Dear Professor West,

I am writing to urge the University of Leeds to undertake a formal institutional review of its relationship with the Association of Translation Companies (ATC), which continues to publicly list Leeds as one of its University Partners. Such a review should examine the nature and authorisation of this partnership, the governance of external involvement in student research, safeguards for academic independence and the ethical responsibilities associated with institutional partnerships with commercial interest groups.

I am a doctoral researcher at Leeds investigating inequality in the UK translation and interpreting industry and the founder of the Due Diligence Club, a grassroots movement advocating for fairer working conditions. More than a year ago, I wrote to you about my concerns, providing a detailed account of my experience when the ATC’s Chief Executive, Raisa McNab, had been permitted to act as a “supervisor” on my publicly funded PhD, attending supervisory meetings and commenting on my writing. Before my doctoral project, McNab had also been described by the University as having “supervised” an MA student’s “thesis analyses”.

I am now renewing that appeal publicly following the publication of my independent journalistic investigation, Phantoms in the Governance, into relationships publicly presented by the ATC as partnerships with eleven UK universities, including Leeds.

The ATC is an interest group representing corporate actors in the translation and interpreting industry and lobbies the UK government on matters relating to public-sector outsourcing contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds. It operates within an industry characterised by a highly feminised and racialised workforce, in which low pay, precarious working conditions and potentially exploitative labour practices have been documented in numerous academic studies.

When I raised concerns about the University’s relationship with the ATC, the Head of my School informed me that she had examined the matter and concluded:

“as we do not have any formal ties or links with ATC, we will not need to take any action here.”

This response leaves important questions unanswered. If Leeds has no formal ties or links with the ATC, why has it not requested that its name be removed from the ATC’s public list of University Partners? What institutional arrangements authorised its CEO’s involvement in student research? What due diligence was undertaken? What safeguards were established to protect academic independence, manage potential conflicts of interest and clarify the limits of external influence?

I subsequently asked whether the ATC had signed any conflict-of-interest declaration but received no response to this specific query. Through the University’s responses to my Freedom of Information requests, I also learned that McNab had been permitted to propose the research topic and help shape the research design before I became involved in the project.

I believe a review is warranted for three principal reasons:

First, potential conflicts of interest. The ATC represents commercial intermediaries whose economic interests may differ from those of translators and interpreters. Its involvement in university teaching and research therefore warrants scrutiny to ensure that academic independence and students’ interests are protected. My own experience also raises questions about the safeguards available when a researcher’s intellectual judgement differs from the interests or preferred framing of an external collaborator.

Second, intellectual plurality. Students should encounter independent and diverse perspectives on the political economy of translation and interpreting, including research examining remuneration, bargaining power, outsourcing and the distribution of economic value. Commercial perspectives have a legitimate place in education, but should not be privileged at the expense of critical scholarship.

Third, the risk of institutional legitimisation. Universities should consider whether publicly endorsing an interest group representing commercial actors in an industry with significant documented labour problems risks inadvertently legitimising unfair or potentially exploitative practices. Such a risk warrants examination, not an assumption of wrongdoing.

I would also draw your attention to the University of Bristol, which was previously listed among the ATC’s University Partners. Following questions raised during my investigation, Bristol confirmed that its proposed collaboration had undergone an institutional governance review, with oversight at School and University Education Committee levels. Bristol also clarified that the ATC would have no role in formally supervising or marking student dissertations and that academic work would remain under university control.

Bristol subsequently disappeared from the ATC’s published list of university partners, although I have not established whether these developments were connected.

Bristol’s response demonstrates that university–industry relationships can be subjected to identifiable institutional scrutiny, with clear boundaries governing external involvement in student research, without prejudging the outcome.

I therefore respectfully request that the University of Leeds undertake and document a proportionate institutional review. Such a review should establish the nature and authorisation of Leeds’ relationship with the ATC, examine the governance of its involvement in student research, and consider conflicts of interest, academic freedom, research independence, reputational risks and the interests of students and the translators and interpreters whose professional lives are shaped by the industry.

I also ask the University to clarify whether it recognises and authorises the ATC’s continued public designation of Leeds as a University Partner.

I would particularly welcome clarification of why the concerns I previously raised with you have not led to an institutional review. I appreciate that things can move slowly in academia, but thirteen months and twelve days seems an unusually long time to wait for these concerns to be addressed.

I am not arguing against university–industry collaboration. I am asking that such collaboration be critically examined, with appropriate consideration of whose interests it serves and whose perspectives it privileges.

I hope the University of Leeds will approach this request in the spirit of critical inquiry, academic freedom and institutional accountability.

Thank you for considering my appeal. I would welcome a substantive response and would be pleased to provide the relevant correspondence and supporting evidence.

Yours sincerely,

Fardous Bahbouh