Abstracts
Abstract
The use of new technologies within research into interpreting quality has produced new tools that are expected to increase the number of subjects taking part in survey studies. The growth of Internet users has led to a rise of online questionnaires mainly as a result of their time saving advantages. This paper compares the response rate obtained using three different ways of presenting a questionnaire about quality expectations in interpreting to subjects: in person, via an invitation to take part in an online questionnaire and by including the questionnaire within the text of an email to the subjects. The results of this study show that the subjects tend to participate more when the questionnaire is administered in person. In general male participation was higher than female, but no significant difference was observed with respect to the method of administration. Regarding the particular field of knowledge, the group of subjects working in a scientific and technological area was the only one in which the response rate for the paper “in person” questionnaire was not notably higher than for the other methods.
Keywords:
- survey administration,
- level of participation,
- expectations,
- comparison of methods
Résumé
L’utilisation de nouvelles technologies dans le cadre de recherches sur la qualité de l’interprétation a favorisé l’avènement de nouveaux outils qui devraient permettre de faire augmenter le nombre de participants à des enquêtes. L’augmentation du nombre d’utilisateurs d’Internet a entraîné une hausse du nombre de questionnaires en ligne, principalement parce que ceux-ci permettent de gagner du temps. Le présent article compare les taux de réponse obtenus à l’aide de trois méthodes différentes de présentation d’un questionnaire sur les attentes en matière de qualité en interprétation : en personne, par invitation à répondre à un questionnaire en ligne et par inclusion du questionnaire dans un courriel adressé aux sujets. Les résultats de cette étude démontrent que les sujets sont davantage enclins à participer lorsque le questionnaire est rempli en personne. De façon générale, la participation des hommes était plus élevée que celle des femmes, mais aucune différence significative n’a été observée en fonction de la méthode de conduite de l’enquête. En ce qui concerne les domaines de savoir, le groupe de participants provenant d’un secteur scientifique et technique est le seul pour qui le taux de réponse au questionnaire « en personne » n’était pas particulièrement plus élevé que pour les autres méthodes.
Mots-clés :
- conduite d’enquête,
- niveau de participation,
- attentes,
- comparaison de méthodes
Appendices
Bibliography
- Andrews, Dorine, Nonnecke, Blair and Preece, Jennifer (2003): Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard-to-involve Internet users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 16(2):185-210.
- Bachmann, Duane P., Elfrink, John and Vazzana, Gary (2000): E-mail and snail mail face off in rematch. Marketing Research. 11(4):10-15.
- Bowling, Ann (2005): Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health. 27:281-291.
- Bühler, Hildegrund (1986): Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua. 5(4):231-235.
- Chiaro, Delia and Nocella, Giuseppe (2004): Interpreters’ Perception of Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Factors Affecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web. Meta. 49(2):278-293.
- Collados Aís, Ángela (1998): La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea. La importancia de la comunicación no verbal. Granada: Comares Interlingua.
- Collados Aís, Ángela (2009): Evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: contrastes de exposición e inferencias emocionales. Evaluación de la evaluación. In: Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, eds. Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research: A Tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 193-214.
- Collados Aís, Ángela, Pradas Macías, E. Macarena, Stévaux, Elisabeth et al., eds. (2007): Evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: parámetros de incidencia. Granada: Comares Interlingua.
- Fricker, Ronald D. and Schonlau, Matthias (2002): Advantages and disadvantages of Internet research surveys: evidence from the literature. Field Methods. 14:347-367.
- García Becerra, Olalla (2012): La incidencia de las primeras impresiones en la evaluación de la calidad de la interpretación: un estudio empírico. Doctoral thesis, unpublished. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
- Garzone, Giuliana (2003): Reliability of quality criteria evaluation in survey research. In: Ángela Collados Aís, María Manuela Fernández Sánchez and Daniel Gile, eds. La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: investigación. Granada: Comares Interlingua, 23-30.
- Gile, Daniel (1990): L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation par les délégués: une étude de cas. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 3:66-71.
- Kopczyński, Andrzej (1994): Quality in conference interpreting: some pragmatic problems. In: Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189-198.
- Kurz, Ingrid (1989): Conference Interpreting - User Expectations. In: Deanna L. Hammond, ed. Coming of age. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information Inc, 143-148.
- Kurz, Ingrid (1993): Conference interpretation: expectations of different user groups. The Interpreter’s Newsletter. 5:13-21.
- Kurz, Ingrid and Pöchhacker, Franz (1995): Quality in TV Interpreting. Traslatio - Nouvelles de la FIT- FIT Newsletter. 14(3-4):350-358.
- Mack, Gabriele and Cattaruzza, Lorella (1995): User surveys in SI: a means of learning about quality and/or raising some reasonable doubts. In: Jorma Tommola, ed. Topics in Interpreting Research. Turku: Centre for Translation and Interpreting, University of Turku, 37-49.
- Marrone, Stefano (1993): Quality: a shared objective. The Interpreter’s Newsletter 5:35-41.
- McDonald, Heath and Adam, Stewart (2003): A comparison of online and postal data collection methods in marketing research. Marketing intelligence & planning. 21(2):85-95.
- Meak, Lidia (1990): Interprétation simultanée et congrès médical: attentes et commentaires. The Interpreter’s Newsletter 3:8-13.
- Mehta, Raj and Sivadas, Eugene (1995): Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society. 37(4):429-439.
- Moser, Peter (1995): Survey on Expectations of Users of Conference Interpretation. (Translated by Jennifer Mackintosh and Catherine Stenzi). Vienna: SRZ Stadt + Regionalforschung GmbH.
- Pradas Macías, E. Macarena (2003). Repercusión del intraparámetro pausas silenciosas en la fluidez: Influencia en las expectativas y en la evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea. Doctoral thesis, unpublished. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
- Schuldt, Barbara A. and Totten, Jeff W. (1994): Electronic mail vs mail survey response rates. Marketing Research. 6:36-39.
- Tse, Alan C.B.(1995): Comparing two methods of sending out questionnaires: E-mail versus mail. Journal of the Market Research Society. 37(4):441-446.
- Vuorikoski, Anna-Riitta (1993): Simultaneous interpretation – user experience and expectations. In: Catriona Picken, ed. Translation – The Vital Link. XIII FIT World Congress, Proceedings. Brighton: Institute of Translation and Interpreting, 317-327.
- Vuorikoski, Anna-Riitta (1998): User Responses to Simultaneous Interpreting. In: Lynne Bowker, Michael Cronin, Dorothy Kennyet al., eds. Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome, 184-197.
- Wright, Kevin B. (2005): Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 10(3).
- Yun, Gi Woong and Trumbo, Craig W. (2000): Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, and web form. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1). Visited on 3 March 2012, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00112.x/full.
- Zwischenberger, Cornelia and Pöchhacker, Franz (2010): Survey on quality and role: conference interpreters’ expectations and self-perceptions. Communicate! 53. Visited on 15 December 2011, http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/article2510.htm.
10.7202/009351ar