Report

A survey to profile conference interpreting

practice in China

Chao Han
Southwest University, China

This report presents findings from an online survey of 140 English/Chinese con-
ference interpreters, conducted as a follow-up of an exploratory diary study (Han
2015), to provide a detailed account of real-life interpreting practice in China.
Three main tendencies are identified: a) conference-related materials (mainly
programmes and speakers’ scripts/notes) are often received late, leaving little
preparation time; b) interpreters do a much wider variety of simultaneous inter-
preting tasks than previously thought, albeit with varying degrees of frequency;
c) difficulties are felt to arise mainly from technical subject matter and terminol-
ogy, speakers’ delivery (strong accent, speed), and lack of preparation. These find-
ings largely support the diary study results and previous scholarly descriptions.

Keywords: conference interpreting, interpreting practice, simultaneous

interpreting

1. Introduction

A detailed description of real-life interpreting practice is beneficial to interpreter ed-

ucators and assessors, as it could be used to inform pedagogical practice (e.g., Wang
& Lin 2006) and assessment (e.g., Campbell & Hale 2003; Chen 2009). Although
three surveys have provided an informative description of market conditions and
the interpreting profession in China (Pan et al. 2009; STTACAS & TRANSN 2007;
Wang 2005), there has so far been little attempt to focus such research on various
practical details of real-life conference interpreting practice. For instance, how do
interpreters prepare for conferences? What specific types of interpreting are they
asked to do (e.g., with a text provided in good time), and how often? What are the
distinctive features of these tasks (e.g., source text form and delivery)?
In order to obtain such information, an exploratory diary study was conduct-
ed by this author, based on a small sample of 11 interpreters (see Han 2015). Four

Interpreting 18:2 (2016), 259–272.  doi 10.1075/intp.18.2.05han

issn 1384–6647 / e-issn 1569–982X © John Benjamins Publishing Company
260 Chao Han

preliminary findings emerged: a) the interpreters received conference-related ma-

terials such as PowerPoint (PPT) presentations and speakers’ scripts or speaking
notes, but had little time to prepare; b) the preparation techniques used to famil-
iarize the interpreters with the subject matter seemed to be time-dependent; c) the
interpreters performed a far greater variety of simultaneous interpreting (SI) tasks
than the three general categories previously identified by various authors — i.e., SI
with text (Setton 2009; Wang & Lin 2006), SI with PPT (Kalina 2002; Wan 2004)
and SI for question and answer (Q&A) sessions (Chang & Wu 2009); d) the in-
terpreters needed to work in both directions and frequently confronted an array
of factors contributing to the difficulty of SI, such as fast source text delivery and
high information density. A more detailed account of the diary study can be found
in Han (2015).
Given the small sample size in that earlier study, however, the author was con-
cerned about the validity and generalizability of the diary findings. To verify these
results, he designed an online survey, using SurveyMonkey, and administered it to
a broader cohort of interpreters in China. The survey reported below thus repre-
sents a follow-up and extension of the original diary study.

2. Method

The focal point of the four-part original survey1 was Section III, comprising three
blocks of questions. Each of these examined a specific aspect of interpreting prac-
tice, as follows: I – What conference-related materials did respondents receive in
advance? (Questions 10–11); II – How frequently did they perform 18 varieties of
SI task (e.g., SI of an impromptu speech)? (Questions 13–16);2 III – What were the
characteristics of these SI tasks? (Questions 17–19, covering directionality, dura-
tion of an interpreting turn, and factors underlying the difficulty of SI). To ascertain
how often the different varieties of SI task were performed (Questions 13–16), 18
Likert-type items were constructed. A seven-point frequency rating scale was used,
assigning a number to each frequency descriptor (e.g., “Always” – 7, “Never” – 1).
To participate, three criteria had to be met: a) participants practiced SI; b) they
interpreted between Chinese and English; c) they were working in China. In or-
der to boost sample size, a multi-pronged approach was taken. The first sampling
method was to collaborate with a Chinese interpreting website. The website ad-
ministrators posted the survey web link (see footnote 1) and relevant information

1.  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/A_profile_of_conference_interpreting_practice

2.  For more detailed information on the 18 varieties of SI task, see the original online survey
cited above, and Han (2015).
 A survey to profile conference interpreting practice in China 261

on its Weibo account, the Chinese version of Twitter. It was hoped that eligible
interpreters would self-select to participate. Another method was to send an in-
vitation email to all Chinese/English interpreters affiliated with two professional
organizations: AIIC and the Shanghai Interpreters’ Association. The last method
was to distribute the survey web link to interpreters within the author’s profes-
sional network. Recruitment was thus based on non-probability sampling.
The collected data was processed, using NVivo 10 for analysis of qualitative
data (e.g., verbal comments) and basic cross-tabulation; and SPSS 21, for inferen-
tial statistical analyses of task frequency ratings.

