Trainee translators’ research styles: A taxonomy based on an observation study at the University of Silesia, Poland

Abstract

This paper presents a typology of information-seeking styles exhibited by 52 students of the MA translation and interpreting programme at the University of Silesia, Poland. The typology emerged during the large-scale investigation into trainee translators’ research behaviour occurring during translation of a legal text from English into Polish (Sycz-Opoń 2019). The method of investigation combined observation of students’ recorded performances with a think-aloud protocol (TAP). The case-study analysis brought to light significant variation in student’s information-seeking behaviour, which had gone unnoticed in the aggregate statistical data. Individual differences included students’ source preference, search intensity, level of criticism towards sources, diligence, risk-taking, self-confidence, and source reliance. As a result of the analysis the six research styles emerged: traditionalist, innovator, minimalist, true detective, procrastinator, and habitual doubter. They are presented in this paper with special attention to each style’s strengths, weaknesses and recommended teaching approaches. The results suggest the need for information-seeking training geared towards the diverse needs of individual students.

Investigating the relationship between online information seeking and translation performance among translation students: The mediating role of translation self-efficacy

“…In comparison, students with a low level of self-efficacy may experience more uncertainty and stress during the process (e.g., Bolaños-Medina, 2014;Araghian et al, 2018). As a result, such anxiety can, in turn, bring about additional strain to adjust their strategies and make more improvements in their translation products (Rojo and Caro, 2016;Prieto Ramos, 2020;Sycz-Opoń, 2021).…”

“…Online information seeking has been found to be closely related to the translation problem-solving process (Araghian et al, 2018;Shih, 2019;Sycz-Opoń, 2021). Previous research has shown that the access to online information resources has become an indispensable part of working processes, especially for the young generation of translators, as it can provide abundant information to fulfil different types of translation tasks and assist translators in both comprehending and reformulating texts (e.g., Kuznik and Olalla-Soler, 2018;Hvelplund, 2019).…”

“…However, mixed findings were reported on the impact of online information seeking on translation performance. On the one hand, online information resources are viewed as powerful tools that help translators gain helpful information effectively (e.g., Man et al, 2019;Sycz-Opoń, 2021), which might positively impact translation performance. On the other hand, recent studies indicated no direct relationship between the variety of online resources and final translation quality because of an inefficient and repetitive information seeking process, during which students selected improper resources without considering their information needs and the quality of information (Olalla-Soler, 2018;Cui and Zheng, 2020).…”

Professional translators’ and interpreters’ views on information competence: An exploratory qualitative study from the Spanish context

“…Nonetheless, research on information competence and translation is not abundant. Previous studies have mainly focused on information search behaviour and the use of sources, either by professionals (Alonso, 2015a(Alonso, , 2015bGough, 2016Gough, , 2019Hvelplund, 2017;Teixeira and O'Brien, 2017;Volanen, 2015;White, Matteson and Abels, 2008), by students (Enríquez-Raído, 2011;Hirci, 2012;Kuznik and Olalla-Soler, 2018;Lu, Xiangling and Shuya, 2022;Paradowska, 2021b;Pinto and Sales, 2007;Sales, 2008;Sales, Pinto and Fernández-Ramos, 2018;Shih, 2019;Sycz-Opoń, 2021;Yildiz, 2022) or both (Enríquez-Raído, 2014;Massey and Ehrensberger-Dow, 2011;Olalla-Soler, 2018. These studies have been approached employing diverse methodologies: qualitative, quantitative, mixed approaches and quasiexperimental approaches, and using a variety of data collection options, such as proposed tasks (Enríquez-Raído, 2011, 2014Gough, 2016Gough, , 2019Hirci, 2012;Hvelplund, 2017;Kuznik and Olalla-Soler, 2018;Lu, Xiangling and Shuya, 2022;Massey and Ehrensberger-Dow, 2011;Olalla-Soler, 2018Paradowska, 2021b;Sales, Pinto and Fernández-Ramos, 2018;Shih, 2019;Sycz-Opoń, 2021;Volanen, 2015;…”