Article published in:Translation Practice in the Field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes
Edited by Hanna Risku, Regina Rogl and Jelena Milosevic
[Benjamins Current Topics 105] 2019
► pp. 105–122
Socio-technical issues in professional translation practice
According to the International Ergonomics Association, a focus on organizational ergonomics recognizes that people work within socio-technical systems that encompass tools, equipment, and computer interfaces as well as other actors in their professional environment and networks. In recent research, we have started investigating such socio-technical factors from an ergonomic perspective. Observations at professional workplaces, responses to questionnaires, and in-depth interviews with translators suggest that their perceived self-determination is more important to the success of socio-technical change than the technological developments themselves. A lack of involvement in decision-making at the workflow level may explain why so many translators have been resistant to taking new technology on board. We discuss how a feedback culture could mitigate many socio-technical issues by giving translators a voice in change and empowering them to contribute to organizational learning and growth.
Keywords: organizational ergonomics, socio-technical systems, translation practice, translation constraints, workplace, situated cognition
- 2.Translating as an activity situated in a socio-technical system
- 3.Constraints on the situated activity of professional translation
- 3.1Constraints identified in commentaries and interviews (CTP project)
- 3.2Constraints identified in survey responses (ErgoTrans project)
- 4.Organizational ergonomics of professional translation
- 4.1Organizational ergonomic issues identified in the survey (ErgoTrans project)
- 4.2Organizational ergonomic issues identified in interviews (ErgoTrans project)
- 4.2.1Positive, negative, and stressful aspects
- 4.2.3Motivation and feedback
- 5.Directions for change
Published online: 07 August 2019
Bundgaard, Kristine, Tina Paulsen Christensen, and Anne Schjoldager
2016 “Translator-Computer Interaction in Action – An Observational Process Study of Computer-Aided Translation.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 25: 106–130. Accessed January 3, 2017. http://www.jostrans.org/issue25/art_bundgaard.pdf.
Canfora, Carmen, and Angelika Ottmann
2015 “Risikomanagement für Übersetzungen [Risk Management for Translations].” trans-kom 8 (2): 314–346. Accessed January 3, 2017. http://www.trans-kom.eu/bd08nr02/trans-kom_08_02_02_Canfora_Ottmann_Risiko.20151211.pdf.
Clark, Andy, and David J. Chalmers
Dam, Helle V., and Karen Korning Zethsen
2016 “ ‘I Think It is a Wonderful Job.’ On the Solidity of the Translation Profession.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 25: 174–186. Accessed January 3, 2017. http://www.jostrans.org/issue25/art_dam.pdf.
Dresing, Thorsten, and Thorsten Pehl
2011 Praxisbuch Transkription. Regelsysteme, Software und praktische Anleitungen für qualitative ForscherInnen [Practical Manual for Transcription. Rules, Software, and Practical Instructions for Qualitative Researchers]. Marburg. Accessed May 8, 2013. www.audiotranskription.de/praxisbuch.
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, Andrea Hunziker Heeb, Gary Massey, Ursula Meidert, Silke Neumann, and Heidrun Becker
2016 “An International Survey of the Ergonomics of Professional Translation.” ILCEA Revue 27. Accessed January 3, 2017. http://ilcea.revues.org/4004.
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Gary Massey
2016 Expectations and Concerns of the European Language Industry. EUATC European Union of Associations of Translation Companies. Accessed January 3, 2017. https://www.euatc.org/industry-surveys/item/download/5_acfddb871c7db7e30d399843c4c930f6.
Hollnagel, Erik, and David D. Woods
Karamanis, Nikiforos, Saturnino Luz, and Gavin Doherty
Kinnunen, Tuija, and Kaisa Koskinen
eds. 2010 Translators’ Agency. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Accessed January 3, 2017. https://tampub.uta.fi/handle/10024/65639.
2016 “Contextualising Computer-Assisted Translation Tools and Modelling Their Usability.” trans-kom 9 (1): 114–148. Accessed January 3, 2017. http://www.trans-kom.eu/bd09nr01/trans-kom_09_01_08_Krueger_CAT.20160705.pdf.
2016 Ergonomic Translation. Eine Untersuchung zur Ergonomie am Übersetzerarbeitsplatz am Beispiel eines Schweizer Übersetzungsbüros [Ergonomic Translation. An Investigation of the Ergonomics of a Translator’s Workplace Using the Example of a Swiss Translation Agency]. Master’s thesis, Zurich University of Applied Sciences.
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
Nardie, Bonnie A.
O’Brien, Sharon, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Megan Connolly, and Marcel Hasler
2011 “What Technology Does to Translating.” Translation & Interpreting 3 (1): 1–9. Accessed January 3, 2017. http://www.trans-int.org/index.php/transint/article/view/121/81.
Robbins, Philip, and Murat Aydede
Rothlin, Philippe, and Peter R. Werder
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, et al.
2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” [Discourse Analytical Transcription System 2 (GAT2)] Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zu verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402. Accessed January 3, 2017. http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2009/px-gat2.pdf.
Shreve, Gregory M.
Text Encoding Initiative
2008 TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange. Accessed January 3, 2017. http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/.
Toudic, Daniel, and Guillaume de Brébisson
2011 “Poste du travail du traducteur et responsabilité: une question de perspective.” [The Translator’s Job and Responsibility: A Question of Perspective] ILCEA Revue 14. Accessed January 3, 2017. http://ilcea.revues.org/index1043.html.