The
Daniel Gile
The EST
colloquium on research skills which took place in Ljubljana in September 2006 was designed
with a specific focus. The (interesting) exchanges turned out to be less
focused, both because speakers did not necessarily address research skills
centrally and because discussions tended to go in other directions. In this
brief introduction, I will try to add a few comments. I hope that other
colleagues will contribute their own, so as to make the discussion of the issue
more comprehensive.
One issue cropped up early in the debate and
occupied centre stage for some time. The colloquium had been organized partly
on the basis of a central differentiation between two paradigms in TS, the
Liberal Arts Paradigm (LAP) and the Empirical Science Paradigm (ESP) (see the
other texts devoted to these paradigms in the Research Issues Page of the EST
Website). Some colleagues challenged this division and argued for a continuum
in which the respective part of data and theories vary. While this conceptual
view is legitimate, I am convinced of the usefulness of acknowledging and
taking on board important practical differences in the approach, norms and methods
of empirical disciplines versus the liberal arts, as illustrated by the first
two papers Radegundis Stolze’s and Delia Chiaro’s, as well as by Chesterman’s
paper.
My background being ESP, I found Radegundis Stolze’s presentation on LAP
particularly instructive and enlightening as it provided explanations to trends
I had detected in the approach of some colleagues without understanding their
origin. In particular, Stolze stresses the importance of subjectivity,
deliberate position-taking (under “opinion”) and argumentation in LAP, one
important aim being to challenge previous authors’ statements (presumably to
stimulate progress by discussion) and the other to apply existing theories to
analyze phenomena. Stolze’s statements are echoed by Andrew Chesterman’s idea
that “stronger aims [are] to challenge a previous argument”. In an ESP
approach, strong aims would be to explore a phenomenon factually, to develop
new theories or test existing theories, mostly through the collection and
processing of factual evidence, not to challenge anything by way of
argumentation (challenging theories is frequent in ESP as well, but is not an
aim per se). This idea also accounted nicely for what I had perceived (with
some puzzlement as to their purpose and position in research) as ideological
positions and value judgments in the writings of a number of colleagues.
Delia Chiaro’s paper
devoted to ESP
illustrates this contrast by referring to empirical determinants of research such
as feasibility, selection and collection of evidence, operational definitions
and data processing methods.
Chiaro refers to technical skills,
including statistical know-how. Perhaps it is worthwhile adding that much
empirical research can also be done with no inferential statistics and little
descriptive statistics. Perhaps underneath this technical know-how, what
ESPians (I owe this term, as well as its counterpart LAPians, to our colleague
Heike Lamberger-Felber) require fundamentally, in contrast with LAPians, is the
ability to apply distant (“clinical”) rigorous logical thinking to the object
of study and resist interference from personal positions. This means in
particular a clear view of generalizability limitations, of comparability (and
non-comparability) of situations, actions and data, of advantages and
limitations of technical investigation methods beyond standard recipes and
rehearsed procedures, as opposed to argumentative skills and perhaps a fighting
spirit more characteristic of LAP.
How
skills for both ESP and LAP can be acquired was the topic addressed by Andrew Chesterman. Although his basic
approach is clearly LAP and his emphasis is on argumentation, his notes also
refer to exercises which would be useful in both paradigms, in particular
exercises in critical reading and in citation analysis.
Miriam
Shlesinger’s contribution on interdisciplinarity is a generous and
optimistic one. She does hint at some difficulties in cooperation between TS
scholars and researchers from cognate disciplines (RCDs), but prefers to devote
most of her attention to listing interdisciplinary projects.
It may be useful to add that though
interdisciplinary research is almost by definition a positive and enriching
activity, it is often associated with difficulties and problems such as the
following:
1. On the
part of the colleagues from the relevant cognate discipline (CCD), a lack of
interest in the Translation side of the project, including the Translation-side
aims of the study and the relevant TS literature. When guiding TS students,
they therefore offer little help in choosing an appropriate topic and/or method
suited to Translation-side aims. Many interdisciplinary projects supervised by
a CCD end up being “swallowed” by the cognate discipline and are remote from TS
interests or potential applications.
2. On the
part of TS scholars, there is often incomplete assimilation of the concepts and
methods of the relevant discipline, which leads to faulty reasoning which the
CCD cannot detect because of his/her lack of familiarity with TS stakes.
3. At the
time of evaluation, the quality of the research product may not be assessed
realistically: CCDs cannot identify weaknesses with respect to TS, in
particular in the formulation of issues and in the presentation and analysis of
existing research in the TS literature. As to evaluators on the TS side, not
being familiar enough with the concepts and methods of the relevant cognate
discipline, they cannot identify weaknesses in that part of the research
product. As a result, papers, theses and dissertations involving
interdisciplinarity are often rated too highly in the TS community, and not at
all in the cognate discipline.
However, when TS scholars have had
full training in the cognate discipline and when CCDs take the time to immerse
themselves in the world of Translation and TS, interdisciplinary research
becomes very fruitful.
Radegundis Stolze’s presentation on
research skills for LAP
Delia Chiaro’s presentation on research
skills for ESP
Andrew Chesterman’s presentation on
research skills acquisition
Miriam Shlesinger’s presentation on
interdisciplinarity