Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 21:2 (2019) ► pp.270–304
Expectations vs. experience
Attitudes towards video remote conference interpreting
Published online: 11 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00030.see
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00030.see
Abstract
The attitudes of interpreters providing video remote conference interpreting during the 2014 FIFA World Cup™ was
analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative and qualitative data pertaining to six deductive categories (general and
specific attitudes towards remote interpreting, attitudes towards the work environment and the workspace, psychological and
physiological wellbeing) were collected. Online questionnaires were completed both before and after the event and structured
interviews were conducted on site during the event. Triangulation of results corroborates the technical feasibility of video
remote interpreting, whilst highlighting aspects with a high potential to shape interpreters’ attitudes towards it. The quality of
the technical team on site along with the availability of visual input in the entire conference room (including all speakers
taking the floor) is key to offsetting the feeling of alienation or lack of immersion experienced by interpreters working with
this technical setup. Suggestions for the improvement of key parameters are provided.
Keywords: remote interpreting, attitudes, workspace, wellbeing, immersion
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 3.Research methodology
- 3.1Research questions
- 3.2Design
- 3.3Instruments and protocols
- 3.4Population and sample
- 3.5Ethical considerations
- 3.6Data analysis and reporting
- 4.Setting
- 4.1Event structure and language needs
- 4.2RI room and booth configuration
- 4.3RI technical specifications
- 5.Results
- 5.1General attitudes towards remote interpreting
- 5.2General attitudes towards travel
- 5.3Physiological wellbeing
- 5.4Psychological wellbeing
- 5.5Work environment
- 5.5.1Mobility, safety and security
- 5.5.2Amenities, work schedule and down time
- 5.6Workspace – technical aspects
- 5.6.1Expectations
- 5.6.2Actual experience, likes and dislikes
- 5.6.3Suggested improvements
- 5.7Workspace – social and psychological aspects
- 5.7.1Being there
- 5.8Attitudes towards remote interpreting at the World Cup™ in Rio
- 6.Discussion
- 6.1How interpreters generally view video remote conference interpreting
- 6.2How interpreters view remote interpreting at the 2014 FIFA World Cup™
- 6.3How interpreters experience the RI work environment
- 6.4How interpreters experience the RI workspace
- 6.5How interpreters experience their psychological and physiological wellbeing
- 7.Conclusions
- Disclosure and acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (29)
Agarwal, R. & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly 24 (4), 665–694.
AIIC (n.d.). AIIC Workload Surveys. [URL] (accessed 15 December 2016).
Azarmina, P. & Wallace, P. (2005). Remote interpretation in medical encounters: A systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 111, 140–145.
Baigorri-Jalón, J. (2014). From Paris to Nuremberg: The birth of conference interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Braun, S. (2013). Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice. Interpreting 15 (2), 200–228.
(2015). Remote interpreting. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting. New York: Routledge, 352–367.
Braun, S. & Taylor, J. (2015). Advances in videoconferencing and interpreting in legal proceedings. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Brown, J. D. (2011). Likert items and scales of measurement. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter 15 (1), 10–14.
Chou, T. J. & Ting, C. C. (2003). The role of flow experience in cyber-game addiction. Cyber Psychology and Behavior 6 (6), 663–675.
Constable, A. (forthcoming). Distance interpreting: A Nuremberg moment for our times. In H. Salaets & G. Brône (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Crano, W. D. & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology 571, 345–374.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ermi, L. & Mäyrä, F. (2005). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analyzing immersion. In S. Castell & J. Jenson (Eds.), Changing views: Worlds in play. Selected Papers of the 2005 Digital Games Research Association’s Second International Conference. Tampere: Digital Games Research Association, 15–27.
Harris, L. R. & Brown, G. T. L. (2010). Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data. Practical assessment, research and evaluation 15 (1), 1–19.
Jones, D., Gill, P., Harrison, R., Meakin, R. & Wallace, P. (2003). An exploratory study of language interpretation services provided by videoconferencing. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 91, 51–56.
