Nicodemus, Brenda and Swabey, Laurie, eds. (2011): Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 264 p.

This volume is a collection of twelve articles written by conference interpreters (that is, ‘practisearchers’, defined as trainers and practitioners). It aims to help graduate students, interpreters, and researchers in their work. According to Gile in the preface, this is the first such work to bring together authors of both sign and spoken languages in examining their profession. Among the authors, three with conference interpreting and research backgrounds are especially prominent, and the remaining eight are from the sign language interpreting (SLI) community. The contributions fall into roughly five groups. In the first, Pochhacker, Moser-Mercer, and Liu discuss paradigms and methodologies for general interpreting research. In the second, Russell and Napier offer practical information for newcomers to the field. Next, Metzger and Roy report on current advances and challenges, and in the fourth group, Hessman et al., Leeson and Nicodemus, and Swabey look at training and the professionalization of interpreting. Finally, Peterson, Adam and Stone discuss some of the more disparate topics within SLI communities. Swabey and Nicodemus (p. 1-4) open the volume by introducing the need for research into sign language interpreting. They also explain what motivated them to undertake the book, namely that interpreting professionals show keen interest in doing empirical studies but “lack a schema for incorporating this research” (p. 1-2). In other words, the growing profession of interpreting requires scientific research, and when SLI community researchers share ideas and initiate research, “new knowledge is cultivated” (p.1). Swabey and Nicodemus state that “it is in that spirit that we offer this new volume” (p. 1). It will serve as a guide for those just starting out or already engaged in interpretation research, while also fostering their enthusiasm and dedication in doing research. Pochhacker (p. 5-25) regards interpreting studies (IS) as “an empirical-interpretive discipline” (p. 15). This is based on his reflections on the purpose and use of interpreting research as well as his descriptions of current, multiple paradigms and methodological choices. He argues against the deliberate gap between the ‘liberal arts’ and ‘empirical science’ approaches, instead seeing data in IS (as for other social sciences), as “essentially qualitative empirical data” (p. 15). Nonetheless, data analysis generally requires an interpretive process. Pochhacker rejects ‘exclusive’ paradigms and promotes an eclectic approach to research that reconciles diversified methods. This clearly shows that interdisciplinary approaches and mixed-method designs can transcend quantitative-qualitative boundaries. Based on Shneider’s (2009) identification of the four-stage development pattern of scientific disciplines, Moser-Mercer (p. 47-58) sees IS as approaching the third stage in becoming a scientific discipline. He also suggests that IS is more than a ‘soft’ science. Shneider, citing Kuhn (1962), shows how “the new paradigm transforms a group into an accepted discipline” (p. 55). As a potential stage-three scientific discipline, IS therefore requires us (interpreters and trainers) to train young researchers (Masters students) in scientific methods, to refine objects of research, and to implement and learn to “speak the language of neighboring disciplines” (p. 57). Interpreting studies face “simultaneous challenges,” because research paradigms and methodological paradigms occasionally compete and overlap. Moser-Mercer is confident in stating that “interpreting as a discipline has great potential to contribute to our understanding” (p. 57) of human cognition and communication. Liu (p. 85-119) reviewed the methodological issues present in 48 evidence-based articles published in Interpreting from 2004 to 2009. The appendix and its analysis employ bibliometrics, making it essential reading for researchers. For each article, Liu examined and evaluated the data collection methods, data analysis, data presentation, and methods as a whole (qualitative or quantitative). She admits that the mixed-method trends in social sciences make it difficult to separate qualitative …