A commercial actor was unhappy with my calls for Translation Studies scholars and departments to undertake due diligence before entering industry–academia collaborations. They promptly diagnosed me with having “extreme” ideas about due diligence.

If asking universities to critically examine conflicts of interest, reputational risks, and the unintended consequence of collaboration is now considered “extreme”, then perhaps it’s time to establish a new club: The Due Diligence Extremists Club. The club is exclusively for those souls who dare to say that universities should critically evaluate the organisations they collaborate with, including examining conflicts of interest and considering whether collaboration unintentionally confers legitimacy on organisations whose business models may contribute to and benefit from inequality.

That choice of the word “extreme” is revealing. For many people from racialised backgrounds, accusations of being “extreme”, “radical”, “angry” or “emotional” have long been used to delegitimise criticism of powerful institutions. Whether intentionally or not, that language does more than belittle me ethical stance. It can reinforce patterns that discourage people from speaking up.

But I do not tend to tremble with fear and insecurity. I know I am presenting a logical argument in the public interest. Commercial actors naturally have an interest in maintaining collaborative relationships with universities. Precisely because those collaborations can generate reputational benefits and institutional legitimacy, universities have an ethical responsibility to ask difficult questions before, during, and after they collaborate. This is the argument I have been making in my recent articles and private correspondence. I will state it again here:

Universities do not simply produce knowledge. They also confer legitimacy.

When universities invite commercial organisations to take central stage position in events, and to help shape research agendas, contribute to academic publications, or participate in conferences, they are doing more than facilitating dialogue. They are lending institutional credibility to those commercial actors. Surely universities already undertake due diligence in many other contexts. They assess governance, finances, ethics, legal compliance, and reputational risk. Why should industry–academia collaborations be treated differently?

Perhaps the real question is why asking difficult questions about power, legitimacy, and conflicts of interest has become controversial. So yes, I will continue arguing that universities should critically examine who they collaborate with, whose interests are represented, and what unfair labour practice in being obscured.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz once explained that opposition can indicate the importance of the action being taken and the research being conducted. He recounted that some members of Congress attempted to shut down his work on green GDP, and he took that as confirmation that the work mattered. I draw inspiration from that perspective. If my call for universities to honour their social responsibilities and examine the unintended consequences of their actions makes me a member of The Due Diligence Extremists Club, then I am perfectly happy to renew my membership.

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

Zoya Yasmine / https://betterimagesofai.org / https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/