The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 3(2), 2009, 141-55

Exploring MA Students’ Attitudes to

Translation Theory and Practice
An Action-research Approach

Sameh F. Hanna
University of Salford, UK

Abstract. Most translation and interpreting programmes in the

UK involve two main aspects: one is theoretical, meant to famil-
iarize students with the history of translation and the most recent
theoretical developments in the field, and the second focuses on
practical training in two languages familiar to the students. While
the relevance of the practical component of these programmes is
acknowledged by students, the importance of the theoretical aspect
has not been easily accepted. This article examines the attitudes
of MA students to both components of translation/interpreting
pedagogy, using an action-research approach. Drawing on social
psychology, the concept of ‘attitude’ is used to mean the individu-
als’ predispositions to classify and evaluate objects, events and
other individuals and to react to them with a minimum of consist-
ency. ‘Attitude’ is an epistemological construct that cannot be
objectively measured but is rather inferred through observable
patterns of behaviour and verbal reports produced by the sub-
jects of study in the form of questionnaires or interviews. These
inferences are partly fashioned by the interpretive and subjective
position of the observer. The author’s self-reflection on his different
roles as a previous student of translation theory and practice and
then as teacher and researcher of translation is occasioned by the
awareness of his subjective position in this study.

Kewords. Attitude, Action Research, Translation Theory, Translation Prac-

tice, Social Psychology, MA Translation Programmes.

In the academic year 2007/2008 I was involved in teaching an MA module on

translation studies theories and approaches. The groups taking this module
included students studying Arabic translation, others taking Chinese transla-
tion and a third group of students taking applied linguistics strands. In the
same programme I also contributed to teaching translation practice to MA
students specializing in Arabic. Teaching two separate modules, one on
translation theory and another on translation practice, made me more alert

ISSN 1750-3981 © St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester

142 Exploring MA Students’ Attitudes to Translation Theory and Practice

than before to what I would call ‘the polarized awareness’ that informs the
practices of most of those involved in researching, teaching and practising
translation. This ‘polarized awareness’ finds expression in the long-held
dichotomy of theory vs. practice which does not cease to resurface in both
research and teaching curricula. In this respect I agree with Hatim (2001:3),
who flags the urgency of reconsidering this polarization:

… the acts of translating and translation teaching have, until fairly

recently, been kept separate from ‘research’ into these and related
activities. The polarisation is historical and is evidence of the mis-
leading demarcation lines that are often too readily drawn between
theoretician and practitioner in many disciplines. Theory and practice
are ultimately complementary and, particularly in a field such as
translation, the distinction needs to be re-examined.

This polarization, I believe, informs learners’ attitudes to both translation theo-

ry and practice, an issue which I have investigated through an action-research
approach. My selection of this research issue is grounded in personal, disci-
plinary and institutional considerations. In reflecting on my years as a student
of both translation theory and practice at undergraduate and postgraduate
levels, I find that this same polarization informed my learning experience.
In my undergraduate years as a student of English literature, linguistics and
translation, I took it for granted that translation practice sessions were all
I needed for my career, whereas theory classes were the irrelevant part of
the degree programme that would not significantly enhance my expertise as
a would-be translator or teacher of translation. I was not the only one who
developed this ‘negative’ attitude towards theory classes. The practices of my
teachers and the assumptions they implicitly held about theory and practice
must have largely contributed to this too. The fact that my negative attitude to
theory was later re-engineered, thanks to other teachers who enacted different
modes of teaching, is witness to the fact that attitudes can change. It can be
said, then, that my interest as a teacher of translation in learners’ attitudes
to theory and practice was initially motivated by my own personal learning
experience. Brookfield (1995:49) rightly observes that “the images, models,
and conceptions of teaching derived from our own experiences as learners”
are the most significant in fashioning our lives as teachers. In my position as
a new academic and teacher of both translation theory and practice, I have
been aware of the ‘non-positive’ attitudes most students develop towards
theory and have sought to investigate these attitudes, rationalize and explain
them and find ways to improve teaching practices in a way that might help to
avoid this negativity developing in the first place. My action research project
is then premised on two hypotheses: first, my students do not harbour fully
positive, if not negative, attitudes towards translation theory. These non-posi-
tive attitudes could be identified through the statements and comments made
Sameh F. Hanna 143

