1. The article discusses the ethical considerations and challenges in interpreting research, particularly in terms of the researcher's voice and discretionary power.
2. Many interpreting researchers have a background as former interpreters, which can create a delicate position when collecting data from colleagues and reporting potentially unfavorable findings.
3. The article presents three authentic research cases to highlight different aspects of research ethics, interpreting ethics, and the impact of the interpreter-researcher's professional background.
The article titled "The (un-) ethical interpreting researcher: ethics, voice and discretionary power in interpreting research" discusses the ethical considerations, voice, and discretionary power of researchers in the field of interpreting. While the article raises important points about the challenges faced by interpreting researchers, it also exhibits certain biases and shortcomings.
One potential bias in the article is its focus on the ethical implications of interpreting research without adequately addressing other aspects of research ethics. The author primarily emphasizes the ethical challenges faced by interpreters/researchers who have a deep pre-understanding of the field. While this is an important consideration, it neglects to discuss broader ethical issues that apply to all researchers, such as informed consent and data protection.
Furthermore, the article relies heavily on references from a limited number of sources, which may introduce a bias towards certain perspectives. The author cites several studies by Hale, Inghilleri, Valero-Garcés & Tipton, Bendazzoli, and Biagini to support their arguments. While these sources are undoubtedly valuable contributions to the field of interpreting studies, their dominance in the article suggests a lack of diversity in perspectives.
Additionally, there are unsupported claims made throughout the article. For example, the author states that research ethics in interpreting has hardly been discussed at all without providing evidence or references to support this claim. This undermines the credibility of their argument and leaves readers questioning the validity of their assertions.
The article also fails to explore counterarguments or alternative viewpoints. It presents a one-sided view of interpreting research ethics without acknowledging potential opposing perspectives or addressing any criticisms or limitations of its own arguments. This lack of balance weakens the overall analysis presented in the article.
Moreover, there are missing points of consideration that could have enriched the discussion. For instance, while discussing voice in interpreting research, there is no mention of how power dynamics between interpreters and participants can influence interpretations and potentially compromise objectivity. This oversight limits the comprehensiveness of the article's analysis.
In terms of missing evidence, the article does not provide specific examples or case studies to illustrate its arguments. It would have been beneficial to include concrete examples of ethical dilemmas faced by interpreting researchers and how they navigated them. This would have added depth and credibility to the author's claims.
Overall, the article exhibits biases in its focus, reliance on limited sources, unsupported claims, lack of balance in presenting different perspectives, and missing evidence and considerations. While it raises important issues regarding ethics in interpreting research, it falls short in providing a comprehensive and unbiased analysis.