Traditionally, social science research makes a distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods, also known as empirical-analytical, positivist or objectivist approaches on the one hand and interpretative or subjectivist approaches on the other.9 These are the two pivotal categories around which analyses of social phenomena revolve, each subsuming a wide range of specific methods such as factor analysis, case studies, grounded theory etc.
They form the staple ingredient of all major textbooks on research methodology (cf. e.g. the influential introductory works by Babbie, 2004, and Neuman, 2003).
It is noteworthy, however, that although the quantitative vs. qualitative divide is a fundamental tenet of sociology as an academic discipline the two concepts are not always neatly distinguished or kept apart. Some sociologists have bemoaned the lack of a clear-cut definition, stating that “current literature is replete with instances of imprecise and conflicting usage of these terms” (Lynch, 1983, 461), while others have made a strong case for a pragmatic mixed methods research (e.g. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) or downright questioned the legitimacy of a separation between these concepts (Howe, 1992; Prakash et al., 2007). In a recent attempt at conciliation that is representative of the current trend, Haig has argued that “we are likely to gain a better understanding of the research methods we use not by viewing them as either qualitative or quantitative but by regarding them as having both qualitative and quantitative dimensions” (2013, 28).
It is probably true that many researchers strive to diversify their methods and to tackle their subject from different angles in order to strengthen their inquiry and findings. And it is certainly true that the quantitative and qualitative categories do have a common denominator in that they are both considered to represent valid scientific approaches; both rely on data gathering, on a particular research design and on the subsequent analysis of that data in an attempt to arrive at meaningful conclusions about social reality. But this does not detract from the fact that, at a conceptual level, they still represent two antithetical sides of the same research coin, as it were. What separates them might even be more significant than any
9 The canonical terms seem to be “qualitative” and “quantitative” as used, for instance, in the handbooks by Babbie and Newman. Nevertheless, “empirical-analytical” and “interpretative”, though maybe not as neat an opposition, are useful designations too as they come closer to what the respective methods are about (they are taken from the University of Southern California website on research methodology). “Objectivism and subjectivism” are the headings employed by Holden and Lynch (2004, 400), while Howe speaks of the “positivist-interpretivist split” (1992, 238).
potential common ground between them, namely the epistemological underpinnings of each term. Both are embedded in fundamentally different world views and spring from diametrically opposed assumptions about our relationship with the world around us. As Guba puts it, “one precludes the other just as surely as belief in a round world precludes belief in a flat one” (1987, 31). Even in his own attempt to overcome their binary opposition, Howe concedes that “[t]his argument is basically correct when properly restricted: positivism and interpretivism are incompatible” (1992, 239; italics in the original). Consequently, every researcher seems to be obliged to choose one side over the other, even though he may do so only implicitly. This epistemological dimension should not be neglected; it is a decisive factor in any kind of research, as Trochim points out: “All research is based on assumptions about how the world is perceived and how we can best come to understand it” (2006, para.
3). To critics who would dismiss these philosophical considerations as extraneous to research, Holden and Lynch reply with a rhetorical question that puts the finger on the problem: “if a researcher perceives ontology and epistemology to be irrelevant, then how can they ensure that their methods are really appropriate to the problem in hand?” (2004, 407).
Therefore, in order to understand and justify the choice of a particular research method, it seems necessary to make these underlying ideas explicit and to connect them with the research project.
This study sides with the proponents of qualitative methods who believe that meaning is not inherent in the world ready to be discovered but needs to be constructed by means of an interpretative process on the part of the researcher. Both the subject under study and the researcher are embedded in certain linguistic, historical and ethical contexts which has a bearing on their actions and thoughts. The general approach adopted here is therefore qualitative since the investigation focuses on a specific scenario from which no extrapolation or generalisation can be made. In the words of the online writing guide published by the University of Southern California, this study will “focus on analytically disclosing the meaning-making practices of human subjects [the why, how, or by what means people do what they do]” (“Groups of research methods”, 2014, para. 2).
As has been stated, the aim is to gather information on the Olympic Movement and its interpreting activities to help interpreters prepare for potential assignments in the Olympic institutions. To achieve this end, the two qualitative research methods proposed here are (1) document analysis (an critical evaluation of published texts) and (2) an interview/questionnaire (data obtained through written and oral communication with an expert). Both approaches are exclusively word-based and thus necessarily imply a subjective
selection, interpretation and ordering of the data extracted from the various sources, a process that will be guided by considerations of relevance and utility.
The document analysis method forms the basis for Part I of this thesis. We will draw on the numerous publications by the IOC and other Olympic bodies as the mainstay of the study. In particular, the websites of the IOC (www.olympic.org/ioc) and of the Olympic Museum (www.olympic.org/museum) are treasure-troves of information and will prove useful especially for Part I. They contain most of the official documents of the Olympic Movement in the official languages English and French, but also a large number of publications in other languages (notably German). Apart from this promotional material, we will also include critical comments and analyses from the academic literature on the Olympic Movement. The book-length studies and academic journal articles referred to throughout this study offer an intellectual backdrop to the more factual information and serve to elucidate the conceptual underpinnings of the Olympic Movement. The main challenge of the text analysis will be to select relevant sources and to reduce the complexity of the topic. Only essential information will be retained and subsequently arranged in a logical way so that it can be easily and quickly accessed by readers to provide them with a firm grounding in the topic. The chapters and subsections of this study are organised in the form of key words and concepts that allow for a quick look-up.
The questionnaire/interview method will be used for Part II and will consist of a conversation conducted by email and VoIP telephony with the long-standing chief interpreter and interpreting consultant of the Olympic Games, Bill Weber. While also interpreting for the IOC during its Executive Board meetings and Sessions, Bill Weber has been involved in all Summer and Winter Games since the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. His first Olympic assignment dates back to the 1968 Winter Games in Grenoble (Schubert, 2006, para. 5). The Los Angeles Games offered an opportunity for him to mobilise the staff and students at the Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation of the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS), where he was dean from 1978 to 1992 (ibid.) He has recruited interpreters for many IOC Sessions and Commissions as well as for other institutions of the Olympic Movement. In total, he has been chief interpreter at eight Olympic Games. The 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro will be his last in this capacity. Considering this impressive track record, Bill Weber is very likely the most authoritative expert in the field. Again, the approach pursued in this part of the thesis is exclusively qualitative as it will only involve one, if highly reliable and instructive, source of information. It will not generate any quantifiable data or provide the basis for constructing general theories. The questionnaire/interview is semi-structured and divided into five sections covering different aspects of the language service at
the Olympic Games and the IOC (see the questionnaire with the original questions and answers that have served in large part as the basis for the elaboration of Part II of this study).
Thanks to the interview and the kind collaboration of Bill Weber, it was possible to obtain valuable details about the subject that have not previously been published in any publicly available sources.