Journal of Interpretation Research: Research Is Necessary to Underpin the Field in Evidence

R. B. Powell, M. Stern
{"title":"Journal of Interpretation Research: Research Is Necessary to Underpin the Field in Evidence","authors":"R. B. Powell, M. Stern","doi":"10.1177/10925872211067833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the years practitioners have asked us: why is research necessary for the field? As the Journal of Interpretation Research reaches its 25th year, we thought it was fitting to answer this question. The practice of interpretation is grounded in the seminal works of Mills (1920) and Tilden (1957), which laid out the vision, mission, and principles for the fledgling field and profession. The art of interpretation and these principles for practice were largely developed from their many years of practice and observation. Over the ensuing decades, the philosophy and principles underlying the profession of interpretation were largely followed based on faith and anecdotal observation by practitioners. In other words, practitioners largely based the practice of interpretation on their judgement regarding the audiences’ enjoyment of their interpretive efforts. As a practitioner, you may ask, what is wrong with that? It is true that one of the key outcomes of interpretation is “enjoyment,” or that a program holds an individual’s attention in noncaptive settings (where the audience can simply walk away). However, if the profession of interpretation is to be based on more than anecdote and accomplish more than mere “enjoyment” (or persistence), research is needed to provide evidence to examine other outcomes, improve practice, support informed decision-making, adapt to changing audiences and social conditions, and justify investments in programming. In its 25th year, the Journal of Interpretation Research stands on the shoulders of the great work of Mills and Tilden, but also dozens of more recent researchers that have advanced our field (we refrain from naming names for fear of leaving anyone out). We are now at another crossroads as interpretation is redefined for a new generation. As the field seeks to “facilitate meaningful, relevant, and inclusive experiences that deepen understanding, broaden perspectives, and inspire engagement with the world around us” (NAI, 2021), research is increasingly important to ensure we meet our mission.","PeriodicalId":364431,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpretation Research","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpretation Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10925872211067833","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Over the years practitioners have asked us: why is research necessary for the field? As the Journal of Interpretation Research reaches its 25th year, we thought it was fitting to answer this question. The practice of interpretation is grounded in the seminal works of Mills (1920) and Tilden (1957), which laid out the vision, mission, and principles for the fledgling field and profession. The art of interpretation and these principles for practice were largely developed from their many years of practice and observation. Over the ensuing decades, the philosophy and principles underlying the profession of interpretation were largely followed based on faith and anecdotal observation by practitioners. In other words, practitioners largely based the practice of interpretation on their judgement regarding the audiences’ enjoyment of their interpretive efforts. As a practitioner, you may ask, what is wrong with that? It is true that one of the key outcomes of interpretation is “enjoyment,” or that a program holds an individual’s attention in noncaptive settings (where the audience can simply walk away). However, if the profession of interpretation is to be based on more than anecdote and accomplish more than mere “enjoyment” (or persistence), research is needed to provide evidence to examine other outcomes, improve practice, support informed decision-making, adapt to changing audiences and social conditions, and justify investments in programming. In its 25th year, the Journal of Interpretation Research stands on the shoulders of the great work of Mills and Tilden, but also dozens of more recent researchers that have advanced our field (we refrain from naming names for fear of leaving anyone out). We are now at another crossroads as interpretation is redefined for a new generation. As the field seeks to “facilitate meaningful, relevant, and inclusive experiences that deepen understanding, broaden perspectives, and inspire engagement with the world around us” (NAI, 2021), research is increasingly important to ensure we meet our mission.
解释研究杂志:研究是支撑证据领域的必要条件
多年来,从业者一直在问我们:为什么这个领域需要研究?在《口译研究杂志》创刊25周年之际,我们认为回答这个问题是合适的。口译实践的基础是米尔斯(1920)和蒂尔登(1957)的开创性著作,它们为这个新兴的领域和职业奠定了愿景、使命和原则。诠释的艺术和这些实践原则很大程度上是他们多年的实践和观察中发展起来的。在随后的几十年里,口译职业的哲学和原则在很大程度上是基于从业者的信仰和轶事观察而遵循的。换句话说,从业者的口译实践很大程度上是基于他们对听众是否喜欢他们的口译努力的判断。作为一个从业者,你可能会问,这有什么错?的确,口译的关键结果之一是“享受”,或者一个节目在非俘虏的环境中吸引了个人的注意力(观众可以简单地走开)。然而,如果口译职业不仅仅是基于轶事,而且不仅仅是“享受”(或坚持),那么就需要研究提供证据来检验其他结果,改进实践,支持知情决策,适应不断变化的受众和社会条件,并证明节目投资的合理性。《口译研究杂志》已经创刊25年了,它不仅继承了米尔斯和蒂尔登的伟大著作,而且还继承了几十位最近推动口译研究领域发展的研究人员的著作(我们不点名,以免漏掉任何人)。我们现在正处于另一个十字路口,因为诠释正在为新一代重新定义。随着该领域寻求“促进有意义、相关和包容的体验,从而加深理解、拓宽视野,并激发与我们周围世界的接触”(NAI, 2021),研究对于确保我们实现使命变得越来越重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信