by students about translation theory and practice classes and some observable
patterns of behaviour like the students’ low attendance in translation studies
classes and their tendency not to read the literature required for the module.
The second hypothesis on which my action research is premised is that these
attitudes are conditioned by the teaching strategies and environment created
in the classroom and are susceptible to change.
My interest in researching students’ attitudes to translation theory is
equally occasioned by disciplinary considerations. As previously mentioned,
the dichotomy of theory and practice has featured in discussions by transla-
tion studies scholars who tried to delineate the false assumptions that are
thought to impede progress in the field of translation studies. Most studies
have sought to underscore the relevance of theory to practice, albeit through
a top-down approach that forces theory upon translation practice pedagogy
without attending to students’ views regarding the usefulness of translation
theory, how it should be taught in the translation classroom and how it would
ultimately feed into the professionalization of translation practice . In other
words, instead of listening to the students regarding how they identify this
relevance in their pedagogical situations, studies available in the translation
studies literature voice the views of translation scholars, teachers or curricu-
lum designers. Some scholars have taken interest in the views circulating
in the public space about translation theory and practice. Zhu’s research on
the relevance of translation theory to practice, for instance, was motivated
by the following question from his father: “Is there any theory of transla-
tion besides a good grasp of language?” (2002:19). Although Zhu’s study
and others (see also Lederer 2007) are motivated by diverse theoretical and
pedagogical considerations, they pay very little attention to learners’ atti-
tudes to translation theory and practice. The voice of the students, the main
stakeholders in translation pedagogy, is barely heard in studies of this kind.
It is for this particular reason that I find action research a viable approach
for investigating students’ attitudes to translation theory and practice, and
like Reason (2004), I hold that in action research “what is most important
is how we can help articulate voices that have been silenced”. The fact that
action research promotes alertness to ‘practical knowing’, as Reason and
Bradbury (2001:1) put it, rather than purely theoretical issues that are not
grounded in practice makes it a convenient candidate as a research approach
to the issue in hand. The studies developed from within translation studies
on the relevance of translation theory to practice are of little significance to
teachers of translation.
Other considerations related to developments in the field of translation
studies have encouraged me to opt for action research as a viable means
for investigating students’ attitudes to translation theory and practice. Cur-
rently, there is a growing tendency in the field to close the gap between pure
translation research and practical pursuits like translation teaching. As Hatim
144 Exploring MA Students’ Attitudes to Translation Theory and Practice

(2001:6) observes, the dichotomy of reflection vs. action has meant that
translation teachers are seen as merely implementing the theories and ideas
created by the researchers. Even when teachers come across a problem in
their own teaching practice, they can do nothing but consult the theorists and
the theoretical translation literature. This view is now being questioned by a
number of researchers within translation studies who believe that “research
is not only something done to or on practitioners, but is also something done
by practitioners” (ibid.:7). Accordingly, Hatim continues, it is commonly ac-
cepted nowadays in the field of translation studies that teachers of translation
“engage in the identification of interesting problem areas, the choice of suit-
able investigative procedures, and the pursuit of research aimed at providing
answers to a range of practical issues” (ibid.).
Within my institution, translation theory as a subject area is viewed at
both the school and departmental levels as an important component of the
translation and interpreting MA programme, and hence students’ attitudes
to theory need to be as positive as possible. This component aims at helping
students standardize their own translation practice and take well-informed
decisions in their own careers as professional translators. The translation
theory module is also meant to encourage students to engage with the
latest research in the field of translation studies, and hopefully continue
their studies to PhD level. This latter aspect makes the translation theory
component of the programme very important for future student recruitment,
which in turn adds to the urgency of maintaining and promoting students’
positive attitudes to theory.
My action research project is then embedded in my own practice as a
teacher of both translation theory and practice. The ultimate aims of this
research are: (i) identifying students’ attitudes to these two components
of the MA in translation and interpreting; (ii) reflecting on these attitudes,
putting them in context and trying to interpret them; (iii) reflecting on my
own research methods as used in this study in order to enhance my aware-
ness of my own investigative procedures; (iv) reflecting on the findings of
my research and identifying ways of improving my teaching practice based
on my findings.

