Universities are public institutions and they must be held accountable. But how do we hold them accountable for decisions made in their name when they do not even know those decisions have been made?

This is one of the questions I have been left asking while investigating the relationship between UK Translation Studies and the Association of Translation Companies (ATC), the interest group representing translation companies, often operating as commercial intermediaries.

In the ATC’s 2025 end-of-year publication, I came across an announcement that the organisation had joined the Association of Programmes in Translation and Interpreting Studies (APTIS) (ATC, 2025, p11). APTIS brings together UK University programmes teaching translation and interpreting. I therefore wanted to understand how an organisation representing commercial interests had been admitted, what process had been followed, and what due diligence has been conducted.

Through Freedom of Information requests, I learned that the University of Stirling, The Open University and the University of Liverpool indicated that they were not aware that the ATC had been admitted to APTIS. Other universities, including Surrey, Leeds, Birmingham, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Newcastle, Edinburgh and York, told me that they did not hold records relating to the development.

These are not identical findings. A university saying that it was unaware of the ATC’s admission is different from a university saying that it holds no recorded information about it. But both raise questions about how the decision was communicated to the universities in whose name APTIS operates.

Durham University and Goldsmiths, University of London told me that they were no longer members of APTIS, despite still being listed as members on the APTIS website.

Other universities knew

The picture becomes more complicated when we look at universities that said they were aware of the ATC’s admission.

UCL confirmed that it knew, although it did not consider the ATC to be “a commercial intermediary.”

The University of Aberdeen provided considerably more information. It said:

The admission of the ATC as an Associate Member of APTIS was discussed and agreed by the APTIS Executive Committee. The intention was to strengthen collaboration between university translation and interpreting programmes and the language services industry by encouraging dialogue and cooperation between the two associations.

However, ATC did not make such differentiation in its announcement of joining APTIS (ATC, 2025, p11).

The University of Westminster told me that they knew the ATC has gained affiliate member status with APTIS. When I asked whether the inclusion of an interest group within APTIS raised issues relating to representation, conflicts of interest or research independence, Westminster responded:

The University does not consider the inclusion of an interest group to raise issues relating to the above.

Swansea University also knew about the ATC’s admission but offered an interesting explanation:

As far as the University is aware, the ATC is not a commercial intermediary, it is a not-for profit organisation, as is APTIS. The collaboration stems from a common interest in better training and opportunities for the University’s graduates. If APTIS engaged with commercial intermediaries, the University would of course ensure it discusses whether any safeguards, should be in place.

But this distinction raises another question.

The ATC may itself be a not-for-profit trade association, but it represents the interests of commercial language service companies operating in an industry where concerns about low pay and translators’ and interpreters’ ability to earn a decent income have been repeatedly raised. Does its legal or organisational status resolve questions about whose interests are represented within an academic association?

The University of Warwick also knew but explained that the decision “was discussed at the APTIS Annual General Meeting held at Cardiff University in April 2026.” This indicates that the discussions happened months after the ATC made the announcement in 2025!

Queen’s University Belfast drew yet another distinction. It told me:

ATC is not a member of APTIS but an ‘affiliate member’. Differences between full and affiliate membership, relating to the level of participation should be obtained from APTIS.

When asked about possible issues concerning representation, conflicts of interest or research independence, the university answered: “Not applicable.”

Dublin City University, meanwhile, said that it is “a member of APTIS and is aware of all other members and affiliate members of the organisation. It advised that questions concerning members and affiliate members should be directed to APTIS.

But this is precisely the problem. I had tried repeatedly to ask APTIS. I contacted the association on multiple occasions seeking clarification about the ATC’s admission and its status within the organisation.

The only response I received came from a member of the APTIS Executive Committee. Rather than answering my questions about the ATC’s admission, they wrote:

“I think it’s a shame you’ve taken a critical view of the work we do. I would like to say that the people that work for APTIS, such as myself, do so on an entirely voluntary basis. We do not earn a salary for being members of the executive, and the only perk we get is the opportunity for be part of an association that brings together universities, trainers, and professional bodies, to shape the future of language training provision and services in the UK. I am very proud of the work we do, which is especially important in the current climate.”

I appreciate that APTIS Executive Committee members undertake this work voluntarily. But this did not answer the questions I had asked about the ATC’s admission.

In fact, one part of the response made those questions even more relevant: APTIS describes itself as bringing together universities, trainers and professional bodies “to shape the future of language training provision and services in the UK.”

If an association has a role in shaping the future of language training and services, then questions about who participates in that association, whose interests they represent, and how decisions about membership are made are legitimate questions of governance.

When I did not get answers from APTIS, I wrote an article Should university translation departments belong to the same club as interest groups and tagged APTIS when I shared it on Linkedin. I still did not get a response. That is why I had to contact individual universities. And what emerged was not a consistent account. Some universities said they did not know. Some held no records. Some knew. One described the ATC as an Associate Member; another called it an affiliate member. Some universities saw no issue concerning conflicts of interest or research independence. Others argued that the ATC should not be understood as a commercial intermediary because it is itself a not-for-profit organisation. I am waiting on responses from the rest of APTIS member universities.

This leaves some basic governance questions unanswered.

Who decided that the ATC should join APTIS?

What exactly is the ATC’s membership status?

What participation and decision-making rights does that status confer?

How and when were member universities informed?

What influence does membership give the ATC within APTIS?

And what academic or professional legitimacy does membership of APTIS confer on the ATC?

And perhaps most importantly:

If some member universities did not even know that the ATC had joined, who is accountable for decisions made on behalf of the association to which they belong?

This is an argument for transparency and accountability. Relationships with an interest group should be open to scrutiny—particularly when questions arise about representation, academic independence and who gets a seat at the table.

Referance:

ATC. 2025. END OF YEAR Report 2025. Acessed 3 January 2026. ATC End of Year Report 2025

Blog image:
ulysse.gks & FARI / https://betterimagesofai.org / https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/