Addressing Methodological Challenges in Interpreting Studies Research

Using interaction as a fundamental springboard, Addressing Challenges in Interpreting Studies Research showcases the major breakthrough in interpreting studies made by investigating community interpreting and the inherent high degree of participant interaction. We here add a ‘reflexive’ twist and espouse the notion of the analyst as not separate from the context under study. After looking at dialogue interpreters, cast away from the carpeted walls of sound-proof booths and deprived of the spotlighted lectern-podium position at high level fora, it has become clear that the interpreter’s invisibility, not to mention their neutrality, is uppermost in the minds of both users and providers in terms of expectations. Among all the participants in any ‘mediated’ communicative situation, it is the interpreter who is exceedingly visible and potentially most influential in shaping and coordinating the ongoing exchanges. We propose that a similar view be applied to researchers engaged in interpreting research, especially in empirical investigations. Different forms of ‘interaction’ between researchers and the data in their studies are inevitable. This applies to every stage of their work, ranging from all the pre-analysis activities to the analysis itself, and the post analysis stage, in which results are disseminated in the research community and, possibly, the target population. This volume will stand to benefit all those who work with researching language issues, not only because of the various approaches covered in the volume, but also because of the ways in which they are being reframed as a result of shifting contextual constraints. Table of Contents Section 1: Data collection 1. Claudio Bendazzoli, University of Torino (Italy) “The ethnography of interpreter-mediated communication: Methodological challenges in fieldwork” 2. Claudia Monacelli, UNINT University (Rome, Italy) “Methods to (contextual) madness: Data collection in highly confidential settings” 3. Marta Biagini, UNINT University (Rome, Italy) “Revisiting Ethnography for dialogue interpreting research” Section 2: Data Analysis 4. Minhua Liu, Monterey Institute of International Studies “Putting the horse before the cart – righting the experimental approach in interpreting studies” 5. Tanya Voinova & Noam Ordan, Bar-Ilan University (Israel) & Saarland University (Germany) “Narratives of community interpreters: What can we learn from using corpora-based methodology?” 6. Cynthia J. Kellett Bidoli, University of Trieste “Methodological challenges in consecutive interpreting research: corpus analysis of notes”. Section 3: Beyond data analysis 7. Sara Bani, University of Catania (Italy) "Interpreting journalism" 8. Michael Boyd, Roma Tre University (Rome, Italy) “Who/Where is Joe the plumber? Interpreting conceptual metaphor and personal pronouns in the US presidential debates" 9. Anne Martin, University of Granada (Spain) “Interpreting and ideology: Research trends and methods”