1. Setting the scene: defining ‘attitude’, identifying data collection

protocols and reflecting on ethical considerations

1.1 Defining ‘attitude’

A key issue of concern is the definition of the concept of attitude, especially

given that I am not a specialist in educational psychology. To start my study,
I first needed a working definition. Through consultation with a colleague
who has an interest in learning attitudes, I was directed to the field of social
Sameh F. Hanna 145

psychology where I could find an understanding of the concept for the pur-
poses of my research. The difficulty with a concept like attitude is that it defies
scientific, empirical observation and analysis, especially when it is solely
correlated to the inner experience of the individual. Conceptualizing attitude
as a mental or emotional state is not helpful. I adopt Eiser’s view (1987)
that attitude is socially conditioned and finds expression only in a social act.
The social act could be an observable behaviour or a verbal statement that
describes the individual’s attitude. The observable behaviour that I could
identify and which motivated this study is the students’ low attendance at
translation studies classes compared to their attendance at translation practice
sessions. I also observed that their degree of involvement in theory-related
activities is lower than for practical classes.
These observable patterns of behaviour indicated that students’ attitudes
to translation theory are not positive. I aimed to verify this provisional
conclusion by collecting verbal statements from the students about their
conceptualization of ‘theory’ and, in particular, their attitude to translation
theory and the relevance of theory to translation practice.
My first step was to review module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs)
completed by the previous cohort of MA students of translation. I was told
that the feedback collected reflected a “generally positive attitude to the trans-
lation studies module”, almost to the same level as the attitudes expressed
toward the translation practice modules. Given my initial observations, I
was not totally convinced that this was an accurate reflection of student
perception and decided to do more research, but this time, data collection
would involve face-to-face interaction with the students themselves. I was
also a little concerned that MEQs are not totally reliable tools for identify-
ing students’ attitudes and I considered running interviews with a limited
number of students to establish the validity of my provisional conclusion. I
then needed to address two methodological considerations. The first had to
do with the interviews, their structure and content. The other related to the
criteria for selecting the interviewees.

1.2 Semi-structured interviews as a tool for data collection

My initial interest in interviews as a possible investigative tool was rein-

forced when I learnt that collaborative action research views conversation in
its different forms as a viable research method (Feldman 1999). Feldman’s
characterization of conversation as a research tool was thought provoking
and reinforced my initial belief that interviews are fit for the purposes of my
research, given my interest in empowering students by giving them the chance
to voice and rationalize their attitudes to translation theory and practice. Feld-
man characterizes conversation as a cooperative venture that has a direction.
He understands direction to develop from within the conversation rather than
146 Exploring MA Students’ Attitudes to Translation Theory and Practice

