{"title":"认知翻译与口译研究中的生态效度问题","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":"{\"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}","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}
Considerations of ecological validity in cognitive translation and interpreting studies
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.