholar
Lueger, M. (2000). Grundlagen qualitativer Feldforschung. WUV Universitätsverlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín Lacarta, M., & Vargas Urpi, M. (2019). Translators revising translators: A fruitful alliance. Perspectives, 27(3), 404–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. Retrieved on 5 November 2024 from [URL]Google Scholar
Milošević, J., & Risku, H. (2020). Situated cognition and the ethnographic study of translation processes: Translation scholars as outsiders, consultants and passionate participants. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 19, 111–131. [URL]Google Scholar
Neubert, A. (1984). Textbound translation teaching. In W. Wilss & G. Thome (Eds.), Die Theorie des Übersetzens und ihr Aufschlußwert für die Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschdidaktik (pp. 61–79). Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Pole, C., & Hillyard, S. (2016). Doing fieldwork. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H. (2004). Translationsmanagement: Interkulturelle Fachkommunikation im Informationszeitalter. Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(2014). Translation process research as interaction research: From mental to socio-cognitive processes. MonTI, Special Issue 1, 331–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H. Milošević, J., & Rogl, R. (2019a). Changes in the field of translation project management: Findings of a longitudinal ethnographic study. Retrieved on 17 March 2022 from [URL]Google Scholar
Risku, H., Rogl, R., & Milošević, J. (2019b). Introduction. In H. Risku, R. Rogl, & J. Milošević (Eds.), Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H., Hirvonen, M., Rogl, R., & Milošević, J. (2022). Ethnographic research. In F. Zanettin & C. Rundle (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and methodology (pp. 324–339). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.Google Scholar
Sannholm, R. (2021). Translation, teamwork, and technology. The use of social and material scaffolds in the translation process. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Sewell, P. M. (2002). Translation commentary: The art revisited. A study of French texts. Philomel.Google Scholar
Shei, C.-C. (2005). Translation commentary: A happy medium between translation curriculum and EAP. System, 33, 309–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shih, C. Y-y. (2018). Translation commentary re-examined in the eyes of translator educators at British universities. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 30, 291–311.Google Scholar
Tcaciuc, L. (2013). Translation practices at the European Central Bank with reference to metaphors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Aston University.Google Scholar
Tesseur, W. (2014). Transformation through translation: Translation policies at Amnesty International (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Aston University.Google Scholar
Williams, R. F. (2006). Using cognitive ethnography to study instruction. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.). Proceedings of ICLS 2006: 7th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 838–844). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar