Up periscope! From interdisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity in translation research

Massey, Gary

abstract

Since the beginnings of translation studies and their first systematic mapping by Holmes (1972/2004; Toury 1995), the diverse activities and definitions of the applied branches of translation research share the condition of relevant practical applicability – to the practices, processes and products of translation per se, but also to the contexts and settings in which this complex, situated activity occurs. The contexts include education and work, embedded in broader sociotechnical systems and themselves encompassing the specific settings where translation is performed. In order to be properly described and understood, the situated nature of professional translation (cf. Risku 2010, 2014, 2017) suggests that it should be investigated in situ. Yet, only recently has workplace-based, organization-oriented research gained impetus in translation studies, with approaches ranging from the cognitive (Hutchins 2010; Risku et al. 2017) to the sociological (Buzelin 2007; Olohan 2017) and ergonomic (Lavault-Olléon 2011, 2016; Teixeira & O’Brien 2017).

The growing momentum of workplace studies is due in part to advances in research tools and practices, but also to the broadening impact of an emerging transdisciplinary paradigm. Far from being a synonym for interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity offers a viable framework for (action) research in professional contexts and settings, transcending disciplinary approaches to generating knowledge by bringing together researchers, communities of practice and their organizations in active, collaborative problem-solving directed at real-world issues (cf. Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008; Stokols 2006). This paper will review how professional processes and practices in the situated sociotechnical contexts of translators’ workplaces have been explored and partly explained through transdisciplinary research, with particular reference to cognitive, ergonomic and organizational perspectives. It will address major opportunities and challenges for workplace-based research (e.g. Ehrensberger-Dow 2014; Ehrensberger-Dow & Massey 2017, 2019) and consider the contribution it can, does and will make to the communities of practice and organizations where it takes place.

References

Buzelin, H. (2007), ‘Translations ‘in the Making’’, in M. Wolf and A. Fukari (eds), Constructing a Sociology of Translation, 135–69, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ehrensberger-Dow, M. and G. Massey (2017), ‘Socio-technical Issues in Professional Translation Practice’, Translation Spaces, 6 (1): 104–22.

Ehrensberger-Dow, M. and G. Massey (2019/in print), ‘Translation workplace-based research’, in M. O’Hagan (ed), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, London: Routledge.

Hirsch Hadorn, G., S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy,, H. Hoffmann-Riem, D. Joye, C. Pohl et al. (2008), ‘The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research’, In H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, G. Hirsch Hadorn, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann and E. Zemp (eds), Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Berlin: Springer: 19–39.

Holmes, J. S. (1972/2004). ‘The name and nature of translation studies’ in L. Venuti (ed.), The translation studies reader, 2nd ed., 180–192, London: Routledge.

Hutchins, E. (2010), ʻCognitive ecologyʼ, Topics in Cognitive Science, 2 (4): 705–15.

Lavault-Olléon, E. (2011), ‘L’ergonomie, nouveau paradigme pour la traductologie’, ILCEA, 14. Available online: http://ilcea.revues.org/1078 accessed 21 November 2018).

Lavault-Olléon, E. (guest ed) (2016), ‘Approches ergonomiques des pratiques professionnelles et des formations des traducteurs’, ILCEA, 27, Special Issue. Available online: https://ilcea.revues.org/3834 accessed 21 November 2018).

Olohan, M. (2017), ‘Knowing in Translation Practice. A Practice-theoretical Perspective’, Translation Spaces, 6 (1): 160–81.

Risku, H. (2010), ‘A Cognitive Scientific View on Technical Communication and Translation. Do Embodiment and Situatedness Really Make a Difference?’, Target 22(1): 94-111.

Risku, H. (2014), ʻTranslation Process Research as Interaction Research: From Mental to Socio-Cognitive Processesʼ, MonTI Special Issue – Minding Translation: 331–53.

Risku, H. (2017), ‘Ethnographies of Translation and Situated Cognition.’, in J.W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira (eds), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, 290–310. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Risku, H., R. Rogl and J. Milosevic (2017), ‘Translation Practice in the Field: Current Research on Socio-cognitive Processes’, Translation Spaces, 6 (1): 3–26.

Teixeira, C. and O’Brien, S. (2017), ‘Investigating the Cognitive Ergonomic Aspects of Translation Tools in a Workplace Setting’, Translation Spaces, 6 (1): 79–103.

Stokols, D. (2006), ‘Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research’, American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1), 63–77.

Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies—And Beyond, 1st ed., Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Bionote

Gary Massey is Director of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), former Director of its MA in Applied Linguistics and past head of its undergraduate degree programmes in Translation and Applied Languages. His research interests and publications cover translator competence development, translator education, trainer training, translation processes and translation quality as well as the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary interfaces between translation and related fields like organizational communication.