Name : Dewi Puspita

Class : 4F

Nim : 1808103119

Group : 7 (Research in Translation)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES IN TRANSLATION STUDIES

Principles and Ethics in Research

The aim of this material is to highlight issues that should be of concern to all researchers
and to place these in the context of translation studies research by offering examples from that
domain. We commence with a discussion on ontology and epistemology, terminology and types
of research. This discussion is necessarily brief: our aim is to introduce the core terms and
concepts here, and we recommend that researchers turn to general works on research
methodologies for fuller discussions of the issues that arise. We then turn our attention to
research questions, hypotheses and types of data before considering different methodological
approaches (quantitative, qualitative and mixed). The last section focuses on questions pertaining
to research quality and ethics.

A. Ontology and epistemology

There are many books on research methodologies in the humanities and social sciences
which cover important philosophical questions such as How do we know what we know? or
What is the truth? Here we will summarize the main philosophical questions, present the most
important concepts and terms, and explain their importance for research in translation studies. It
is far too easy to delve into a research project without first questioning one’s own view of the
world, and, especially, of knowledge acquisition and ‘truth’. Having an appreciation for different
ways of seeing the world will not only help with the decision regarding what research approach
to take, but will also help us as researchers to question our own underlying assumptions, thereby
hopefully strengthening our research.
 One of the core terms that should be understood prior to engaging in research is ontology.
In social research, one way of defining ontology is as “the way the social world is seen to be and
what can be assumed about the nature and reality of the social phenomena that make up the
social world” (Matthews and Ross 2010:23). A key related term is epistemology, which is “the
theory of knowledge and how we know things” (ibid.). Here, we follow Matthews and Ross in
distinguishing, in very broad terms, three different ways of seeing the social world – objectivism,
constructivism and realism – and three epistemological positions linked to these ontological
categories: positivism, interpretivism and realism. These categories are somewhat convenient
simplifications; in fact, there are many more than three ontological and epistemological
positions, and there are also several versions of each of the positions we present here. However,
analyzing these three approaches should be enough to give us an idea of the range of
perspectives that can be adopted and their implications.

As mentioned above, each of the ontological positions described is linked to an

B. Types of research

There are many questions to be answered before conducting research, such as what is the
research question, which method or methods are most appropriate, what kind of data will be
collected, how will the data be analysed and so on. We have argued that it is worthwhile thinking
about one’s epistemological framework before diving into such details. Induction involves the
development of theories and hypotheses from the data collected (it moves from particular
instances to general statements), whereas deduction involves the testing of existing theories or
hypotheses through data (it moves from general statements to specific instances). A third
position, abduction, is also possible. This position was first mentioned by C.S. Pierce in 1878; it
proposes to isolate the most convincing reasons (hypotheses) from a research result and to
research these hypotheses further. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004:17) helpfully characterize
the three as discovery of patterns (induction), testing of hypotheses (deduction) and seeking
understanding by uncovering and relying on “the best of a set of explanations for understanding
one’s results”.

In addition to the question of logical positioning, there is the question of the nature of the
research. As explained, focuses on empirical research. Williams and Chesterman (2002:58)
explain that empirical research “seeks new data, new information derived from the observation
of data and from experimental work; it seeks evidence which supports or disconfirms
hypotheses, or generates new ones”. This type of research is generally seen in opposition to
conceptual research, which “aims to define and clarify concepts, to interpret or reinterpret new
ideas, to relate concepts into larger systems, to introduce new concepts or metaphors or
frameworks that allow a better understanding of the object of research” (ibid.). Empirical
researchers can engage in either basic or applied research. Although the distinction between
these two types is not clearcut either, basic research is generally understood to mean fundamental
research, the primary aim of which is to acquire new knowledge. Applied research is generally
understood to mean research on practical problems, research that has an application in life.
Research may also be characterized as experimental, in which case the researcher seeks to
establish cause and effect relations (if X happens, then what is the effect on Y?).

C. Research question and hypotesis

Williams and Chesterman (2002) have identified many research domains in translation
studies. The research question may very well ‘belong’ to one of these research domains but it
may also straddle more than one domain, or explore new domains. As translation studies expands
its horizons, we can expect research questions to touch on many more and varied topics than it
has done to date.

There are different types of research questions (Matthews and Ross 2010:57). A question
might be explorative, in which case it seeks to find out what knowledge exists about a particular
phenomenon. If we return to our previous example of translation processes and the theory of a
MiniMax strategy, an explorative research question might be What evidence is there to show that
the MiniMax strategy is employed by translators? A descriptive research question seeks to elicit
data through which a phenomenon can be described in detail, e.g. What micro-strategies do
translators employ when they apply the MiniMax macrostrategy? An explanatory research
question is a ‘why’ question. In our example, this might be formulated as Why do translators
employ the MiniMax strategy while translating? The fourth type of question is an evaluative
question which seeks to understand the value of a phenomenon, e.g. What is the impact on
translation quality when translators employ the MiniMax strategy?

