Mode Switching in Medical Interpreting and Ramifications on Interpreters' Training

Methodology

As mentioned previously, this chapter is the result of a mixed methods research, insofar as elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches are used to confirm (or disproof) a hypothesis. Answers to this hypothesis aspire to further our understanding of a specific area of interpreting practices in healthcare settings and to corroborate these findings with similar conclusions in corresponding areas of research (Johnson et al., 2007, p. 123).

The research presented herein has a starting point or original hypothesis and a specific purpose. Both elements fall under the Primary Dimension category of a mixed methods analysis, namely a set of characteristics that constitute a priority during the design phase of any research (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017, pp. 108-109). As far as the hypothesis is concerned, the researcher used her personal experience as an interpreter in the healthcare sector and as an instructor of healthcare interpreting to put to the test an assumption according to which healthcare interpreters tend to refrain from using certain modes of interpreting or shy away from them, whenever possible, for reasons that may be attributed to a variety of factors, such as training (formal or professional), spoken vs. sign language interpretation, number of years of experience, institutional constraints, interpreters’ mental and physical capacities and limitations, only to name a few.