Radegundis Stolze
1
Introduction
2 The role
of subjectivity
3 Research
procedure and academic norms
4 Aims of
research and concrete problems
5
Conclusion
The rationale
underlying the program of a one-day seminar on research skills starts with the
idea that “weaknesses regularly observed and reported in studies conducted by
TS scholars seem to reflect lacunae in basic rather than advanced skills and
methods” (Gile and Hansen 2004)[1].
Academic skills are usually learnt
implicitly during a kind of acculturation process, and thus are not
always obvious to outsiders. What
we need is to create more awareness of the given implicit knowledge
about various academic practices. It is generally admitted that TS is
interdisciplinary, as various theoretical approaches come together here. While
insights gained by looking into neighbouring fields of research may be
fruitfully integrated into one’s own research, there is also a growing
uneasiness about the mechanical interbreeding of approaches and methodologies
from distinct paradigms, what constitutes a flaw for studies in both areas.
The mindset
and norms of empirical researchers and of scholars in the liberal arts field
are different to some extent. Fruitful interdisciplinary studies can only be
realized if we are aware of the potential of the respective methods or
approaches, thus preventing misunderstandings.
Moreover,
the rules or norms of academic writing also differ considerably in various
linguistic and academic communities (see e.g. Ventola and Mauranen 1996)[2],
even if these differences are becoming increasingly blurred as English is
strengthening its role as the lingua
franca of research. However, this only aggravates the situation, as authors
tend to unconsciously apply their own cultural or institutionally trained
attitude, even when writing in English, and that may cause serious
understanding problems. So the difficulty is twofold: there are variations in
the academic paradigm of research and in the cultural way of presenting the
results.
2 The
role of subjectivity
Research in
the Liberal Arts Paradigm is about ideas. The so-called theory-oriented
papers and studies are situated here. Subjectivity in the researcher as a
person cannot be eliminated, but has to be reflected upon. The researcher, who
is not a scientist but a scholar, works on theories and models of relationships
or activities, of processes or developments, not on facts. What has to be called a “fact” to make inferences must first be
agreed upon among the scholars.
This is the subject of
Humanities as a field of research, and Translation Studies belongs to these as
well: there is the debate about our thoughts, opinions, feelings, the social
development, the motivation of behaviour, strategies of translation, history,
economic processes, social evolution, the sociological conditions of
interpreting facts, the tradition of law, the cultural background of observation,
there is research in creativity, origination of new questions, design of new
hypotheses, etc.
All such things are invisible,
we cannot count or quantify them, but we can talk about them. In the academic
discourse we start with an inter-subjective plausibility of the words we are
using and hope that the audience will understand us. The scholarly work is communicative,
just as science in general: to help the
collective building of knowledge, scholars must communicate the results of their
work and publications. It is not sufficient to just think in novel directions.
An example: There are so many theories of translation, and various models of
the act of translating have been designed, that continuously new textbooks on
the “theories of translation” are being edited. The work of researchers, here,
is done in the library, not in the laboratory for tests, and not in front of
computers analysing questionnaires.
This kind
of research in LAP is closely linked to the respective scholar as a person, and
therefore subjectivity is always present and determines the procedure of doing
research. There are special skills required, also because the way of doing
research and presenting one’s conclusions is not regulated strictly.
3.
Research skills and academic norms
The
research procedure may be described in five points.
(a) There is above all other things: reading.
We have to read other scholars’ publications. When some people have the
impression, that the wheel is being reinvented again and again (and we hear
this critique often in TS), this might be caused by the fact that people stick
to their own circle and do not reach out beyond it. All theories are linked to
the individual person’s mind who designs them, there is ever some influence of
subjectivity. There are no “objective data” that might be taken as a proof, but
the research process in
LAP is nonetheless bound by some academic norms.
The first
is: Scholarly work is inter-subjective: every scholar draws upon
the work of other members of the community in terms of theories and problem
awareness, and also contributes himself to the community by offering new
insights. A large part of scholarly work in the Liberal Arts Paradigm is based
on a critical dealing with other scholars’ publications. And misperceptions can
be corrected through collective discussion.
(b) After and besides reading, there is
a second skill: you have to create your own opinion too. Things
observed, and even more theories discussed, have all a “subject-relevant being”,
as phenomenology says (Husserl). The question is always: how do I see it, what
is my own view or conviction regarding the given problem? Do I think this
phenomenon is a relevant fact or not?
It is important
to distinguish between my own view (either from my experience or intuition or
any predilection) and various other schools, approaches, outlooks, theories.
For this purpose I have to know some other, even contrasting theories, but
without a personal theoretical conviction it would be difficult to evaluate
other theories.
Our norm
here is: scholarly work is self-critical. Self-criticism is
important for rendering valuable contributions to the academic community.
Because of the subjectivity involved, the scholar has to take responsibility
for his or her own work.
The quality
of academic contributions is mainly evaluated regarding their innovative
potential. And this must be checked in self-criticism. There are two dangers
here concerning the lack of innovation: when we only stick to a personal
idea, the result may be too subjective and unacceptable in the academic
community, because it is not mature enough. What might be a really illuminating
insight for myself might be not at all new in the larger field, e.g. of TS,
since it had already been discussed in detail elsewhere. Respective
publications would resemble school essays.
On the
other hand, when I have no opinion at all, I risk to get drowned in the field
of various publications, academic schools and convictions. Respective papers
appear like reading reports: they present one after the other what literature
presents, but no discussion of this. It’s a “cemetery of quotations”. The
reader asks himself: and so what? This does not contribute to academic progress
either.
Also, this
kind of a supposedly neutral or objective presentation of other people’s voices
- without any critical reflection - bears the inherent danger of
misunderstanding. Students tend to extensively cite the relevant big authors
(or even minor ones they managed to read), but it isn’t quite clear whether
they have really understood them in the sense of an assimilating cognitive
process.
(c) But when we have understood
something, made it our own idea, we will also be able to speak up for it, to
lead a convincing argumentation in favour of this conviction, for which
we then can also accept responsibility. We have a norm here too: scholarly work
is argumentative: it recognizes that personal bias is in the way
of every scholar’s attempts to explain the world, and therefore tries to
convince the readers by awareness-building, consistent argumentation and
critical questioning, for instance by mentally considering some opposite
opinions too.
(d) This leads us to a fourth point regarding precision
in academic presentation of scholarly reasoning: define the matter of your
study clearly and try to stick to that. Only with a very clear presentation of
the arguments the study can be convincing. The norm is: scholarly work is precise:
it checks the matter debated critically, it questions various possible
conclusions or claims made, in order to back-up one's theses more safely. You
should try to explain what you mean for instance with “a translation”:
is this a task, or a subject of literary criticism, or an act of intercultural
mediation, or a textual object with certain impacts in society, or a cognitive
procedure, or what?
(e) As the scholar is dealing a lot with
other publications, there is the problem of uncritically borrowing concepts
from them, and then just add some new meaning. Instead of creating new terms
for new findings as in the sciences, scholars tend to endlessly reinterpret
given expressions.
This
problem finds its expression in the norm: scholarly work is explicit
in its use of concepts. There is no objective meaning to be presupposed
beforehand. The problem is also that the words for those concepts mostly are
words from general language, however with a specialist semantic content.
Our terms
and concepts, therefore, have to be explicitly defined in every single
contribution, since the semantic content of terms, such as “translation”,
“creativity”, “culture”, “interpretation”, “meaning”, “literary effect”,
“learning”, “understanding”, and so on, is conceived slightly different in their
subjective relevance for every individual researcher. An ill-considered use of
other people’s terminology can lead to much confusion. That is why explicit
definition is needed in scholarly papers.
The danger is often that there is too
much internal debate: the scholar knows all about his/her own conviction within
his or her paradigm, and forgets about divergent views. But we are not only
writing for readers within our own paradigm.