According to Matthews and Ross, hypotheses are specific types of research questions that are
not phrased as questions but as statements about relationships; they define a hypothesis as “[a]
testable assertion about a relationship or relationships between two or more concepts” (2010:58,
emphasis in original). A research question, then, can sometimes be rephrased as a hypothesis. If
we take the descriptive research question mentioned above (What micro-strategies do translators
employ when they apply the MiniMax macro-strategy?), we might express the following
hypothesis in relation to this question: When translators employ the MiniMax strategy, they
make use of micro-strategies that are different from those they use when they are not employing
the MiniMax strategy (but see comments about the null hypothesis below).

D. The literature review

It was mentioned above that one way of identifying interesting research questions is by
performing a thorough literature review. The literature review gives researchers an opportunity
to explain their motivation and potential contribution. According to Fink (2005:3), the literature
review is “a systematic, explicit, and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and
synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers,
scholars, and practitioners”.

The literature review is an important vehicle through which researchers can identify and
describe the most relevant theoretical framework(s) for their own research. Tymoczko (2007)
directs attention to the interrelationship between data and theory, emphasizing that in
postpositivist approaches to research the recognition of the interdependence between data and
theory is essential. In the analysis of data, researchers have an opportunity to explore this
interrelationship and to make explicit links to the theoretical framework(s) they have identified
as being important.
 E. Data

To find answers to research questions, we need to collect appropriate data for analysis. Data
can be spoken or written, non-verbal, structured in different ways, produced by individuals or
groups, be factual or representing opinions, and it can include the researcher’s own reflections
(Matthews and Ross 2010:181).

We need to differentiate between primary and secondary data. Primary data are collected by
the researcher him or herself while the term secondary data refers to collections of data, e.g.
interview transcriptions, questionnaire responses, translations etc., that have been collected by
other researchers and made available to the research community for analysis. Corpora could be
considered in this category, so an example of secondary data for translation research would be
the Translational English Corpus, a computerised collection of contemporary translational
English text held at the Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies at the University of
Manchester.1 A researcher interested in analyzing some aspect of translated English could use
this resource as secondary data while also creating their own corpus. Primary and secondary data
might be structured in different ways. When comparing primary and secondary data, it is
important to take into account that the circumstances under which data were collected, and the
number and nature of the people who generated the data and the time of data collection or
elicitation might vary and this may affect the comparability of the two data sets.

F. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods approaches.

The approach to take to one’s research should be determined by the research question(s) and
how best it/they might be addressed. The quantitative approach is associated the positivist
epistemological position we mentioned earlier while a qualitative approach is generally
associated with the interpretivist position. According to O’Leary (2010:113), the qualitative
tradition each approach has specific methodologies associated with it. A qualitative approach in
translation research can include critical discourse analysis, interviews, focus groups,
questionnaires. while the quantitative approach might be associated with corpus analysis, eye
tracking, keystroke logging.
 It is important to point out that some methods can produce data that can be analyzed both
qualitatively and quantitatively (e.g. survey data, think-aloud protocols and corpus analysis). A
mixed-methods approach is the term used when several methods are used to collect or analyze
data. This is often understood to mean using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The
two types of data can be collected simultaneously. Alternatively, the researcher might opt for an
initial qualitative phase followed by a quantitative phase, or vice versa.

G. Research operationatization

An important question to ask about the data to be collected and analyzed pertains to the unit
of data. Data can pertain to either the macro or micro level (Matthews and Ross 2010:114).
Macro-level data are collected, for example, from organizations, countries, systems and social
entities, while micro-level data are at the level of the individual, word, or text. In the case of
translation research, macro-level data might pertain to professional translator associations,
country-specific laws regarding language and translation, to translation practices within
organizations, or to literary polysystems, to mention just a few examples. Micro-level data might
pertain to the use of specific strategies in a translated text, individual translation strategies, or the
length of time taken to translate a text.

Yet another important concept is the unit of analysis. This is not the same as the unit of data.
For example, the unit of data might be at the micro-level of ‘text’ and, while a researcher might
analyze text in general, it is quite likely that the unit of analysis (or measurement) will be further
broken down into measurable concepts such as lexical items, sentences, clauses, phrases,
collocations and so on. On the macro level, the unit of data might be ‘legislation pertaining to
language and translation in country X’, but the unit of analysis in this context might be specific
laws or legal clauses.

Operational definition will dictate the approach for gathering data and the type of analysis
that can be performed on the data. Previously, we mentioned using secondary data. There is a
possibility that the operational definition used when collecting secondary data differs from the
researcher’s own operational definition and, therefore, the implications of using secondary data
that were collated under a different operational definition should be considered. At the very least,
differences in operationalization ought to be acknowledged.
 H. Measurable variable

A variable “is simply something that varies in some way that we seek to measure”
(Langdridge and Hagger-Johnson 2009:40, original emphasis). This concept is used primarily in
quantitative approaches to research. The dependent variable is the core concept we are trying to
assess in our research question. We expect it to change when it is exposed to varying treatment.
The independent variables, on the other hand, are things that we manipulate in order to see what
the effect is on our dependent variable.

References

Saldanha, G & O’brien, S (2013). Research Methodologies in Translation Studies : published

by St Jerome Publishing.