as something imposed on it. For him, the direction of the conversation is not
to be “predetermined by one or several of the participants” (1999:131), but
rather “arises through and in conversation via a hermeneutical process (Gad-
amer 1992), and is associated with the growth of understanding” (ibid.:133).
In view of this, I was hesitant to use structured interviews, as I thought they
would not allow for a genuine engagement in the discussion by the students.
To use Feldman’s characterization of conversation, structured interviews
leave no room for unexpected issues and insights to emerge, mainly be-
cause of their pre-determined nature. I also thought that a semi-structured
interview would help eliminate the hierarchy of researcher/respondent or
interviewer/interviewee and ultimately help in gaining more reliable feedback
about students’ attitudes. According to Kember, semi-structured interviews
involve a small list of questions that only point toward an area of interest to
the researcher. However, they “allow interviewees to raise any issues they
like within the general topic area” (2000:47). They also give the interviewees
the opportunity to raise their own agenda. This was in line with my initial
goal to empower students and allow them to freely voice their attitudes to
translation theory and practice. My belief in the emancipatory power of ac-
tion research was confirmed when I read an article by Staniforth and Harland
(2003), who stress the role of collaborative conversation in empowering
action research participants and helping them to air their concerns among
people with similar interests who face similar problems. Although Staniford
and Harland’s research was carried out in a different context to mine (they
researched the implications of collaborative action research for new academ-
ics), it helped me in a later stage of my research when I was a little sceptical
of the findings I arrived at through one-to-one interviews and hence needed
to run group discussions where students feel more free to discuss their views
and attitudes to translation theory.
I prepared a set of thirteen questions for the interview, three of which
aimed at eliciting detailed information about the profile of the students
interviewed (their age, cultural/linguistic background, and their academic
background). The remaining questions (see appendix) were designed to as-
sist students in articulating and reflecting on their own conceptualization of
what ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ are, their previous experience of theory-oriented
and practice-oriented modules (not necessarily related to translation), and
their evaluation of both translation theory and practice sessions in the MA
programme at Salford University, among other related issues. As I ran the
interviews, I took notes relating to specific comments and issues raised in the
discussion as I thought that taping the interviews might be threatening and
might inhibit the students from engaging freely in the conversation.
Two factors conditioned my selection of interviewees. The first was
the limited time available for doing the research, which meant that I had
to select a limited number of students for the interviews. Secondly, I was
Sameh F. Hanna 147

aware that my interviewees should be as representative as possible of the

student groups taking the translation studies module. By this I mean that the
student body come from different linguistic/cultural backgrounds and have
different understandings of what translation theory and practice are and the
kind of relationship that holds between them. Three criteria of selection
were identified: (i) age, (ii) cultural/linguistic background and (iii) academic
background. It is worth-noting that students take translation practice ses-
sions using different language combinations with different teachers, and
as a result of their different experiences in these language classrooms, they
develop and hold different understandings of translation practice. In terms of
cultural background, the students taking the translation studies module fall
into two main groups: students from an Arab background and students from
a Chinese background. There is also one student from an Irish background.
In terms of age range, the majority of students are aged between 23 and 28
years, though there are also some who fall in the 35 and 53 year age range.
Most students have a degree in English language and literature or applied
linguistics, though one student holds an undergraduate degree in mechanical
engineering. At this stage of the research and in view of these considerations,
three students (of the twenty five taking the translation studies module) were
selected for interview. All three had good attendance records.

1.3 Ethical considerations

Students selected for interview were made aware that they had the right to
not participate in the study. Before beginning the interview I outlined the
research aims and objectives and confirmed that they were willing to be inter-
viewed. All signed relevant participant permission forms. The ethical factor
that I had thought might impact on this research was the power relationship
between interviewer and interviewees, i.e. myself and my students. In spite
of the friendly relationship that I have with students, the power relation issue
could still be identified, especially when students were asked to give critical
feedback on the module, its content and their overall attitude to it. One way
of neutralizing this power relation element was to try to shift positions with
my students. In two of these interviews, I started the discussion by talking
about my experience of translation theory modules as a student at both
undergraduate and postgraduate levels. This helped to minimize the effect
of the asymmetrical power relation and provided the students with some
confidence and a safer environment to discuss the module and their attitude
to it. To further eliminate the power relation element, I ran two group discus-
sions in a less formal setting which facilitated greater freedom in expressing
views on the module. On two different occasions I held informal discussions
with two small groups of students about their attitudes (see section 2 below).
These discussions were run in an informal and friendly environment and the
148 Exploring MA Students’ Attitudes to Translation Theory and Practice

