Considerations of ecological validity in cognitive translation and interpreting studies

C. Mellinger, Thomas A. Hanson
{"title":"Considerations of ecological validity in cognitive translation and interpreting studies","authors":"C. Mellinger, Thomas A. Hanson","doi":"10.1075/tcb.00061.mel","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Renewed interest in research methods used in cognitive translation and interpreting studies (CTIS) has led to\n increased reflection on the nature of research and experimental design, internal and external validity, and the type and nature of\n experimental tasks. Of particular concern is the extent to which valid generalization can be made from empirical studies of\n translation, interpreting, and their associated cognitive behaviors as objects of study. This article traces the definition and\n history of ecological validity in the extant literature on research methods and philosophy of science, emphasizing three\n considerations: the experimental setting, the stimuli under investigation, and the behavioral response of participants.\n Subsequently, we discuss potential misunderstandings or misapplications of appeals to ecological validity, including mundane\n realism, naturalistic tasks, and various data collection methods. A final section describes key points to consider for research in\n CTIS. Throughout, the argument considers tradeoffs among various categories of validity as well as the importance of aligning\n experimental design with research goals. This extensive engagement with a singular aspect of validity is provided to encourage\n deeper reflection and better communication around the topic of ecological validity.","PeriodicalId":313749,"journal":{"name":"Translation, Cognition & Behavior","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translation, Cognition & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00061.mel","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Renewed interest in research methods used in cognitive translation and interpreting studies (CTIS) has led to increased reflection on the nature of research and experimental design, internal and external validity, and the type and nature of experimental tasks. Of particular concern is the extent to which valid generalization can be made from empirical studies of translation, interpreting, and their associated cognitive behaviors as objects of study. This article traces the definition and history of ecological validity in the extant literature on research methods and philosophy of science, emphasizing three considerations: the experimental setting, the stimuli under investigation, and the behavioral response of participants. Subsequently, we discuss potential misunderstandings or misapplications of appeals to ecological validity, including mundane realism, naturalistic tasks, and various data collection methods. A final section describes key points to consider for research in CTIS. Throughout, the argument considers tradeoffs among various categories of validity as well as the importance of aligning experimental design with research goals. This extensive engagement with a singular aspect of validity is provided to encourage deeper reflection and better communication around the topic of ecological validity.
认知翻译与口译研究中的生态效度问题
对认知翻译和口译研究(CTIS)中使用的研究方法的重新关注导致了对研究和实验设计的性质,内部和外部有效性以及实验任务的类型和性质的更多反思。特别值得关注的是,在多大程度上可以从笔译、口译及其相关认知行为的实证研究中得出有效的概括。本文追溯了现有研究方法和科学哲学文献中生态有效性的定义和历史,强调了三个考虑因素:实验环境、被调查的刺激和参与者的行为反应。随后,我们讨论了对生态有效性呼吁的潜在误解或误用,包括世俗现实主义、自然主义任务和各种数据收集方法。最后一节描述了在CTIS研究中需要考虑的关键点。在整个过程中,论证考虑了各种有效性类别之间的权衡,以及将实验设计与研究目标相一致的重要性。这种与有效性的单一方面的广泛接触是为了鼓励围绕生态有效性的主题进行更深入的反思和更好的沟通。
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