Questionnaires and

Interviews in Theatre
Translation Research
A Promising Approach or a
Methodological Cul-de-sac?
 History and background
(Not only) Questionnaires in theatre research

● Ravar/Anrieu (1959), Sheffield Playhouse (1965)

– focus on audience reception and response
– research has commercial use, conducted by theatres
– target groups are all theatregoers

● Pavis (1983-), Ubersfeld, Helbo (Pavis 2008)

– performance analysis as research aim, various aspects of a
mise-en-scene included in the analysis
- issues: unintelligible terminology, inadequacy of target
groups, difference between scholarly and ‘normal’
spectator

● Oral History of Czech Theatre (2015-)

– recording reflections of theatre professionals in Czech
– actors, directors, dramaturges, translators
– issues: lack of thematic focus, personal rather than
professional
 History and background
(Not only) Questionnaires in theatre translation research
● Johnston (1996)
– practitioners’ essays, 9 interviews with professionals, round
table at Gate theatre
– short notes about the respondents/authors are included in
the interviews and essays
– his aim is to collect “the voices from the field”, illuminating
translators’ status and ways of working mostly in the UK
– research is general, addresses the most basic questions in
the field, culturally restricted to the UK as a target system
● Zatlin (2005)
– questionnaires for 36 respondens (12 languages), some are
translators and some theatre professionals
– interviews via mail and telephone (1986 and 2003)
– questionnaire is adapted for specific countries
– uses responses to back her claims, explain attitudes, and
pinpoint potential issues
– questionnaire are still general, but the responses are rich in
information on practices in various cultures
 The Rationale Behind
● predominance and limitations of logocentric research of theatre translation

● lots of translation shifts and strategies can be explained by external factors (power
relations, stage requirements, copyright, audience expectations, etc).

● the field itself calls for an approach that would take these factors into account

● the only way to examine these processes and interactions is by approaching practitioners

● social sciences can provide the tools and knowledge for delving into the practices of these
communities, and discovering their relationships, work conditions, as well as individual
creative impulses that shape the texts that we see as results

● the methodology of questionnaires and interviews would make it possible for one to focus
on specific issues that translators and theatre professionals face, and discover
circumstances and situations that are otherwise non-accessible to the public
 The Tools
● The Direct Approach: Individual email exchange
– concerned with concrete questions about specific projects
– aim: to reveal certain circumstances and facts, such as authorship and strategy ownership
– a very personal way to inquire into otherwise public matters, such as theatre production or book publication
– Radek Malý’s translation of Faust for the production at National Theatre in Prague
– Jiří Josek’s account on translating Macbeth and adapting the text for various productions
– František Derfler’s reminiscences on adapting and staging Macbeth in Brno’s Divadlo U stolu

● The Questionnaires

● The Interviews
 The Questionnaires
● Inspired by Zatlin’s version, but reworked and further expanded
● Focused on the following aspects:

artistic ambition, myths, copyright, theatre as medium, culture/audience specific and expectations, and
cooperation among professionals

● two questionnaires: one for translators, one for theatre professionals

● extremely low response rate with second questionnaire
● theatre professionals reluctant to cooperate
● yes/no responses, insufficient information, unwillingness to clarify and elaborate
● different approach needed: respondents saw questionnaires as too rigid and
bureaucratic
 The Interviews
● theatre professionals as the main target group, conversations recorded and later transcribed
● revolving around the same aspects as the Questionnaires, with special focus on the work of the specific
respondents
● advantages: (1) possibility of asking additional questions or clarifying questions and responses, (2)
interviewees can reflect upon what they had said previously, (3) interviewer can guide and steer the
conversation to their own ends, (4) due to the informal approach, respondents are willing to reveal
more than they would put in writing
● taking place in a coffee house (Cafe Tungrsram in Brno being their venue of choice) or a bar, informal
atmosphere is created, respondents can loosen up
● noise from the environment, background sounds
 The Outcome
● these tools helped confirm previous theses, that (1) generally, theatre translators still tend to approach
the subject philologically, setting out to keep the author’s style and semantic nuances rather than
telling/rewriting a story, or that (2) cooperation between theatre professionals and translators is still
rather rare and insufficient according to some respondents
● it revealed certain underlying issues, such as the negative attitude towards copyright system on the
side of the chamber scene
● it provided previously unknown information concerning individual texts and productions, such as the
authorship of the translation and adaptation of 1996/2019 production of The Beggar’s Opera.
● insight into how the role of the translator is changing: ambulance translator, theatre professionals
acting as translators, multilingualism as part of modern theatre’s aesthetics and a practical aspect of a
production...

Thank you for your attention