students were briefed on my research, its nature and hypotheses. Brief notes
were taken of the issues raised in these discussions.
I was also aware of the different cultural backgrounds my three inter-
viewees came from. One of my initial hypotheses was that people coming
from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds conceptualize theory and practice
differently. However, in the early stages of my research, I realized that this
hypothesis was ill-founded. The assumption that each of my interviewees
has one monolithic cultural background proved to be untrue. All the students
taking the translation studies module, including the three interviewees, have
hybrid cultural backgrounds. It would be unrealistic to claim that a student
belongs to one specific cultural background. One of the interviewees, for
instance, was born in Egypt and completed his undergraduate degree there,
but has been living in Britain for more than twenty years and is married to a
British citizen. My Irish student was born in Ireland, where she received her
secondary education, but she completed her undergraduate degree in Eng-
land, where she has been living for a number of years. My Chinese student
completed her undergraduate degree in English literature in Taiwan, where
she lived for many years. In my analysis of the data collected, as will be
discussed later, I could not identify a significant relationship between cultural
background and the conceptualization of theory and practice.

2. Data collection, analysis and interpretation

Interviews were run in three separate sessions, taking between 45 minutes and
one hour each. In addition to the three interviews, I collected feedback from
other students through two informal discussion sessions. These discussions
occurred at a later stage in the research project, at a social event to mark
the end of the term: they turned out to be quite useful in providing me with
feedback about students’ attitudes to the translation studies module and also
served to provide supplementary information which helped in overcoming
some of the limitations of the semi-structured interviews. My speculation
is that in the one-to-one interviews the students were more restrained in the
feedback they gave than they were in the group discussions. The impact of
the setting on the feedback gained from students was significant and will be
discussed below when evaluating my research methods.
The feedback gained from the students through the interviews and in-
formal discussions yielded some interesting insights. For instance, various
comments were made about what they thought of ‘theory’ in general, and
their definitions of ‘theory’ shed light on their attitudes to translation theory.
Interviewee A, aged 53 and with a degree in engineering from Cairo Uni-
versity, stated that theory is:

the building blocks on which a discipline is built. It provides the

main concepts that distinguish a discipline from other disciplines,
Sameh F. Hanna 149

the conceptual tools that make it possible for one to understand a

discipline and what it is about.

Interviewee B, aged 28, with a degree in English literature from Taiwan,

could not provide a definition of theory and when asked about the connota-
tions the word evokes for her, she came up with “boring; no clarity about the
relevance for real-life situations; I prefer practice modules”. Interviewee C
is a 23 year old Anglo-Irish student with a degree in applied linguistics who
defined theory as “understanding the background knowledge and information
about how and why you do things in life”. These different ways of conceptu-
alizing ‘theory’ indicate the importance of grounding theory in practice for
my students. Feedback highlighted the importance of explaining different
translation theories through case studies. This was especially highlighted by
students who were planning to have a career as researchers and who wanted
to see how theory can be used to explain different translation practices.
The interviewees’ conceptualizations of ‘theory’ revealed some of the
problems they had with the translation studies module. Interviewee A’s re-
sponse, for instance, was initially confusing for me because of his emphasis on
the abstract and disciplinary implications of theory, disregarding its related-
ness to practice. This response, however, flags up the reasons for his problems
with theory-oriented courses. His emphasis on theory as a boundary-marker
for a discipline is in line with his complaint about the open-ended structure
of the translation studies module and the need to minimize the topics taught
and the references given for reading. Interviewee B’s understanding of theory
as having no relevance to real-life situations explains her complaint about
the fact that the module does not include any case studies from the Chinese
translation tradition.
One important factor that I find instrumental in fashioning learners’ at-
titude to a certain module is the expectations they have about that module.
When asked about his expectations of the translation studies module, inter-
viewee A admitted that he had no expectations at all and that he could not
really speculate on what the module was all about, given that he did not have
a degree in the humanities or any related subject. This was not the case with
the other two interviewees or the students I talked to in the informal discus-
sion sessions. Most students did hold some expectations about the content
and structure of the module. When asked to rate their attitude to the transla-
tion studies module along a four-point rating scale (very positive, positive,
negative, and very negative), the three interviewees opted for ‘positive’. Most
of the students in the informal discussions, totalling nine students in both
sessions, opted for ‘positive’; one student maintained that his attitude is “not
as positive as he expected”; and two students said that they had negative at-
titudes at the beginning of the academic year, but by the end of the year they
developed into positive or even very positive attitudes. They attributed the
150 Exploring MA Students’ Attitudes to Translation Theory and Practice

change in their attitudes to the lectures in the second semester which revolved
around discussion of specific case studies. As one of the students said, the
discussion they had about the case studies increased their engagement with
translation theory and made studying theory more enjoyable.
When asked to rationalize and explain their attitudes to theory-oriented
modules in general and the translation studies module in particular, inter-
viewees came up with different explanations. While interviewees A and C
justified their attitudes in terms of the content and structure of the module,
interviewee B justified her attitude in terms of the delivery of the module,
teaching strategies and activities, and teacher-student relations. When asked
to reflect on her negative attitude to one of the theoretical modules she took
as part of her undergraduate degree, she commented:

It was all down to the relationship between the teacher and students.
This particular teacher could not show that he cared for the students
and that he was willing to attend to their needs, listen to their con-
cerns. He did not even have direct eye-contact with the students while
teaching, which I took to be the sign of a lack of respect.

Another issue that arose from analyzing students’ feedback in both the
semi-structured interviews and the informal group discussions is the degree
of enjoyment and involvement they have in the theory classes compared to
the translation practice sessions. All students maintained that they are more
involved in practical sessions, although some theory classes were more
enjoyable than others. They mentioned a session where they were asked
to prepare presentations on the practical implications of one of the transla-
tion theories they had studied in order to explain a translation case in the
languages they know.

3. Discussion and evaluation of research processes and findings

According to Heikkinen et al. (2007), for any action research to be valid it

should be based on a number of principles. One of these, known in the action
research literature as the principle of ‘reflexivity’, has to do with the research-
er’s awareness of his or her object of knowledge. In terms of this principle, it
is vital for action researchers to be able to analyze the relationship between
them and their object of research. This is premised on the assumption that
the ‘self’ of the researcher is not detached from the object and process of
research; it is rather part and parcel of them. As Somekh (2006:14) puts it,
“The self can be said to be a ‘research instrument”, and action researchers
need to be able to take into account their own subjectivity as an important
component of meaning making”. In view of this understanding I would like
to reflect on the research methods and processes followed in this project.
Sameh F. Hanna 151

One of the research tools that require critical reflection is the very concept
I based my study on, that is, the concept of attitude. In empirical research,
concepts are defined in a way that gives them an ‘objective’ status. In other
words, empirical research formulates concepts as clearly defined propositions
that have the same, agreed upon meaning for all members of the research
community. In action research, concepts are epistemological constructs. They
acquire meaning only when used by certain researchers in certain research
contexts. The subjectivities of the researchers contribute significantly to the
meaning-making of concepts. How ‘attitude’ is conceptualized by a criminal
psychologist, for instance, is different from how it is conceptualized by a
learner psychologist. Given that my primary field of interest is the sociology
of translation, I chose to subscribe to the definition of ‘attitude’ as formulated
in social psychology. My choice of a particular understanding of ‘attitude’ was
hence determined by my own background and my own research agenda.
In reflecting on the concept of ‘attitude’ I started with, I now find that
my understanding of the concept is becoming further complicated and actu-
ally leads to further questions rather than offering conclusive answers to
the questions I started with. This is again due to the cyclical and generative
nature of action research, in comparison with the linear and static nature of
conventional research (Wadsworth 1998). I started with an understanding
of the concept that relates it only to learners of translation theory. As the
study progressed, I found out that it is hard to disentangle learners’ attitude
to theory from the teachers’ attitude to theory and its practice. From infor-
mal discussions with colleagues who are teaching similar modules, I could
identify what might be termed as an ‘escapist’ attitude (for want of a better
term) whereby teachers, totally relying on MEQ’s, are content that the way
theory is taught is satisfactory. The decision not to see the students’ real at-
titudes to the subject further complicates the problem.
My subjectivity was also instrumental in shaping the research process at
different stages. The design of the semi-structured interview was a case in
point. The very selection of particular questions and topics, rather than others,
reflects the effect of my subjectivity on the research process. One way of
mitigating the influence of my subjectivity in designing the semi-structured
interview was piloting the interview questions by having them checked by
a colleague teaching translation theory. This will be taken into consideration
when running interviews for future action research projects. Being aware
of the limitation of semi-structured interviews led me to think of informal
discussion groups as a complementary tool for data collection where the
structure and content of the conversation was more free and less constrained
by my subjectivity. I also found discussion groups more in line with my
understanding of attitude as a form of social behaviour that finds expression
in a social act. The fact that interviewee A was more straightforward and
less reserved in expressing his attitude toward the translation studies module
152 Exploring MA Students’ Attitudes to Translation Theory and Practice

