This critique reflects the author’s independent analysis and should not be understood as representing any institutional position. It is not connected to, commissioned by, or endorsed by the University at which the author is currently completing doctoral studies.

My interest in this question arises from a broader concern about knowledge creation, academic independence, and the risk of legitimising commercial and lobbying actors within the governance of translation labour. It forms part of my wider work on repoliticising translation labour and developing a theory of change for the UK translation and interpreting industry.

One recent development that has continued to concern me since I first encountered it in promotional material from the Association of Translation Companies (ATC)—an organisation representing the interests of translation companies and language service providers (LSPs) —is the claim that the Association of Programmes in Translation and Interpreting Studies (APTIS) has granted membership to the ATC (ATC, 2025a).

The issue is not whether universities should engage with industry. There are clear benefits to purposeful and well-governed engagement. The issue is whether risks arise when organisations dedicated to public-benefit education and academic development become institutionally integrated with organisations whose primary role is to advance commercial interests.

APTIS’s declared aim is to advance translation and interpreting education for the public benefit in the UK and Ireland. Its stated mission is to improve the quality of learning and teaching, as well as research, within translation and interpreting programmes in Higher Education institutions (APTIS, n.d.).

Recently, I contacted a senior member of APTIS to seek clarification on this development, which I believe warrants wider discussion within Translation Studies. In my email, I raised a series of questions about academic independence, labour conditions, industry influence, and the role of universities in maintaining critical distance from commercial interests. I asked whether there were risks associated with granting membership to an industry lobby group, what due diligence had been conducted, and how APTIS understands its responsibility to preserve space for independent analysis of labour conditions, outsourcing, precarity, and power within the translation industry.

The response I received was courteous but did not engage directly with these questions. Instead, I was told that APTIS is run by volunteers, that its leadership positions are unpaid, and that the association provides an important forum bringing together universities, trainers, and professional bodies to shape the future of language training and language services.

I do not doubt the sincerity of those involved, nor do I question the value of voluntary service. However, whether people are paid or unpaid is not the central issue.

The more important question concerns the difference in missions and the risks of legitimisation. Universities and industry associations serve different functions. Universities are expected to produce independent knowledge, scrutinise existing arrangements, and critically investigate questions of power, inequality, and social outcomes.

Industry associations exist to advance the interests of their members. That is not a criticism; it is their purpose. The ATC exists to represent translation companies. Its role is to promote their interests, improve their business environment, and influence policy discussions for their benefits.

Universities, by contrast, should not begin from the assumption that existing industry arrangements are desirable. Their role is to examine those arrangements critically, including asking difficult questions about pay, outsourcing, labour standards, market concentration, and the distribution of value across supply chains.

These functions can complement one another. They are not, however, identical.

The Risk of Institutional Alignment

The issue becomes more significant when we consider the current state of the industry, including declining rates, increasing insecurity, growing reliance on outsourcing, and widespread concerns about fairness and sustainability.

At the same time, industry bodies frequently frame these challenges through the language of skills shortages, talent pipelines, adaptability, innovation, entrepreneurship, and collaboration. These narratives do not address questions that academic institutions should be examining, including:

Who determines translators’ rates of pay?
Who captures value within the supply chain?
Who bears commercial risk?
Who benefits from outsourcing models?
How are profits distributed?
What responsibilities do companies have for the conditions experienced by translators and interpreters?

When academic institutions become closely integrated with industry actors, there is a risk that some questions become easier to ask than others.

The Meaning of “Better Together”

These concerns were reinforced by APTIS’s conference, titled Better Together.

I have previously argued that the title itself is revealing.

Collaboration is generally presented as inherently positive. Working together sounds constructive, cooperative, and progressive. Yet collaboration is not always neutral. In sectors characterised by unequal power relations, it can sometimes function as a substitute for more difficult conversations about accountability, conflict of interest, or structural inequality.

The phrase “better together” naturally invites another question:

Better for whom? For students? For universities? For translators? For interpreters? For translation companies? Or for all of them equally?

The answer cannot simply be assumed. I am not arguing that universities should refuse all engagement with industry, nor that translation companies have nothing valuable to contribute. Rather, I am suggesting that the relationship deserves greater scrutiny than it currently receives.

When an academic association grants membership to an organisation whose primary role is to represent commercial interests, questions naturally arise.

What safeguards exist to preserve academic independence?
What due diligence was conducted?
How are conflicts of interest managed?
How does the association ensure that labour concerns are not marginalised?
How does it protect the ability of researchers and students to critically examine industry practices?

These are governance questions, not personal criticisms. I made a similar argument about the “Working Together” document issued by the ATC and the umbrella organisation Professional Interpreters for Justice (PI4J) which includes The Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI), the Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIOL), National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI), and two branches of Unite the Union: the National Union of British Sign Language Interpreters (NUBSLI) and the National Union of Professional Interpreters and Translators (NUPIT).

Industry–Academic Claims and Transparency

These questions about institutional alignment sit within a broader pattern that raises issues of transparency in industry–academic relationships.

In its promotional materials, the ATC claims partnerships with ten UK universities (ATC, 2025a). However, when I contacted several of these institutions to clarify the nature of these relationships, three universities stated that no formal partnership exists. This discrepancy raises questions about how such relationships are defined, communicated, and verified, and whether informal engagement is being presented externally as formal institutional partnership.

The ATC also states that it has supported two academic publications: The Routledge Handbook of the Translation Industry and Translation Ethics (ATC, 2025b). To understand the nature of this “support,” I contacted Routledge seeking clarification on what form it took and whether it involved financial contribution, editorial input, sponsorship, or other forms of collaboration. At the time of writing, no response has been received.

These examples are not presented as isolated administrative issues. Rather, they point to a broader question of how academic legitimacy is constructed when commercial or industry bodies are involved in knowledge production. When terms such as “partnership” or “support” are used without consistent definition or transparent disclosure, it becomes more difficult to distinguish between independent academic output and industry-aligned endorsement.

This matters not only for institutional credibility, but also for how knowledge itself is shaped. In fields where labour conditions, pricing structures, and professional standards are contested, the boundaries between research, collaboration, and advocacy become especially significant.

Conclusion

The issue is not whether universities and industry should talk to one another.

The issue is whether universities can continue to fulfil their public mission if they become too closely aligned with the interests they are supposed to study critically.

Translation Studies has long prided itself on ethical reflection, social responsibility, and critical inquiry.

Those commitments become most important when they are uncomfortable.

If universities are to retain their credibility as independent centres of knowledge, they must remain capable of asking difficult questions—not only about governments and public institutions, but also about the industries with which they collaborate.

That is why the question is not whether universities and translation companies should engage with one another.

The question is whether they should belong to the same club.

Note

This article was written in a personal capacity, in good faith, and in the public interest. Its purpose is to critically examine systemic challenges and potential misalignments between academia and industry, grounded in evidence and established theories. The critique is not aimed at individual authors or editors, but at structures, practices, and institutional choices that shape translators’ realities. It has been revised to clarify its purpose and scope.

Note
Some might argue that interpreters’ work is different from translators’. I understand that distinction, but as I am focusing on labour structures that have much in common, I use “translation” here as an umbrella term for both written translation and interpreting. Also, in my native language, Arabic, we refer to them as written translation and spoken translation.

About the author
Fardous Bahbouh is a researcher and broadcast interpreter specialising in labour rights and the political economy of the translation and interpreting industry. Alongside her academic research, she continues to work with agencies and production companies that value interpreters and translators and provide fair working conditions. She also runs a small translation company and does not generalise critiques of unfair intermediaries to all translation companies or agencies.

Blog Image

More info please by Marcin Wilkowski: Marcin Wilkowski / https://betterimagesofai.org / https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Bibliography

APTIC. n.d. The Association of Programmes in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Accessed 05 June 2026. APTIS – Association of Programmes in Translation and Interpreting Studies

ATC. 2025a. END OF YEAR Report 2025. Acessed 05 June 2026. ATC End of Year Report 2025

ATC, 2025b. Not only are we trying to find opportunities for students, we are also supporting language research…. Linkedin. Accessed O5 June 2026. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/association-of-translation-companies_weve-been-working-with-a-range-of-uk-based-activity-7396895372511686656-BnOY?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAADnCBsBeIGaEjttEK8wazG2iwGrFP4ZIZY

Note: 

This article was written in a personal capacity, in good faith, and in the public interest. Its purpose is to critically examine systemic challenges and potential misalignments between academia and industry, grounded in evidence and established theories. The critique is not aimed at individual authors or editors, but at structures, practices, and institutional choices that shape translators’ realities. It was updated to clarify its purpose and scope.