3. Results

3.1 Demographic data

Table 1 shows respondents’ demographic data, under the following headings: gen-
der, age, education, interpreter training, employment status, SI experience, and
working location. Women made up almost two thirds of the sample. Interpreters’
ages ranged between 22 and 64 years, with almost two thirds in the 26–35 age
group. In terms of education, almost three quarters of the respondents had a mas-
ter’s degree; with specific reference to interpreter training, well over half of them
held a postgraduate-level interpreting qualification.
Regarding employment status, nearly half the sample interpreted on a part-
time basis in addition to a stable job; almost 40% were freelancers, not committed
to a particular employer for the bulk of their work; the remainder (fractionally
over 15%) were staff interpreters. SI experience ranged from half a year to 30 years
and averaged about five years; over half the respondents had no more than three
years’ experience.
Respondents were distributed over the four geographical areas where China’s
main economic activities are concentrated: the Bohai Economic Rim, center-
ing on Beijing; the Yangtze River Delta, around Shanghai; the Pearl River Delta,
with Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Hong Kong as its major poles; and the Cheng-Yu
Economic Zone, linking the mega-cities of Chengdu and Chongqing, in China’s
mid-west. While respondents in the Cheng-Yu Zone accounted for only about
10% of the total, the other three areas were all more or less equally represented.
This distribution is probably a simple reflection of the correlation between eco-
nomic activity and demand for interpretation (STTACAS & TRANSN 2007).
262 Chao Han

Table 1.  Demographic data

Demographic variables No. Percentage (%)
Gender
Male   51 36.4
Female   89 63.6
Age
22–25 years old   30 21.4
26–35 years old   90 64.3
Over 35 years old   20 14.3
Education
High school    4   2.9
Bachelor’s qualification   26 18.6
Master’s qualification 100 71.4
Doctorate    9   6.4
Other    1   0.7
Interpreter training and education
Self-taught   15 10.7
Intensive interpreter training course   30 21.4
Interpreting diploma    7   5.0
Postgraduate-level interpreting qualification   83 59.3
Other    5   3.6
Employment status
Part-time   63 45.0
Freelance   55 39.3
Staff interpreters   22 15.7
SI experience
3 years or less (≤ 3 years)   82 58.6
4 years or more (≥ 4 years)   58 41.4
Location
Bohai Economic Rim   38 27.1
Yangtze River Delta   46 32.9
Pearl River Delta   42 30.0
Cheng-Yu Economic Zone   14 10.0
 A survey to profile conference interpreting practice in China 263

3.2 Question block I: Results

Figure 1 summarizes the answers to Question 10, about the kind of material in-
terpreters usually receive in advance for preparation. The four items on the left
in the figure were the most frequently mentioned — i.e., PPT presentations and
the conference programme in the great majority of cases, with speakers’ career
details and scripts or speaking notes both mentioned in almost half the returned
questionnaires.
As a conference interpeter, I usually obtained the following
conference-related materials and information in advance:
91.4 %
90 87.1 %

80

70

60
52.1 % 51.4 %
50
44.3 %
(%)

40 37.9 %

30
20% 18.6 %
20
15%
12.9 %
10% 10% 8.6 % 7.9 %
10 7.1 %
2.9 %
0
PPT presentations

Conference programme

Biosketches/CVs

Speakers' scripts/notes

Speech abstract

Verbal info. from organizers

Glossary

Verbal info. from co-interpreters

Conference minutes

Journal articles

Verbal info. from speakers

Video materials

Audio materials

Books

Verbal info. from professionals

Other

Figure 1.  Conference-related materials or information obtained in advance

Figure 2 shows when the interpreters received PPT presentations, the conference
programme and speakers’ scripts or speaking notes (i.e., Question 11). Although
these materials were made available to the interpreters at different times, most of
the PPT presentations and scripts/speaking notes were received close to the actual
date, the conference programme being sent out at a more or less constant rate
throughout the week leading up to the event.
264 Chao Han

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Shortly 1–2 days 3–4 days 5–6 days About 1 week
before SI before before before before
tasks start conference conference conference conference
PPT presentations Speakers' scripts/notes Conference programme
Figure 2.  When did you usually receive conference-related materials?

3.3 Question block II: Results

Table 2 presents the frequency scores for the 18 varieties of SI task (i.e., Questions
13–16). SI with Text (ShortMod), in which interpreters receive the speaker’s script
or speaking notes shortly before interpreting and find them to be moderately close
to the speech as actually delivered,3 was taken as a baseline, because the average
score and standard deviation for this item (M = 3.97, SD = 1.47) were very close to
the overall average for all 18 tasks (M = 3.95, SD = 1.43).
The scores show that nine tasks were performed more frequently than the
baseline task. To examine whether the frequency scores of these nine SI tasks were
significantly higher than the baseline, a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was
performed. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been
violated, χ² (44) = 366.16, p < 0.05; the degree of freedom was therefore correct-
ed, using the Greenhouse-Geisser estimate of sphericity (ε = 0.65). The ANOVA
showed that the frequency scores were significantly affected by the variety of SI
task performed, F (5.8, 32.17) = 13.77, p < 0.05. Having ascertained the significant
main effect of task type, simple contrasts indicated that the frequency scores of
the SI task varieties were significantly higher than the baseline (p < 0.05), with two
exceptions: SI with PPT (LongMod), F (1, 0.46) = 0.18, p = 0.67; and SI with PPT

3.  Definitions for qualifiers such as “Shortly”, “Long before”, “Abundantly”, “Moderately” and
“Barely” are provided in the original survey.
 A survey to profile conference interpreting practice in China 265

(ShortMod), F (1, 5.6) = 3.60, p = 0.06. These trends indicate that the top seven SI
tasks were performed significantly more often than the baseline task.

Table 2.  Statistical information for the 18 varieties of SI task

SI task variety Mean SD Rank
SI (DiaIntr) 5.09 1.34  1
SI with PPT (ShortAbun) 4.96 1.32  2
SI (MonoImprm) 4.75 1.45  3
SI with Text (ShortAbun) 4.66 1.52  4
SI with PPT (LongAbun) 4.42 1.55  5
SI with no Materials (NoPPT) 4.35 1.27  6
SI with no Materials (NoText) 4.26 1.24  7
SI with PPT (ShortMod) 4.17 1.40  8
SI with PPT (LongMod) 4.03 1.30  9
SI with Text (ShortMod) 3.97 1.47 10
SI with Text (LongMod) 3.77 1.36 11
SI with Text (LongAbun) 3.65 1.66 12
SI with no Materials (NoText&PPT) 3.56 1.39 13
SI (Audio/video) 3.39 1.50 14
SI with Text (LongBar) 3.21 1.39 15
SI with PPT (LongBar) 3.09 1.48 16
SI with PPT (ShortBar) 2.90 1.56 17
SI with Text (ShortBar) 2.85 1.62 18
Grand Average Score 3.95 1.43 n/a
Note: DiaIntr = dialogic interaction; MonoImprm = monologic impromptu; n/a = not applicable; Abun:
abundantly matched (i.e., a speaker’s script/PPT presentation is more than 70% matched with the speech
as actually delivered); Mod: moderately (40–60%) matched; Bar: barely (less than 30%) matched; Short:
shortly before SI (material is received on the actual date of SI); Long: long before SI (material is received
one or more days before SI).

3.4 Question block III: Results

Figure 3 presents the results for Question 17, about SI directionality. Overall, three
findings emerge: a) all the respondents interpreted in both directions (i.e., from
English to Chinese and vice versa), though to differing degrees; b) nearly half of
the respondents reported interpreting in both directions for an approximately
equal amount of time; c) overall, SI was performed more often from English to
Chinese than vice versa.
266 Chao Han

Based on my experience, I interpreted between Chinese (C) and

English (E ) as follows:
60

47.1 %
45
(%)

30

18.6 %
14.3 % 13.6 %
15
6.4 %
0% 0%
0
Only from C Considerably More In both More Considerably Only
to E more from C from C directions for from E more from E from E
to E to E an equal to C to C to C
amount of
time
Figure 3.  Directionality of SI

Figure 4 indicates the usual duration of a single interpreting turn (Question 18):
the two most frequently selected answers were 11–20 minutes (about 60% of re-
spondents) and 21–30 minutes (just over 40%). However, regular interpreting
turns in excess of half an hour were also reported.
In a single uninterrupted interpreting turn, I USUALLY
interpreted for: (You may indicate more than one)
70
60.7 %, 85/140
60
50 42.1 %, 59/140
40
(%)

30
20
8.6 %, 12/140
10 7.9 %, 11/140 5.7 %, 8/140
0
≤ 10 min 11 min–20 min 21 min–30 min 31 min–40 min ≥ 41 min
Figure 4.  Duration of an interpreting turn

Figure 5 shows the interpreters’ assessment of which factors could contribute

to the difficulty of SI (Question 19). The factors were categorized into six major
groups: “interpreter-related factors”; “working conditions”; “SI task features”; “lin-
guistic dimension” and “paralinguistic dimension” of input material; and “other”.
Seven factors were chosen by over half the respondents. These were, in de-
scending order of frequency: unfamiliarity with subject matter (79.3%); speaker
with strong accent (69.3%); fast source text delivery (63.6%); technical terminology
 A survey to profile conference interpreting practice in China 267

(61.4%); lack of preparation (60.7%); high information density (57.9%); and lack
of cohesion and logic in source text (55.0%). Interpreter-related factors, as well as
the (para)linguistic dimensions of source-language input, were thus all considered
important.
Which of the following could be FREQUENT contributory factors in relation to

Complex syntax
Unfamiliarity with subject matter

Lack of preparation

Booth discomfort

Equipment technical problems

Poor visibility

Long duration of interpreting turns

Directionality of SI tasks

Dense information

Technical termonology

Culture-bound expressions

Lack of cohesion and logic

Register

Strong accent

Fast delivery speed

Inappropriate segmentation of sentences

Monotonous intonation

Other

Interpreter- Working Task Linguistic dimension Paralinguistic Other

related conditions dimension dimension
factors

Figure 5.  Factors contributing to the difficulty of SI

4. Discussion

4.1 Demographic information

Almost two thirds of respondents were women (63.6%); the 26–35 age group ac-
counted for a similar proportion of the sample, as did those with a good level of
education (master’s degree, 71.4%; postgraduate-level interpreting qualification,
59.3%). In addition, the great majority were either part-time interpreters (45%) or
freelancers (39.3%) and worked in the more economically dynamic regions (90%);
most had less than 3 years of SI experience (58.6%). Since the survey was based on
268 Chao Han

non-probability sampling, the respondents may not represent the population ad-
equately.
Interestingly, the demographic profile from previous surveys in China (Pan
et al. 2009; STTACAS & TRANSN 2007; Wang 2005) is similar to the current
one: a group of relatively young interpreters who are mostly well-educated, have
a moderate amount of experience, and tend to work as freelancers or part-timers.
For example, in the national survey (STTACAS & TRANSN 2007), 70% of the
respondents are between 20 to 35 years old, 54% have only 1–5 years’ experience,
and nearly 70% of them work part-time.
The interpreter profile shared by the four surveys could be explained in two
ways. One possible explanation is that the profile indeed reflects the current make-
up of the profession in China. In other words, the influx of new graduates from
domestic and overseas interpreting programs has arguably resulted in a younger
and less experienced workforce, willing to work more flexibly. The alternative, and
more plausible, explanation is that the sampling method in all four surveys is based
on non-probabilistic selection. This has conceivably made senior interpreters less
willing to participate and, whatever the reasons for this reluctance, has probably led
to biased samples. The non-probability sampling used here therefore requires that
the survey results be looked at cautiously and placed in an appropriate perspective.
However, the sampling problem is not uncommon in social sciences, particu-
larly in Interpreting Studies. Pöchhacker (2009) identifies two obstacles to sound
survey sampling, based on a meta-analysis of 40 surveys on conference interpreting
worldwide. One problem is the lack of reliable information on populations of con-
ference interpreters, with China as a case in point (Pöchhacker 2009). Currently,
there are no national organizations for conference interpreters in China, despite
the proposal to establish one (Wang 2005). Unlike AIIC members, conference in-
terpreters in China cannot be found on any publicly available list.
The other obstacle is the inherent limitation of small and unsystematic sam-
ples, which give sparse coverage of the wider population. This problem is fre-
quently encountered by survey researchers, due to practical constraints (e.g., lack
of sources, inaccessibility to part of target population). One way to overcome it
is through replication. In other words, multiple small-scale surveys can be con-
ducted for later comparison and meta-analysis.

4.2 Discussion of results for question blocks I, II and III

Block I
Results partially corroborate the diary findings that PPT presentations, conference
programmes and speakers’ scripts/notes were among the most frequently received
materials. However, while both the survey and the diary study suggested that PPT
 A survey to profile conference interpreting practice in China 269

presentations were the most frequent item, the ranking differed for conference pro-
grammes (2nd in survey, 4th in diary) and speakers’ scripts/notes (4th in survey,
2nd in diary). Here, the benefit of the doubt should probably be given to the survey
results, considering the larger sample involved. The current survey also showed
that, consistent with the diary findings (Han 2015), PPT presentations and speak-
ers’ scripts/notes mostly became available only one or two days before conferences.
This may leave interpreters insufficient time for preparation, meaning that they
have to rely on what Gile (1995) calls “last-minute” or “in-conference preparation”.

Block II
Interpreters did a wide range of SI tasks, albeit with varying degrees of frequency,
thus corroborating the exploratory diary findings (Han 2015). The finer-grained
categorization of SI tasks in the present survey further nuances the three general
task types discussed in the literature: SI with Text (Setton 2009; Wang & Lin 2006),
SI with PPT (Kalina 2002; Wan 2004) and SI for Q&A (Chang & Wu 2009). In ad-
dition, based on the frequency scores and the ANOVA results (particularly for the
seven most frequently reported SI tasks), interpreters tended either not to receive
material in advance or to receive it only a short time before interpreting; working
conditions thus seemed unconducive to prior familiarization with speech content
or to thorough preparation.

Block III
Findings support Setton’s (2009: 109) observation that “practice is fully-bidirection-
al” in China. The results also corroborate the trend identified in this respect in the
diary study, and echo Pan et al.’s (2009) survey finding that real-life conference inter-
preters work both into and from their A language(s). Results for the duration of an
interpreting turn are generally consistent with the recommended optimal duration
of about 20 minutes, up to a maximum of approximately 30 minutes. However, the
data also corroborate diary-based reports (Han 2015) of some interpreters working
excessively long turns. This trend may indicate employers’ failure to recognize the
demanding nature of SI, and a lack of regulatory standardization (Feng 2005).
Block III also shows that most of the interpreters identify difficulties related
to subject matter, technical terminology, speakers’ delivery (strong accent, speed),
and lack of preparation. This is again in line with the findings of the diary study
(Han 2015). The data also support Setton’s (2009) observation that SI from fast,
recited speeches, with little or no prior preparation by the interpreter, is probably
more common in China than elsewhere.
Finally, the survey findings could have broader implications for interpreting
assessment methodology and interpreter training. At present, English/Chinese in-
terpreter certification performance tests (ICPTs) in China are based on one or two
270 Chao Han

types of SI task, typically including SI with no Materials (NoText). Given the large
variety of SI tasks identified in the survey, the ICPTs, in their current form, may
risk under-representing real-life practice (e.g., Chen 2009). Huang (2005) suggests
that ICPTs include such tasks as SI (DiaIntr) and SI for uni-directional presen-
tations of different styles. Equally important, the survey findings could motivate
interpreting educators, curriculum designers and course content developers to
think about design and classroom use of SI tasks that parallel real-life interpreting
practice. Wang and Lin (2006) recommend using different varieties of SI-with-text
task, as well as developing appropriate instructional and practice materials.

5. Conclusion

The study reports a survey distributed to a relatively large group of interpreters,

to explore conference interpreting practice in China. To a large extent, the sur-
vey corroborates and extends the findings from a previous exploratory diary study.
However, the use of non-probability sampling makes it difficult to generalize the
survey findings across the entire population of interpreters in China as a whole.
Nevertheless, empirical data such as these are valuable in providing insight into
real-life practice and beneficial to future assessment design and interpreter training.

Acknowledgment

This report presents selected findings from the author’s PhD thesis, Building the validity founda-
tion for interpreter certification performance testing, completed in 2015 at Macquarie University,
Sydney, Australia. The findings of the report were presented at the 10th China National
Conference and International Forum on Interpreting, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China, 17–
18 October 2014.
The author would like to thank the journal editors, style editor and anonymous reviewers for
their constructive feedback on earlier versions of this report.

References

Campbell, S. & Hale, S. (2003). Translation and interpreting assessment in the context of edu-
cational measurement. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation today: Trends and
perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 205–224.
Chang, C. & Wu, M.M. (2009). Address form shifts in interpreted Q&A sessions. Interpreting 11
(2), 164–189. ​doi: 10.1075/intp.11.2.04cha
Chen, J. (2009). Authenticity in accreditation tests for interpreters in China. The Interpreter and
Translator Trainer 3 (2), 257–273. ​doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2009.10798791
 A survey to profile conference interpreting practice in China 271

Feng, J.Z. (2005). 冯建中. 论口译测试的规范化 [Towards the standardization of interpreta-

tion testing].《外语研究》. Foreign Languages Research 89, 54–58.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.8(1st)
Han, C. (2015). Lacunae, myths and legends about conference interpreters: A diary study to
explore conference interpreting practice in China. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 23
(3), 440–457. ​doi: 10.1080/0907676X.2014.973422
Huang, M. (2005). 谈口译资格认证考试的规范化设计.《中国翻译》. Toward a more stan-
dardized large-scale accreditation test for interpreters. Chinese Translator Journal 6, 62–65.
Kalina, S. (2002). Quality in interpreting and its prerequisites: A framework for a comprehensive
view. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and op-
portunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121–130. ​doi: 10.1075/btl.43.12kal
Pan, J., Sun, Z.X. & Wang, H.H. (2009). 潘珺等. 口译的职业化与职业化发展 – 上海及江苏
地区口译现状调查研究. 《解放军外国语学院学报》. Professionalization in interpret-
ing: Current development of interpreting in Shanghai and Jiangsu Province. Journal of PLA
University of Foreign Languages 6, 81–85.
Pöchhacker, F. (2009). Conference interpreting: Surveying the profession. Translation and
Interpreting Studies 4 (2), 172–186.
Setton, R. (2009). Interpreting China, interpreting Chinese – Introduction. Interpreting 11 (2),
109–117. ​doi: 10.1075/intp.11.2.01set
STTACAS (Science and Technology Translators Association of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences) & TRANSN. (2007). 中国科院科技翻译协会 & 传神联合信息技术有限公
司.中国地区译员生存状况调查报告 [An investigation into working and living con-
ditions of translators and interpreters in China: A report]. http://wenku.baidu.com/
view/3ff59c88d0d233d4b14e6964.html (accessed 15 March 2012).
Wan, H.Y. (2004). 万宏瑜. 解读图表:另一项重要的口译技能.《中国翻译》 [Interpreting
graphics: An important skill for interpreters]. Chinese Translators Journal 2, 83–86.
Wang, E.M. (2005). 王恩冕.口译在中国 调查报告.《中国翻译》 [Interpretation as a profes-
sion in China: A survey]. Chinese Translators Journal 2, 212–159.
Wang, L. & Lin, W. (2006). Interpretation training: SI with text. In M.J. Chai & A.L. Zhang
(Eds.), Professionalization in interpreting: International experience and developments in
China. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 237–244.

Author’s address
Chao Han
College of International Studies
Southwest University
2 Tiansheng Road, Beibei
Chongqing, 400715
China
chao.research@gmail.com
272 Chao Han

About the author

Chao Han is an assistant professor in the College of International Studies at Southwest University
in China. Chao’s research interests include interpreter performance testing and assessment, and
mixed-methods research design. He also maintains a research blog, Interpretation Testing and
Evaluation (http://www.interpretationtestingandevaluation.com/).