when he was part of a group than when he was in a one-to-one interview

is interesting in this context. Students seemed more empowered in a group
discussion and more capable of articulating, explicating and reflecting on
their attitudes to translation theory.
In view of the research findings, the insights students offered in both the
interviews and the informal discussions were enlightening and helped to
problematize my understanding of their attitude to both translation theory and
practice. As mentioned earlier, the learners’ attitudes to translation theory is
conditioned by their previous experience of theory-oriented modules. This
was clear from the feedback I gained in the interviews and discussions where
previous theory-oriented modules were raised as a point of reference and
comparison. It makes the study of learners’ attitudes to translation theory
more complex than I had envisaged. In view of this knowledge, my future
research into learners’ attitudes will need to be situated within the learners’
previous educational experience.
Other feedback had direct implications for my teaching practice. For
instance, one of the students said that what happens outside the translation
studies class is equally important to what is done inside the class in shaping
the students’ attitudes to the subject. She meant that extra-curricular activities,
particularly the activities that can be provided through a virtual learning
environment, can play an important role in creating and re-creating learners’
attitudes. This indicates an area in my practice that I need to improve.
Content-wise, most students suggested that focusing the content of the
module around a limited set of theories and approaches would help improve
future learners’ attitudes to translation theory, especially if more emphasis
is laid on case studies.

4. Conclusion: recommendations for future action research

By the end of this project I realized that one of the strengths of action research
is its evolving nature and its adaptability to the changing research context. In
view of the shortcomings and limitations of my research project and potential
action research projects that would build on what has already been achieved,
the following recommendations are suggested:

• Create an environment for a greater involvement of the learners in the

research process, not as mere interviewees or informants but as genuine
collaborators;
• Seek more involvement from colleagues who are teaching similar
modules;
• Pilot semi-structured interviews for a more effective and reliable data
collection process.
Sameh F. Hanna 153

One of the things I learnt through this project is that action research is a tool
for both effecting educational change and enacting social involvement. As
McNiff rightly puts it, “The social basis of action research is involvement;
the educational basis is improvement” (1988:3). Of equal importance for me
in future projects is improving my own practice as well as involving both
students and teachers in the action research process. My awareness of the
limitations of semi-structured interviews, where the hierarchy of researcher/
researched is still maintained, led me to consider informal discussions as
an alternative data collection tool where this hierarchy is diminished. This
proved useful in the current context as it involved the students in the research
process, although it entailed another limitation related to ethical considera-
tions. Although the students who participated in informal discussions were
aware that I was conducting research on learners’ attitudes to translation
theory, they were not asked to sign participant consent forms as I thought that
this would negatively affect the informality of the setting and hence impact
the quality of feedback gained. One of the ideas I aim to implement in future
action research is the creation of an informal virtual forum where students
can post and discuss their attitudes freely and in a less threatening environ-
ment. This might further diminish the hierarchy of researcher/ researched
and create a ‘democratic’ environment where perceived equality of status
guarantees genuine feedback.
The collaboration of colleagues is something I found essential in view
of the nature of both action research and the issue of learners’ attitude. As
mentioned earlier, I believe that among the factors that condition the learners’
attitude to translation theory is their teachers’ attitudes to both translation
theory and practice and how they enact their attitudes in their pedagogy. One
of the issues I would like to investigate in the future, building on this current
research, is university teachers’ attitudes to the teaching of translation theory.
One of the valuable outcomes of my action research project is that it alerted
me to the stakeholders in any pedagogical enterprise. In future action research
I will seek to invest more in active collaboration with my colleagues as key
stakeholders in the teaching of translation theory and practice.
Having completed my first cycle of this action research project, I tend to
agree with McNiff (1988) that educational research through action research
approaches is itself educational. In other words, I learnt through this project,
not only a little more about my students’ attitudes to translation theory and
its relevance to translation practice, but also about how I think about and
rationalize these attitudes and how my thinking can be further enhanced
through genuine collaboration with colleagues and students.

SAMEH F. HANNA
The University of Salford, Maxwell Building, Salford, Greater Manchester,
M5 4WT, United Kingdom. s.hanna@salford.ac.uk
154 Exploring MA Students’ Attitudes to Translation Theory and Practice

References

Brookfield, Stephen D. (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Eiser, Richard (1987) The Expression of Attitude, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Feldman, Allan (1999) ‘The Role of Conversation in Collaborative Action Re-
search’, Educational Action Research 7(1): 125-47.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1992) Truth and Method, trans. by D. G. Marshall, New
York: Crossroad.
Hatim, Basil (2001) Teaching and Researching Translation, London: Longman.
Heikkinen, Hannu L. T., Rauno Huttunen and Leena Syrjala (2007) ‘Action
Research as Narrative: Five Principles for Validation’, Educational Action
Research 15(1): 5-19.
Kember, David (2000) Action Learning and Action Research: Improving the
Quality of Teaching and Learning, London: Kogan Page Limited.
Lederer, Marianne (2007) ‘Can Theory Help Interpreter and Translator Trainers
and Trainees?’, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1(1): 15-35.
McNiff, Jean (1988) Action Research: Principles and Practice, London:
Routledge.
Reason, Peter (2004) ‘Action Research: Forming Communicative Space for Many
Ways of Knowing – Response to Md. Anisur Rahman’. Available at http://
people.bath.ac.uk/mnspwr/Papers/DhakaFormingCommunicativeSpace.
htm (last accessed 29 May 2008).
------ and Hilary Bradbury (eds) (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Partici-
pative Inquiry and Practice, London: Sage Publications.
Somekh, Bridget (2006) Action Research: A Methodology for Change and De-
velopment, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Staniforth, David and Tony Harland (2003) ‘Reflection on Practice: Collabora-
tive Action Research for New Academics’, Educational Action Research
11(1): 79-92.
Wadsworth, Yoland (1998) What Is Participatory Action Research. Available
at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.html (last ac-
cessed 29 April 2008).
Zhu, Chunshen (2002) ‘Translation: Theories, Practice, and Teaching’, in Eva
Hung (ed.) Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4, Amsterdam: John Ben-
jamins, 19-30.
Sameh F. Hanna 155

Appendix

Questions Used for the Semi-structured Interviews

The following are ‘prompt’ questions which were meant to open up a semi-
structured discussion with my collaborators. They are not listed in any
particular order [order of delivery was different in each of the three inter-
views] and are not meant to establish or highlight a researcher/respondent
hierarchy:

Q1 Did you take any theory-oriented modules before? How do you de-
scribe your experience of them? Did you find them useful for your
later career?

Q2 Have you taken any modules in Translation Theory or Translation

Practice before? How do you evaluate them?

Q3 How do you understand theory and how do you conceptualize the

relation between it and practice?

Q4 How do you compare practice-oriented and theory-oriented modules

in this programme? Discuss with reference to: content and assess-
ment, class activities, teaching methods, the relevance to your career,
the class environment, etc.

Q5 What do you expect from a module with focus on ‘translation

theory’?

Q6 What do you think makes a theory-oriented translation module

successful?

Q7 How do you describe your attitude to the translation studies module?

Use the following ratings: very negative, negative, positive, very
positive.

Q8 How do you explain/account for this attitude?

Q9 What do you think needs to be done in order to adjust/change this

attitude?

Q 10 If the translation studies module was to be offered as an option, would

you choose it again, having now gone through the experience?