Hale, Sandra and Napier, Jemina (2013): Research Methods in Interpreting. A Practical Resource. London/New Delhi/New York/Sydney: Bloomsbury, 456 p.

For a number of years, the need has been felt and often voiced to provide beginning researchers in Translation Studies in general and in Interpretation Studies in particular with a research textbook. Many methodological papers and at least one collective volume have addressed research issues (for interpreting, see in particular Gile, Dam et al. 2001), but this is the first textbook which seeks to systematically cover the needs of beginners for the whole interpreting studies field. Intriguingly, the book has no introduction or foreword explaining its purpose and use. It jumps straight into the subject matter and only mentions that it targets first and foremost research students undertaking Master’s or PhD projects on page 210. Chapter 1 explains what research is all about. This is a good starting point because so many misconceptions are widespread among students. Equally laudable is the use of a simple, clear, didactic language – found throughout the book – which explains why interpreters and educators who seek answers to questions might gain reliability when adopting research in their quest, as other types of exploration suffer from a number of potential traps – listed on page 3. What is perhaps more debatable is the definition of research as “finding answers to questions by collecting evidence from different sources that will support a logical conclusion” (p. 2), which suggests that research is necessarily empirical. It can also be theoretical, as is the case in mathematics, in theoretical physics and in numerous theoretical contributions to IS. Why exclude this aspect? On page 12, the authors offer an interesting table showing exploratory, descriptive and explanatory goals in research. Another good idea. But on the same page, they slip when they say that “in the main, quantitative methods are high in reliability and low in validity and qualitative methods are high in validity but low in reliability.” Why should quantitative methods be low in validity? And why should qualitative methods be low in reliability? Validity and reliability are of critical importance in any study, and measuring (quantitatively) a phenomenon with a poor sampling method results in low reliability. Also, there is no reason why qualitative research, for instance when checking what interpreters consider the most important quality components, should not be designed in such a way as to be reliable. In the same chapter, Hale and Napier make very good points that are seldom found in research guidance texts. Including warnings against idealized representations of reality: they explain (p. 4) that research is never static and never infallible. They quote Rudestam and Newton who say that the only universal in scientific knowledge is a general commitment to using logical argument and evidence to arrive at conclusions, and that good scientists often deviate from an “official” philosophy of science and a prescribed methodology. They also note that science cannot answer all questions. All these are important points that should be kept in the minds of young researchers at risk of being blinded by their enthusiasm and perhaps by an excessively naïve view of science as it is presented in ‘official’ discourse and in some textbooks. Another good idea was to devote a full chapter, chapter 2, to critical reading and writing. This is a major component of research, a source of knowledge and inspiration, and an exercise which helps sharpen one’s logical and critical thinking skills. The chapter is systematic, with explanations about the importance and uses of the literature review and excellent practical recommendations: keeping track of one’s searches, making sure that quotes are clearly documented, thinking of the literature review as leading readers on the start of a …