Qualitative Research Methods in Translation Theory

Dominic Glynn

doi:10.1177/21582440211040795

Abstract

This article analyses different methodological approaches adopted by theoretical articles published in translation studies journals. To account for the range of perspectives, a small corpus comprising articles from three journals listed in both the Thomson and Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) was studied. The article discusses how the methods used could gain in rigor from being formalized. It begins by defining translation theory before outlining a corpus of articles to be studied. It then moves onto describing and discussing four methodologies to provide recommendations for conducting future research in translation theory.

Highlights

How does a discipline think? When translation studies emerged as a discrete area of academic enquiry, James Holmes (1988), in a landmark paper, drew on Michael Mulkay (1969, p. 136) to argue that science moves forward by revealing “new areas of ignorance.” He went on to provide a tentative mapping of research in the nascent field, dividing it into two branches, “pure” and “applied.” For Holmes, while the former built theoretical concepts to conceptualize translation phenomena, the latter looked to improve translation practices by setting guidelines for assessing the quality of outputs
This article has provided an overview of different research methods in translation studies with a specific focus on those that engage with theory
There is an “outward” movement to export theories into other disciplines. While the former serves to enrich translation studies as an area of inquiry, the latter demonstrates that the discipline has already come of age and can speak to others, offering up developed models to apprehend practice

Summary

Introduction

How does a discipline think? When translation studies emerged as a discrete area of academic enquiry, James Holmes (1988), in a landmark paper, drew on Michael Mulkay (1969, p. 136) to argue that science moves forward by revealing “new areas of ignorance.” He went on to provide a tentative mapping of research in the nascent field, dividing it into two branches, “pure” and “applied.” For Holmes, while the former built theoretical concepts to conceptualize translation phenomena, the latter looked to improve translation practices by setting guidelines for assessing the quality of outputs. 136) to argue that science moves forward by revealing “new areas of ignorance.”. He went on to provide a tentative mapping of research in the nascent field, dividing it into two branches, “pure” and “applied.” For Holmes, while the former built theoretical concepts to conceptualize translation phenomena, the latter looked to improve translation practices by setting guidelines for assessing the quality of outputs. More recent mappings of the discipline, such as by Luc van Doorslaer (2007), divide research according to whether it is of a more practical bent, or whether it addresses conceptual problems. While there are publications that highlight major topics (Zanettin et al, 2015) and research methodologies (Saldanha & O’Brien, 2013) in translation studies, there has been little analysis of the theoretical branch of the field

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion