Technology in Interpretation: Survey Results of Question #3

		Technology in Interpretation Results: Interpreter's Survey- Question #3 Question #3: What type of computer technology equipment do you currently have at your site?

		The next question moved away from attitudinal inquiry and back to the factual information, which hopefully required less thought. The researcher wanted to find out what technology equipment interpretive sites have access to. In a university setting, advanced, high-quality technology is often readily available to students. As part of this project, for example, an interpretive technology lab was constructed with scanners, digital cameras, colored printers, and other advanced computing hardware. However, this type of setting may not accurately represent the technology available at real interpretive sites. Participants were again provided with a list of options that ranged from high-speed computers, to Internet access, to scanners. Instead of a ranking continuum, the answers were dichotomous—either the site had access to the technology or it did not. For each option, the sites that had the equipment were summed together and the results were reported as a percentage of the total number of participants. These results have been included in Figure 18. Surprisingly, the percentage of sites that had access to technology equipment was much higher than had been previously assumed. In fact, over 80% of the surveyed sites had access to high-speed computers (86%), Internet (98%), flatbed scanners (84%), digital cameras (87%), black-and-white printers (87%), and color printers (88%). Over 50% of the sites had additional access to laptop computers (74%), digital projectors (56%), CD-burners (62%), and clipart disks (73%). Only sound editing programs (13%) and video editing programs (13%) were in less than 25% of the sites. Before the survey was sent out, it was assumed that the percentages for all categories (besides Internet access which is usually coupled with e-mail) would be much lower. These peculiar results could be explained by at least two possibilities. First, the results might be biased toward more technically inclined interpretive sites. Since an e-mail survey method was used, in the very least the site needed to have a computer and network access. Sites without any computers were not represented, unless an employee had e-mail access at home. In addition, people working at sites that had technology equipment may have had more of an interest and been more inclined to send back the survey. Although bias is a definite possibility, it was not apparent in any of the other questions. On the other side of the spectrum, perhaps interpretive sites really do have more access to technology equipment. The computer revolution has transformed the way people work. As technology continues to grow and become more important to people’s lives, businesses and other professions invest in these new “essential” components. The interpretative profession has also been following this trend for many years. Although the percentages may be a bit higher than the actual profession in general, it is likely that many interpretive sites now have access to a wider variety of technology than they may have had even a few years ago. Return to Interpreter's Survey Results
		For More Information, contact: Jim Buchholz Schmeeckle Reserve University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (715) 346-4992 jbuchhol@uwsp.edu	All pictures and text are copyrighted by Jim Buchholz, 2002. No part of this website may be duplicated without written permission of the author.