4. The
aims of research and concrete problems
So far, I
gave a more general description of research skills in the Liberal Arts
Paradigm. But for which purpose are we doing this? Why is this considered
interesting by some? The aims of LAP research can be seen in a challenging
of statements so far given in the literature, or in the application of a
certain theory designed by an academic school onto examples of language
usage, for more detailed clarification.
Here, the
content of studies seems to be culturally dependent: in some areas of the world
empirical studies are predominant, in others the interest is put in didactics,
and again in others there is more focus on theory. Suffice
it to mention Ventola/Mauranen (1996) or Galtung's ideas in his famous article
about culturally different “intellectual styles” (1981)[3].
Case (A)
of challenging can be sought in the need felt for a more profound
clarification of a theory or a concept so far considered as insufficiently
described. This may also lead to the development of a new theory. Choosing
topics, here, is not so difficult, because they arise intuitively while
reading. The specificity in the Liberal Arts Paradigm is that a
researcher does not simply apply objective quantitative or qualitative methods,
but brings in subjectivity. Even the most logical and concise systematic
methodology can appear as unconvincing or irrelevant to such a scholar,
who then will try to think by him or herself.
The point
of departure of one’s argumentation is found after having read scholarly
literature and, sometimes intuitively, found a personal position towards the
issue concerned. Planning one’s study, for instance at Master theses,
often may follow the model of similar other studies. This is no great
difficulty either.
Concrete
examples for such a research are the following topics, all taken from doctoral
or Master theses, or EST papers I have seen. I read some titles, partly
translated into English:
All these topics are examples of concrete
studies, and they may use text examples to back up their findings. Strangely
enough, this seems to be a rather Germanic approach, since most of the authors,
even if they write in English, are Germans.
Difficulties faced in this kind of theoretical
research are to be found in various points:
·
While
reading and collecting information is easy because it’s done intuitively, the
reasoning on the information available is sometimes affected by a lack of a
definition of one’s concepts. They all seem totally clear to me, and I may
forget about other readers’ possibly different views. Extensive definition for
outsiders is also a question of space, particularly in papers for collective
volumes. And just here it would be especially important, as so many different
views come together.
·
In
writing the thesis or paper, there is often a lack of consistency in
structuring the argumentation. The reason for this is understandable: Many
points and arguments are being discussed, but there is no clear evidence that
can be presented. Part of the argumentation is dependent on the author’s
personal view, which therefore ought to be checked in a self-critical manner.
·
Often
there is too much repetition. This is due to the fact that mainly
general language is being used, and the concepts are not so unambiguously
definable as in the exact sciences. So the authors try again and again to find
better words for what they want to say.
·
Finally
there is the great problem of inadequate quotations. Academic readers
often draw conclusions intuitively during a critical reading of other
publications, and later they forget where they found that point. So it is a
valid recommendation to always immediately note reference points and exact
sources of reasoning. In this context, the respective style sheets regarding
bibliography have to be observed.
Case (B)
of LAP research comprises the large field of applying one theory, often
implicitly, onto texts and translations. This is mainly the research field in
translation criticism, mostly based on Contrastive Linguistics, where the
translation of certain language features is discussed. Or in comparative
literature analysing a historical evolution in the interpretation of various
texts in the light of their translations, or in studies of the “cultural turn”
in TS. Several translations of one author or a text are being compared, in
order to see differences, either regarding linguistic phenomena or regarding
cultural interpretation. Some titles of present papers read:
Studies of
this kind are mainly descriptive, based on one specific theory of translation
which is applied to the examples showing good or bad translations, or is used
to prove the strength of that theory, or to show cultural developments of
interpretation, etc.
Difficulties faced in this kind of applied
research are to be found in various points:
·
While
choosing a topic of personal interest is not very difficult, the planning of
one’s study is a major difficulty. We have to check whether there are similar
studies already. And then, there is the risk of oversimplification in
interpreting some findings. Over-generalizing a certain phenomenon may lead us
into questionable conclusions, sometimes only based on a single example found.
(I have seen such a paper which I rejected.) Such conclusions are not
convincing in their argumentation, particularly when they only refer to
intuitive decisions, without any other reference point.
·
Therefore
the examples to be discussed should be chosen very carefully to be useful for
reasoning. Are they really supporting what I am saying? Are there
perhaps more examples for my argument? Creating a new hypothesis when we hit at
a striking phrase in a text is a bit too easy.
·
Sometimes,
people want to be creative and forge titles for their papers which, in
view of the following content, can be very misleading. Here, some more sobriety
would be helpful. I see this often in conferences, and I think it’s
unnecessary. An indicator for this is when they use a subtitle to be more
precise. (Examples: “The poetics of the translator” when it is about
translating literary style – “Construals in literary translation” when it is
about space indicators – “The Concept of Mimesis” when it is about the
description of an author – “Intersemiotic translation” when it is about
cinematic adaptation of Shakespeare’s plays – “Utterer-centred linguistics in
TS” when it is about the translation of personal speech between two languages –
“Cultural transposition in strategic translation” when it is about the
interlinguistic compensation of different structures, etc.) These applied
studies are upgraded with a theoretical title.
·
Making
inferences seems to be difficult. There is the danger of speculation.
Easy conclusion-drawing on the basis of one’s personal experience and insight
entails the risk of being too speculative. And this is not eliminated by
drawing some complicated models for explanation, for instance about
translators’ competence. Such models may be used didactically to explain an
idea or a theory, and thus acquire a sort of pseudo-objectivity. In reality it
is pure speculation, since we don’t know how translators are thinking. So we
should keep this problem in mind.
·
There
is also the danger of too much subjectivity, with the absence of a real
research issue. The purpose of some studies does not become clear, and this
concerns the difficulty of writing one’s paper. The danger is that by focusing
on the discussion of text examples, the author fails to make clear what he or
she is really looking for. The link between the theoretical argumentation and
the discussion of examples then becomes tenuous. A separate structure of the
overall argumentation on an extra page might be helpful here - see the
conclusion below.
Studies in
the Liberal Arts Paradigm are only valid when they add to new discussion, open up
new horizons of thinking, create new questions. And this is only possible in a
close relationship to other scholars’ thinking and results. Such research,
then, may even create new hypotheses for new research issues and models.
Innovative questions thus raised could
then even be analysed by studies in the empirical science paradigm.
5.
Conclusion
Research skills
(a) critical reading - danger: research
as a simple reading report lacks novelty
(b) own opinion - danger: lack of
innovation by unrelated subjectivity
(c) need for argumentation - danger:
lack of consistency
(d) precision in presentation - danger:
blurred or borrowed concepts
1.
Scholarly work is inter-subjective:
every scholar draws upon the work of other members of the community in
terms of theories and problem awareness, and also contributes to the community
by offering new insights.
2.
Scholarly work is self-critical.
Self-criticism is important for rendering valuable contributions to the
academic community. The scholar has to take responsibility for his or her own
work.
3.
Scholarly work is argumentative:
it recognizes that personal bias is in the way of every scholar’s
attempts to explain the world, and therefore tries to convince the readers, by
awareness-building, consistent argumentation, and critical questioning.
4.
Scholarly work is precise:
it checks the matter debated critically, it questions various possible
conclusions or claims made, in order to back-up one's theses more safely,
explaining them clearly.
5.
Scholarly work is explicit:
The scholar has to explicitly define his or her concepts which are subjectively
relevant, and clearly explain the line of argumentation so that others can
understand what s/he is saying.
[1] Gile, Daniel & Hansen, Gyde. 2004. „The editorial process tgrough the looking
glass.“ In: Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, eds. G. Hansen, K. Malmkjaer, D. Gile. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, p.
297-306.
[2] Ventola, Eija & Mauranen, Anna. 1996.
Academic Writing:
Intercultural and Textual Issues (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series).
[3] Galtung, Johan. 1981. “Structure, Culture and Intellectual Style”, Social Science Information. 20(6): 817–856.