There’s a pattern that keeps resurfacing in discussions about the translation industry—particularly around falling rates, worsening working conditions, and the increasing precarity of translators. The pattern is subtle, but deeply consequential and ethically problematic. It’s called attribution bias, and it is becoming increasingly common in translation industry studies.

Attribution bias refers to the tendency to explain outcomes by pointing to certain causes while overlooking others—often more direct or uncomfortable ones. In practice, it means assigning responsibility in a way that feels intuitive or convenient, rather than accurate.

In the context of translators’ and interpreters’ job quality, this often takes the form of explaining declining pay or deteriorating working conditions through broad, external forces:

• “AI is driving prices down.”
• “Procurement processes are too complex.”
• “Translators perform invisible work.”

These explanations are not entirely false. But they are incomplete—and, crucially, they shift attention away from the actors and decisions that directly shape the market. Largely missing are discussions that interrogate the role, responsibilities, or decision-making power of translation company executives in shaping pricing structures, rate-setting practices, or work allocation. Instead, a common narrative goes like this: rates are falling because of machine translation or procurement pressures. These are presented as structural, almost natural forces—something akin to gravity.

But this framing conveniently obscures the role of:

• Agencies setting pricing models
• Corporate buyers enforcing cost reductions
• Platform dynamics that prioritise volume over quality

In other words, instead of asking who is making these decisions, the discussion drifts toward what abstract forces are at play. That’s attribution bias at work.

I argue that such attribution bias is not accidental. There are structural reasons why translation studies is increasingly prone to this kind of thinking. This analysis is based on my own research on current trends in translation studies and the industry. I acknowledge that these reflections are not exhaustive, and there may well be additional factors contributing to the rise of attribution bias that are not covered here. At the very least, I am aware of the possibility of attribution bias in my own thinking. The four main factors are:

1. Close proximity to corporate interests

Translation studies is no longer a purely academic field focused on the act of translation. It is now deeply entangled with the industry itself.

We see this in publications and events that position themselves as bridges between academia and industry. On the surface, this sounds constructive—collaboration, dialogue, mutual understanding. However, I have previously published a critique of the Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies for repeatedly calling for industry–academic collaboration with limited critical engagement. I have also critiqued the Association of Programmes in Translation and Interpreting Studies (APTIS) in the UK and Ireland for organising a conference titled “Better Together”, advocating closer collaboration with industry, and later granting membership to the Association of Translation Companies (ATC), an interest group representing the interests of translation companies.

Such proximity comes with consequences.

When scholars, institutions, and conferences rely on industry participation or student placements, there is a subtle but powerful incentive to avoid direct criticism of corporate practices. The result is a discourse that gravitates toward “neutral” explanations—technology, globalisation, complexity—rather than accountability.

2. Epistemic trespassing

Translation studies has expanded its scope. It no longer deals only with language, meaning, and the act of translation. Increasingly, it addresses pricing, labour conditions, and market structures.

This shift is, in many ways, positive. It reflects a recognition that translation is not just a linguistic activity, but a form of labour embedded in economic systems.

However, it also means that scholars are stepping into domains—economics, labour relations, industrial organisation—where they may lack deep expertise. This can lead to overreliance on surface-level explanations or dominant narratives without sufficient grounding in fields such as labour economics, political economy, or critiques of market fundamentalism.

In such contexts, attribution bias becomes more likely: complex economic dynamics are reduced to familiar external factors, rather than analysed in terms of power, incentives, and institutional behaviour.

3. Pressure on translation academics to remain relevant

While I am clear in my critique of translation academia, I also recognise the pressures many scholars may be experiencing due to technological change in the translation industry, which could make translation studies less attractive to prospective students, as well as broader funding pressures within universities.

We should acknowledge that many academics are facing significant pressure to demonstrate relevance.

In a field that increasingly values “impact” and “engagement with industry,” there is a clear risk associated with naming uncomfortable truths. Pointing directly to corporate responsibility for low or potentially exploitative rates can provoke pushback—from companies, institutional partners, or even colleagues within the academic community.

As a result, safer narratives emerge. Ones that describe problems without assigning responsibility. Ones that critique systems without naming actors.

Attribution bias, in this sense, can function as a protective mechanism. While I empathise with scholars facing these pressures, I do not believe that yielding to them is justified.

4. Ethical and strategic failures of translator and interpreter organisations

Finally, there is the role of linguists’ organisations themselves.

These organisations are funded by translators and interpreters—often through membership fees that represent a meaningful financial commitment from individuals already facing economic pressure. In principle, they should act as advocates for their members and speak out against unfair or potentially exploitative conditions in the translation and interpreting industry.

And yet, too often, they reproduce narratives—sometimes in collaboration with the ATC—that displace responsibility and attribute problems primarily to external factors. For example, I recently published a critique of a report produced collaboratively by the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI), the Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIOL), and the ATC titled “The strategic case for languages in UK higher education: Why language degrees and translation and interpreting programmes are essential for UK competitiveness.” The report makes no meaningful reference to translators’ pay or working conditions.

When I challenged the head of ITI, I was told that such concerns are better addressed “elsewhere.” By deflecting attention away from decision-makers and structural incentives, these organisations weaken their own ability to advocate effectively.

Conclusion

Attribution bias is not just a theoretical issue. It has practical consequences.

If we misidentify the causes of low pay, we are also likely to misidentify the solutions. We risk neglecting market structures, pricing practices, and power asymmetries between translation and interpreting companies and the language workforce, which is highly racialised and feminised. In other words, translators are asked to adapt to a system, rather than question the system itself.

None of this is to deny that AI, outsourcing, or procurement complexity play a role. However, these factors should not obscure the role of human decision-making by companies, institutions, and intermediaries.

A more honest conversation would identify who benefits from linguists’ undervalued labour and be willing to assign responsibility where it belongs.

Without that, attribution bias will continue to distort our understanding—and ultimately our ability to respond.

About the author
Fardous Bahbouh is a Researcher and Consultant specializing in Labour Rights, Public Policy, and the Political Economy of the Translation Industry.