Cover not available
Part of
Translating Asymmetry – Rewriting Power
Edited by Ovidi Carbonell i Cortés and Esther Monzó-Nebot
[Benjamins Translation Library 157] 2021
► pp. 145–168

Chapter 7
Responsibility, powerlessness, and conflict

An ethnographic case study of boundary management in translation

ORCID logo | University of Vienna
ORCID logo | University of Vienna
ORCID logo | University of Vienna
A growing body of research shows the existence of tensions, frictions, and conflicts in translation production networks, pointing to the key role therein of agency, trust, communication, and technology. However, there are few empirical investigations that include the different actors in one and the same network and analyse the perspectives and practices of both clients and vendors. This paper draws on an ethnographic field study in which participant observation and qualitative interviews were used to study translation clients in a major international corporation as well as a translation agency with which they collaborate. The research looks at conflicts in their areas of contact, how these are handled and their consequences. The analysis yields rich, emotional narratives on how the different actors perceive each other and deal with power asymmetries. It reveals conflicting and ambiguous expectations regarding mutual responsibilities that lead to mistrust, power plays, fear, and frustration.
Keywords: conflict, translation network, field research, translation project management, boundary management, boundary spanner
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: When something feels amiss in the field
  • 2.Exploring conflicts
    • 2.1Defining conflict
    • 2.2Studies on conflicts in translation research
  • 3.Case study and methods
    • 3.1An ethnography of multiple sites: TechCo and TransAg
    • 3.2Method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1The customer perspective
      • 4.1.1Lack of time, money, and recognition
      • 4.1.2Discord regarding accountabilities and responsibilities
      • 4.1.3Complex social and technical network structures
    • 4.2The translation agency perspective
      • 4.2.1Technical problems
      • 4.2.2Lack of trust
      • 4.2.3Quality of the interfaces
      • 4.2.4Compromises and conflict avoidance
  • 5.Discussion: Insights from organisational studies and reconceptualisation
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Note
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 16 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.157.07ris
References (41)
References
Abdallah, Kristiina. 2012. “Translators in Production Networks. Reflections on Agency, Quality and Ethics.” PhD dissertation. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.Google Scholar
Abdallah, Kristiina, and Kaisa Koskinen. 2007. “Managing Trust: Translating and the Network Economy.” Meta 52 (4): 673–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alonso, Elisa. 2016. “Conflict, Opacity and Mistrust in the Digital Management of Professional Translation Projects.” Translation & Interpreting 8 (1): 19–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 2006. Translation and Conflict. Narrative Account. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barki, Henri, and Jon Hartwick. 2004. “Conceptualizing the Construct of Interpersonal Conflict.” International Journal of Conflict Management 15 (3): 216–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassnett, Susan, and André Lefevere (eds). 1990. Translation, History & Culture. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Bundgaard, Kristine. 2017. “(Post-)Editing. A Workplace Study of Translator-Computer Interaction at TextMinded Danmark A/S.” PhD dissertation. Aalborg: University of Aalborg.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Jules, and Graham H. Turner. 2008. “Sign Language Interpreters and Role Conflict in the Workplace.” In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting. Definitions and Dilemmas, ed. by Carmen Valero-Garcés and Anne Martin, 231–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dong, Jiqing, and Graham H. Turner. 2016. “The Ergonomic Impact of Agencies in the Dynamic System of Interpreting Provision.” Translation Spaces 5 (1): 97–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fink, Clinton. 1968. “Some Conceptual Difficulties in the Theory of Social Conflict.” Conflict Resolution 12 (4): 412–460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foedisch, Melanie. 2017. “Managing Translation Projects: Practices and Quality in Production Networks.” PhD dissertation. Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2010. Experteninterviews und Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen [Expert interviews and qualitative content analysis as tools for reconstructive studies]. 4th ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouadec, Daniel. 2007. Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, Elaine. 2006. “Conflicts in how Interpreters Manage their Roles in Provider–Patient Interactions.” Social Science & Medicine 62 (3): 721–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inghilleri, Moira, and Sue-Ann Harding (eds). 2010. “Translation and Violent Conflict.” Special issue of The Translator 16 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Daniel, and Robert Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Kaufert, Joseph M., and William W. Koolage. 1984. “Role Conflict among ‘Culture Brokers’: The Experience of Native Canadian Medical Interpreters.” Social Science & Medicine 18 (3): 283–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levina, Natalia, and Emmanuelle Vaast. 2014. “A Field-of-Practice View of Boundary-Spanning in and across Organizations: Transactive and Transformative Boundary-Spanning Practices.” In Boundary-Spanning in Organizations: Network, Influence and Conflict, ed. by Janice Lagan Fox and Cary L. Cooper, 285–307. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mack, Raymond W., and Richard C. Snyder. 1957. “The Analysis of Social Conflict – Toward an Overview and Synthesis.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 1 (2): 212–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Elisabeth Naima, and Stewart Clegg. 2019. “Conceptions of Conflict in Organizational Conflict Research: Toward Critical Reflexivity.” Journal of Management Inquiry 28 (2): 166–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niranjana, Tejaswini. 1992. Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2012. “Translation as Human–Computer Interaction.” Translation Spaces 1 (1): 101–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve. 2011. “Translators and Translation Technology: The Dance of Agency.” Translation Studies 4 (3): 342–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve, and Elena Davitti. 2017. “Dynamics of Trusting in Translation Project Management: Leaps of Faith and Balancing Acts.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 46 (4): 391–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palus, Charles J., Donna L. Chrobot-Mason, and Kristin L. Cullen. 2014. “Boundary-Spanning Leadership in an Interdependent World.” In Boundary-Spanning in Organizations. Network, Influence, and Conflict, ed. by Janice Langan-Fox and Cary L. Cooper, 206–229. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pondy, Louis R. 1992. “Reflections on Organizational Conflict.” Journal of Organizational Behaviour 13 (2): 257–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna. 2016. Translationsmanagement: Interkulturelle Fachkommunikation im Informationszeitalter [Translation Management: Intercultural Technical Communication in the Information Age]. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Ethnographies of Translation and Situated Cognition.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by John W. Schwieter and Aline Ferreira, 290–310. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Castro, Mónica. 2013. “The Project Manager and Virtual Translation Teams: Critical Factors.” Translation Spaces 2 (1): 37–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz Rosendo, Lucía, and Clementina Persaud (eds). 2016. “Interpreting in Conflict Situations and in Conflict Zones Throughout History.” Special issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia 15.Google Scholar
Ruokonen, Minna, and Kaisa Koskinen. 2017. “Dancing with Technology: Translators’ Narratives on the Dance of Human and Machinic Agency in Translation Work.” The Translator 23 (3): 310–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salama-Carr, Myriam (ed). 2007. Translating and Interpreting Conflict. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhmann. 2011. “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 1–51.
Søderberg, Anne-Marie, and Laurence Romani. 2017. “Boundary Spanners in Global Partnerships: A Case Study of an Indian Vendor’s Collaboration with Western Clients.” Group & Organization Management 42 (2): 237–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strowe, Anna. 2015. “Power and Conflict.” In Researching Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Claudia V. Angelelli and Brian James Baer, 118–130. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria, and Edwin Gentzler (eds). 2002. Translation and Power. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Paul. 2010. “Special Agents: The Nature and Role of Boundary Spanners.” Paper to the ESRC Research Seminar Series “Collaborative Futures: New Insights from Intra- and Inter-Sectoral Collaborations.” Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar