For some, this might seem like a statement of the obvious. Academic research should be intellectually independent, and students should be free to follow where their evidence leads. In Translation Studies, however, the boundaries between academic research and industry interests are becoming increasingly blurred and, in my view, increasingly concerning. And that is why I have been investigating it for almost 3 years.

Some academics have objected to my use of Freedom of Information requests to investigate the influence of the Association of Translation Companies (ATC) within Translation and Interpreting Studies. And here I want to emphasise that I resorted to FOI requests only after spending months trying unsuccessfully to obtain information through other routes. So, I would like to extend an open invitation to universities and Translation Studies scholars: be transparent about what the ATC is doing within universities and let us have an open discussion about the ethical, intellectual and material risks associated with the growing influence of interest groups on academic research.

My position is informed partly by personal experience. In 2023, I began my publicly funded PhD on equality, diversity and inclusion in UK outsourced public service interpreting as part of a collaboration with the ATC. Initially, I believed that collaboration could enrich the research by bringing different stakeholder perspectives into the project and could contribute to understanding and addressing serious problems within outsourced public services. However, an ATC representative participated in the project in a “supervisory” capacity.

The difficulty arose when my inquiry began moving in a direction of investigating the inequality interpreters face and away from the ATC’s emphasised on external factors such as education, training and migration policy. I wanted to investigate low pay, deteriorating working conditions and inadequate attention to interpreters’ health and safety. During the period of collaboration, comments made to me included:

“We must remember that translation companies do complex work!”

“We must remember it’s a hugely complex procurement landscape…”

“Talks about pay and working conditions are happening somewhere else.”

“The funding is not for this.”

“You are not an activist here.”

“You are not a passionate advocate here.”

“You need to learn to think like a researcher.”

“You need to control your urges to find solutions.”

That experience heightened my awareness of power struggles and the ethical risks in industry–academia collaboration, especially after my empirical data confirmed intensifying financial insecurity and potential exploitation. I still agree that stakeholder involvement could provide valuable knowledge. But there is an important difference between contributing expertise to research and acquiring influence over what researchers are permitted or encouraged to investigate. When an organisation representing a particular set of interests participates in determining which questions can be asked about the very sector it represents, collaboration risks becoming research agenda-setting.

My experience also led me to look more closely at the ATC’s wider university collaboration programme. Through a series of Freedom of Information requests, I obtained information indicating that, within some collaborations, the ATC proposes research topics and offers access to corporate members and industry expertise while seeking a supervisory role. This raises questions that deserve open discussion: Who determines the research question? What authority does an external supervisor have? What safeguards protect students’ intellectual independence? What due diligence is undertaken by universities? And who ultimately benefits from the research produced?

More recently, I was surprised to see the ATC publicising research on diversity in public service translation conducted in collaboration with the University of Surrey’s Centre for Translation Studies. Reading the dissertation prompted further questions for me about how industry collaboration can shape what becomes visible—and what remains outside the analytical frame—when Translation Studies examines questions of equality and inclusion.

My concern extends beyond individual research projects. The ATC has also been admitted to the Association of Programmes in Translation and Interpreting Studies (APTIS). My ongoing inquiries have raised further questions about how this relationship was established, how member universities were consulted, and what governance arrangements are in place. After months of trying to obtain clarification, I again resorted to Freedom of Information requests. APTIS has also hosted the Better Together conference on collaboration between Translation Studies and industry, making questions about the terms and governance of such collaboration increasingly important.

I am continuing this investigation, but I am writing now to make a simple call for transparency and accountability. If universities and academics consider the volume of Freedom of Information requests burdensome, there is a straightforward alternative: proactively publish information about institutional relationships with industry interest groups, including the nature of their involvement in student research, how research topics are developed, what due diligence and conflict-of-interest assessments are undertaken, and what safeguards exist to protect academic independence.

Industry knowledge can enrich academic research. Industry interests should not determine its boundaries.

Blog Image:
Hanna Barakat & Cambridge Diversity Fund / https://betterimagesofai.org / https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/