Locatis, C., Williamson, D., Gould-Kabler, C., Zone-Smith, L., Detzler, I., Roberson, Maisiak R. & Ackerman, M. (2010). Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic medical interpretation. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25 (4), 345–350.
Mertens-Hoffman Management Consultants (2005). Final report on the December 2004 remote interpreting test at the European Parliament. Unpublished report.
Moser-Mercer, B. (2003). Remote interpreting: assessment of human factors and performance parameters. Communicate! Summer 2003. [URL] (accessed 15 December 2016).
(2005). Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task. Meta 50 (2), 727–738.
Mouzourakis, P. (1996). Videoconferencing: Techniques and challenges. Interpreting 1 (1), 21–38.
(2003). That feeling of being there: vision and presence in remote interpreting. Communicate! Summer 2003. [URL] (accessed 15 December 2016).
(2006). Remote interpreting: A technical perspective on recent experiments. Interpreting 8 (1), 45–66.
Price, E., Pérez-Stable, E., Nickleach, D., Lopez, M. & Karliner, L. (2012). Interpreter perspectives of in-person, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical interpretations in clinical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling 87 (2), 226–232.
Roziner, I. & Shlesinger, M. (2010). Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting. Interpreting 12 (2), 214–247.
Seeber, K. G. (2015). Simultaneous interpreting. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interpreting. Oxon/New York: Routledge, 79–95.
(2017). Multimodal processing in simultaneous interpreting. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley and Sons, 461–475.
Cited by (31)
Cited by 31 other publications
Chan, Venus
Chmiel, Agnieszka, Nicoletta Spinolo, Paweł Korpal, Christian Olalla-Soler, Paulina Rozkrut, Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny & Serena Ghiselli
2025. The impact of remote interpreting settings on interpreter experience and performance. Translation and Interpreting Studies 20:2 ► pp. 212 ff.
Zhu, Xuelian (Rachel)
Havelka, Ivana & Margherita Valacchi
Peng, Xuejiao, Xiangling Wang & Guangjiao Chen
Pöchhacker, Franz & Minhua Liu
2024. Interpreting technologized. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 26:2 ► pp. 157 ff.
Defrancq, Bart
2023. Technology in interpreter education and training. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 302 ff.
Defrancq, Bart & Gloria Corpas Pastor
2023. Introduction. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 1 ff.
Feng, Cheng, S. Zhu, Y. Chen & J. Liang
Hernández Bella, Olivia
Jayes, Thomas
2023. Conference interpreting and technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 217 ff.
Melicherčíková, Miroslava & Soňa Hodáková
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2023. Embedding, extending, and distributing interpreter cognition with
technology. In Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 37], ► pp. 195 ff.
Salaets, Heidi & Katalin Balogh
2023. Are interpreters and interpreting technology ready for the post-Covid era?. In Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies) [Benjamins Translation Library, 160], ► pp. 254 ff.
Buján, Marta & Camille Collard
Cheung, Andrew K. F.
Chmiel, Agnieszka & Nicoletta Spinolo
2022. Testing the impact of remote interpreting settings on interpreter experience and performance. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:2 ► pp. 250 ff.
Diur, Marie & Lucía Ruiz Rosendo
Giustini, Deborah
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk & Julie Lim
2022. Does interpreter location make a difference?. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:2 ► pp. 221 ff.
Pöchhacker, Franz
Pöchhacker, Franz
2023. Pioneering interpreting studies. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 25:2 ► pp. 159 ff.
Saeed, Muhammad Ahmed, Eloy Rodríguez González, Tomasz Korybski, Elena Davitti & Sabine Braun
Spinolo, Nicoletta & Ricardo Muñoz Martín
Zhu, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
Zhu, Yuben
Corpas Pastor, Gloria & Fernando Sánchez Rodas
2021.
Now what?. In Corpora in Translation and Contrastive Research in the Digital Age [Benjamins Translation Library, 158], ► pp. 23 ff.
Krasnopeyeva, E. S.
Krasnopeyeva, E. S.
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. 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.
