Conference interpreting research (CIR) has contributed conceptually to conference interpreter training, but cannot be expected to produce solid scientific findings to validate specific training theories and methods: the complexity of the interactions between relevant parameters, as well as the resulting variability, require large samples and many replications, which are beyond present possibilities in a small community of researchers and a small community of interpreters, many of whom are reluctant to participate in experiments. Studies with a local, descriptive focus, have been scientifically more productive than holistic theories and tests of hypotheses on methods, and some interesting findings of a general nature have also been published. CIR also has a non negligible social role in enhancing the status of the profession. On the other hand, some tension has been generated among interpreters and interpreter trainers by excessive claims of some researchers based on theory, but without actual findings to back them.
