Cover not available

Article published In: Target
Vol. 32:1 (2020) ► pp.3–36

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Practices and attitudes toward replication in empirical translation and interpreting studies

ORCiD logo with link | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Published online: 19 December 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.18159.ola
Abstract
This article presents the results of three studies on practices in and attitudes toward replication in empirical translation and interpreting studies. The first study reports on a survey in which 52 researchers in translation and interpreting with experience in empirical research answered questions about their practices in and attitudes toward replication. The survey data were complemented by a bibliometric study of publications indexed in the Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation (BITRA) (Franco Aixelá, Javier. 2001–2019. BITRA (Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation). Accessed November 13, 2018. [URL]) that explicitly stated in the title or abstract that they were derived from a replication. In a second bibliometric study, a conceptual replication of Yeung, Andy W. K. 2017. “Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 111: 1–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar study on the acceptance of replications in neuroscience journals was conducted by analyzing 131 translation and interpreting journals. The article aims to provide evidence-based arguments for initiating a debate about the need for replication in empirical translation and interpreting studies and its implications for the development of the discipline.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Replication in soft-science disciplines
    • 2.1Replicability in soft-science disciplines
    • 2.2Replication in translation and interpreting studies
  • 3.Materials and methods
    • 3.1Study 1: Practices in and attitudes toward replication in empirical research on translation and interpreting
      • 3.1.1Survey characteristics and design
      • 3.1.2Participants
      • 3.1.3Limitations
      • 3.1.4Analysis
    • 3.2Study 2: Bibliometric analysis of replications in BITRA
    • 3.3Study 3: Analysis of the acceptance of replications in academic journals devoted to TIS
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Study 1: Practices and attitudes toward replication in empirical research on translation and interpreting
      • 4.1.1Replication practices in empirical research in translation and interpreting
      • 4.1.2Reasons not to replicate empirical research in translation and interpreting
      • 4.1.3Attitudes toward replication
      • 4.1.4Questionable research practices that hinder replication
      • 4.1.5Enhancing replicability in translation and interpreting research
    • 4.2Study 2: Bibliometric analysis of replications in BITRA
    • 4.3Study 3: Analysis of the acceptance of replications in academic journals devoted to TIS
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The need for replication in empirical TIS
    • 5.2Characteristics of the existing replications in translation and interpreting studies
    • 5.3Problems encountered when replicating empirical studies in translation and interpreting
    • 5.4Enhancing replicability in translation and interpreting studies
    • 5.5Publication bias against replications in translation and interpreting journals
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (58)
References
Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor da Silva. 2011. “Towards an Investigation of Reading Modalities in/for Translation: An Exploratory Study Using Eye-Tracking Data.” In Cognitive Explorations of Translation, edited by Sharon O’Brien, 175–196. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Monya, and Dan Penny. 2016. “Is There a Reproducibility Crisis?” Nature 533 (7604): 452–454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Begley, C. Glenn. 2013. “Six Red Flags for Suspect Work.” Nature 497 (7450): 433–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biblioteca d’Humanitats. 2013–2019. RETI: revistes dels estudis de Traducció i Interpretació: Indicadors de qualitat. Accessed November 14, 2018. [URL]
Cesario, Joseph. 2014. “Priming, Replication, and the Hardest Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (1): 40–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crandall, Christian S., and Jeffrey W. Sherman. 2016. “On the Scientific Superiority of Conceptual Replications for Scientific Progress.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 661: 93–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Everitt, Brian S. 1998. The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabrigar, Leandre R., and Duane T. Wegener. 2016. “Conceptualizing and Evaluating the Replication of Research Results.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 661: 68–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fanelli, Daniele. 2009. “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data.” PLoS ONE 4 (5): 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “‘Positive’ Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences.” PLoS ONE 5 (4): e10068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Opinion: Is Science Really Facing a Reproducibility Crisis, and Do We Need It To?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (11): 2628–2631. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferguson, Christopher J., and Moritz Heene. 2012. “A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 555–561. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. 1978. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Verso.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiedler, Klaus, and Norbert Schwarz. 2016. “Questionable Research Practices Revisited.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 7 (1): 45–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franco Aixelá, Javier. 2001–2019. BITRA (Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation). Accessed November 13, 2018. [URL]
Graham, Loren, and Jean-Michel Kantor. 2007. ““Soft” Area Studies versus “Hard” Social Science: A False Opposition.” Slavic Review 66 (1): 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gupta, Brij Mohan, and S. M. Dhawan. 2019. “Machine Translation Research: A Scientometric Assessment of Global Publications Output during 2007 16.” DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 39 (1): 31–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra, and Jemina Napier. 2013. Research Methods in Interpreting. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedges, Larry V. 1987. “How Hard Is Hard Science, How Soft Is Soft Science? The Empirical Cumulativeness of Research.” American Psychologist 42 (5): 443–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, James S. (1972) 1988. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” In Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, edited by Raymond van den Broeck, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hüffmeier, Joachim, Jens Mazei, and Thomas Schultze. 2016. “Reconceptualizing Replication as a Sequence of Different Studies: A Replication Typology.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 661: 81–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hurtado Albir, Amparo, and Fabio Alves. 2009. “Translation as a Cognitive Activity.” In The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies, edited by Jeremy Munday, 54–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ioannidis, John P. A. 2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine 2 (8): 696–701. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jussim, Lee, Jarret T. Crawford, Stephanie M. Anglin, Sean T. Stevens, and Jose L. Duarte. 2016. “Interpretations and Methods: Towards a More Effectively Self-Correcting Social Psychology.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 661: 116–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Defeng. 2004. “Trustworthiness of Think-Aloud Protocols in the Study of Translation Processes.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14 (3): 301–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Minhua. 2011. “Methodology in Interpreting Studies: A Methodological Review of Evidence-Based Research.” In Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action, edited by Brenda Nicodemus and Lauria A. Swabey, 85–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Makel, Matthew C., Jonathan A. Plucker, and Boyd Hegarty. 2012. “Replications in Psychology Research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 537–542. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, G. N., and Richard M. Clarke. 2017. “Are Psychology Journals Anti-Replication? A Snapshot of Editorial Practices.” Frontiers in Psychology 81: 1–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson. 2017. Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moonesinghe, Ramal, Muin J. Khoury, and A. Cecile J. W. Janssens. 2007. “Most Published Research Findings Are False – But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way.” PLoS Medicine 4 (2): 218–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2010. “Leave No Stone Unturned: On the Development of Cognitive Translatology.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 5 (2): 145–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “A Blurred Snapshot of Advances in Translation Process Research.” MonTI special issue – Minding Translation 11: 49–84.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neunzig, Wilhelm, and Helena Tanqueiro. 2007. Estudios empíricos en traducción. Enfoques y métodos. Girona: Documenta Universitaria.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon, ed. 2011. Cognitive Explorations of Translation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. 2015. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349 (6251): aac4716. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orero, Pilar, Stephen Doherty, Jan-Louis Kruger, Anna Matamala, Jan Pedersen, Elisa Perego, Pablo Romero-Fresco, Sara Rovira-Esteva, Olga Soler-Vilageliu, and Agnieszka Szarkowska. 2018. “Conducting Experimental Research in Audiovisual Translation (AVT): A Position Paper.” Journal of Specialised Translation 301: 105–126.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pardo, Antonio, and Ricardo San Martín. 2012. Análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud II. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pashler, Harold, and Christine R. Harris. 2012. “Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 531–536. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polit, Denise F., and Cheryl Tatano Beck. 2010. “Generalization in Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Myths and Strategies.” International Journal of Nursing Studies 47 (11): 1451–1458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ravitch, Sharon M., and Nicole Mittenfelner Carl. 2016. Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rovira-Esteva, Sara, and Javier Franco Aixelá. 2018. “Bibliometric Tools.” In A History of Modern Translation Knowledge: Sources, Concepts, Effects, edited by Lieven D’hulst and Yves Gambier, 117–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien. 2014. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, Stefan. 2009. “Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication Is Neglected in the Social Sciences.” Review of General Psychology 13 (2): 90–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simons, Daniel J. 2014. “The Value of Direct Replication.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (1): 76–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 2002. “Connecting the Two Infinite Orders: Research Methods in Translation Studies.” In Crosscultural Transgressions: Research Models in Translation Studies II: Historical and Ideological Issues, edited by Theo Hermans, 9–25. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies.” Meta 50 (4): 1082–1097. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Ruud Wetzels, Denny Borsboom, Han L. J. van der Maas, and Rogier A. Kievit. 2012. “An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 632–638. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Way, Catherine. 2014. “Structuring a Legal Translation Course: A Framework for Decision-Making in Legal Translator Training.” In The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation, edited by Le Cheng, King-Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner, 135–152. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yeung, Andy W. K. 2017. “Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 111: 1–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zanettin, Federico, Gabriela Saldanha, and Sue-Ann Harding. 2015. “Sketching Landscapes in Translation Studies: A Bibliographic Study.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 23 (2): 37–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Buts, Jan
2025. Reconsidering case study research in translation studies. Translation in Society 4:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao, Xiaolei Lu, Weiwei Wang & Shirong Chen
2025. Applying n-gram-based evaluation metrics to assess human interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting DOI logo
Han, Chao & Yueqing Wang
2025. Conducting replication in translation and interpreting studies. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 37:3 ► pp. 444 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Kam-Fong & Shuangshuang Yuan
2025. Integration of Cultural Competence and Intercultural Communication Skills in Translation Training to Promote Diversity and Inclusivity. In Cutting-Edge Approaches in Translator Education and Pedagogy, ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Ting, Yan Wang, Zhisheng Wang & Hao Yu
2025. Exploring cognitive effort and divergent thinking in metaphor translation using eye-tracking and EEG technology. Scientific Reports 15:1 DOI logo
Yang, Wenting, Ricardo Muñoz Martín & Xiangling Wang
2025. Revisiting Grammatical Metaphor in Translation: New Insights from the English–Chinese Pair. Metaphor and Symbol 40:3 ► pp. 206 ff. DOI logo
Gieshoff, Anne Catherine & Michaela Albl-Mikasa
2024. Interpreting accuracy revisited: a refined approach to interpreting performance analysis. Perspectives 32:2 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Ai
2024. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Design of fine motion control system for aerobics athletes based on light imaging equipment detection and image processing technology. Optical and Quantum Electronics 56:4 DOI logo
Xie, Rui
2024. Book review: Rebecca Tipton, The Routledge Guide to Teaching Ethics in Translation and Interpreting Education. Interpreting and Society 4:2 ► pp. 218 ff. DOI logo
Han, Chao & Liuyan Yang
2023. Relating utterance fluency to perceived fluency of interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 18:3 ► pp. 421 ff. DOI logo
Li, Heng
2023. Eye movements and gestures in simultaneous and consecutive interpreting. The Social Science Journal 60:3 ► pp. 643 ff. DOI logo
Martínez Sirés, Paula
2023. Estudio de las notas del traductor y su recepción en la traducción literaria del japonés al castellano de Takekurabe. CLINA Revista Interdisciplinaria de Traducción Interpretación y Comunicación Intercultural 8:2 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Deckert, Mikołaj & Krzysztof Hejduk
2022. Videogame localisation, spelling errors and player reception. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Ghiselli, Serena
2022. Working memory tasks in interpreting studies. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 5:1 ► pp. 50 ff. DOI logo
McManus, Kevin
2022. ARE REPLICATION STUDIES INFREQUENT BECAUSE OF NEGATIVE ATTITUDES?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 44:5 ► pp. 1410 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Zhiwei & Zhuojia Chen
2021. A systematic review of experimental research in audiovisual translation 1992–2020. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 4:2 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue