|
Accreditation and standards - 1
In theory, an accreditation exam sounds like a brilliant idea |
The translation industry is slowly climbing a tortured path toward regulation and accreditation in the United States, with the ASTM meeting now to come up with nationally recognized standards for translation, LISA issuing its own ideas about what constitutes good practice in localization, and every translator, translation vendor, translation school, and translation organization adding thoughts and suggestions to this process. But has anyone stopped to ask if this is a good idea, if the industry will really benefit from accreditation or regulation, and who might suffer? That's the point of this article: to take a close look at these two closely-related issues and explore what I think are some overlooked problems.
ACCREDITATION
For years now, accreditation has been regularly discussed, and even hotly debated, among translators, at translation and localization conferences, and even in the federal and state governments. Today there is no form of universally recognized accreditation for translators in the United States, even though we do have such options as ATA accreditation, degrees or certificates from various academic institutions, and qualifying exams from federal and state governments, and from organizations like United Nations.
There is at present slow but steady progress toward government-regulated nationwide accreditation for translators. The ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) Subcommittee F15.48 on Language Translation was officially established in September, 1998, and has been meeting quarterly or more often since that time toward the end of creating guidelines for translation and localization. The ASTM's Guide for User-Oriented Foreign Language Instruction was approved in March, 1995, and a guide being developed by ASTM Subcommittee F15.34 on Language Interpretation is scheduled for voting in the summer of 2000. In addition, LISA (Localization Industry Standards Association) has been meeting and discussing standards for language translation in localization. The ATA a few years ago made its accreditation exams into a two-step process, and has added more languages to its roster as well. In sum, many of the right organizations, with the participation of translators, educators, and a translation vendors, are establishing or expanding efforts at standardization or accreditation.
The goal seems to be twofold: first, a nationally recognized and accepted set of standards for translators and translation; second, an accreditation exam for translators, one that would certify a translator as being capable of translating from one particular language into another. Many translators believe that such an exam would benefit them as well as their industry, increasing among other things pay rates, ease of finding work, and respect as professionals. Many translation vendors belief that such an exam would be useful insofar as it would make finding qualified and capable translators easier.
I BELIEVE NEITHER OF THESE THINGS
First, the exam itself. In theory, an accreditation exam sounds like a brilliant idea. But just as the idea of a benevolent monarch being the best form of government has no place in reality, as amply demonstrated by John Stuart Mill, this exam is a practical impossibility. Let's take a close look at the assumptions underlying this exam, and the inevitable, and I will argue insurmountable, problems that come with them.
The exam will have to exist for every language combination in use in the United States. Even if we assume that these combinations consist of only English and another language, rather than say Japanese to Spanish or Russian to Italian, we are still dealing with a lot of exams, depending on which languages are deemed worthy of testing. At the very least, all United Nations languages (Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, Spanish, and the two alternatives: German and Japanese) as well as obvious languages like Vietnamese, Korean, Portuguese, Italian, and so forth will have to be tested. Moreover, there will have to be two tests for each language combination, one for each direction, because translators translate from their B language into their A language. So we're already dealing with at least 22 exams.
Since most translators specialize in one or a couple of related fields, the exam will either have to be very general, and therefore not particularly useful insofar as it will not test terminology, subject area knowledge, or the ability to write in an appropriate style, or the exam will have to exist for several fields, such as law, finance, medicine, physical sciences, social sciences, computer science, and so on. For this exam to fulfill its intended purpose as a way of identifying who can really translate what, the exam will likely have to exist for various area specializations. Even if we assume there are only five subject specializations (business, law, finance, medicine, science), the number of exams is now at least 110.
The exam will also have to test skills beyond translation itself, such as the ability to use a word processor like Microsoft Word well, to work with MT or MAT software systems, to manage or create terminology databases, navigate HTML files and manipulate them as necessary, or to perform DTP in an application like QuarkXPress. To what extent are these skills necessary? Should they be evaluated? Is it realistic to accredit a translator who cannot open an HTML file, doesn't know how to create a table in Microsoft Word, or has never used a database application? If these skills are considered a part of a translator's ability to translate, and I suspect they are, at least by some people in the industry, then they should be tested. Doing so will of course augment the difficulties of creating the 110 or more exams needed.
There is also the matter of length. Most translation agencies and vendors prefer to give two or three paragraph tests, just a small way of seeing if a translator can actually translate. No one considers such tests to be comprehensive, and no one would regard passing one of them as anything remotely related to accreditation. By contrast, the graduation exams, called the Professional Exams, at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, take two full days to complete. Since part of being a professional translator, freelance or in-house, is being able to maintain a certain level of productivity for an entire day, it seems reasonable to have an accreditation exam take at least half a day, during which time a candidate might have to translate one to two-thousand words, depending on the language and subject matter. Again, the 110 or more exams will be that much harder to create the longer they have to be.
The exams will also have to be updated, if not created anew, every year or so not only to reflect changes in language and in the subject specializations, but also to avoid cheating. By cheating I refer not only to people who deliberately obtain a copy of test content before a test so as to improve performance but also to people who merely remember unconsciously the content of a test. These latter people are important because they might inadvertently leak out information about the test, or they might remember the test when they take it again, either because they failed the first time or because they have to take it again in order to maintain their accreditation. So an accreditation exam is not just a matter of creating one exam one time only, but creating more than 100 exams every year.
Who will create these exams? Obviously each exam will have to be created by a group of people based on a consistent set of standards. Some people might be able to participate in the creation of more than one exam, but for each exam I think we can safely assume that at least three people will be needed to come up with a fair and impartial test for translators. That means hundreds of people, at least. And who will grade the exams? Depending on the number of people taking the exams, large teams of graders might be necessary to evaluate the exams in a reasonable period of time. We can't have translators waiting for the results of such an exam for six months or a year. Since a translation exam will by definition have to involve translating and cannot simply be a fill-in-the-blank or a multiple-choice test, grading will be a fairly labor-intensive task. There will also have to be an organization which oversees the creation of the exams, the implementation of testing, an issue to be described at length below, the grading of the exams, and the distribution of grades so that people who claim to have passed can prove they did, and people who need to verify that a translator has passed the exam can do so, too. This organization will have to act in accordance with a set of standards defined by a separate body, such as the ASTM, and will also have to have a means for handling grievances. Inevitably someone will claim that the test was not fair in content or implementation, or was not evaluated justly, and for the exam to be considered useful overall, such grievances have to be heard.
Evaluation of the exams will be especially difficult. It is well accepted that there is no such thing as a perfect translation, that many phrases and idioms can be rendered in two or more ways, and that style is a highly subjective matter. As such, fairness in evaluation will be extremely challenging. The preferences, preconceptions, and experiences of an evaluator will undoubtedly impact at some level, conscious or otherwise, on the grading process, and could potentially affect whether or not a candidate is accredited. Some mechanism to insure fairness in evaluating the exam will be vital so as to assure the people taking the exam that they can expect to pass if they deserve to, and to assure those who use the accreditation as a benchmark for translation ability that it does in fact measure what it claims to. There may even be a need to evaluate the evaluators, but that leads to an infinite regression, which is something best avoided.
Qualifications for taking the exam will be another important issue. Who can take it? Anyone who signs up? Will there be minimum educational requirements, perhaps stemming from whatever standards for translation and translators are put into practice in this country? If such requirements do exist, who will decide how a degree or certification from another country measures against the American educational system? And how will claims by foreign-born and educated translators be verified? We all know what the CIA and FBI go through to perform background checks on American citizens who have lived abroad and then need to be cleared to work for those organizations. Will a similar system be set in place to verify the foreign education of translators, people who almost by definition have such experience? Or will the word of the person be taken at face value, opening the system to at least the possibility of abuse? Finally, will there be exemptions for the exam? Will a person who holds a M.A. from Kent State or the Monterey Institute, or who has passed the U.N. translation exams, or has a certificate from the translation program at Georgetown University, be exempted?
And what about re-testing? Will translators be required to take the exam again after a certain number of years pass? Will sufficient work experience or continuing education be required to take the test again, or might it replace the need to be re-tested? Translators certainly need to maintain their language skills and keep up with the subjects they work in. But who will decide to what extent either is necessary? Should translators be expected to prove their ability again every so many years, even if all their clients are satisfied with their performance?
Even assuming that a fair and impartial test could be created and evaluated, there is still another category of difficulties. Like so many things in life, the idea is the easy part, and the implementation is where the problems really begin.
Where will these accreditation exams be held? Washington D.C. might seem like a logical choice, though as I live in Monterey, California, I personally would prefer, oh, say, Monterey, though readers living in Boston might not like my preference. If there is only one testing center, at least some translators are going to incur serious costs, both in time and money, to take this exam. The testing center itself may pose serious problems, too, as it will have to accommodate a large number of people and their translation resources; it will probably have to have a computer station of some sort for each person taking the test; and it will have to be set up so that people cannot cheat. I've taken and proctored enough standardized tests in my life to be aware of the difficulties associated with this kind of testing.
There is also the question of what constitutes a fair and reasonable testing environment for such an exam. Having translators write out their exam by hand while using print dictionaries they bring themselves may seem practical, but it is unrealistic. Translators work on computers, they word processes their translations, they use the Web to find terminology, they even work with CAT software. Again, standards might help answer these questions, but the matter of fairness, real and perceived, will linger.
What will these exams cost to take? How much is accreditation worth and who will pay for it? Clearly the cost or creating, evaluating, and implementing this exam will be formidable, and though translators may not be asked to pay but a small portion of this, I suspect that translation vendors will pass on the costs indirectly through reduced rates. And what about the expenses mentioned above for the translator who has to travel across country, perhaps stay in a hotel for a day or two, and then take the exam? Accreditation had better have a significant impact on a translator's income to justify the travel expenses, not to mention lost work time. And this holds for in-house as well as freelance translators. If I were the president of a translation agency and were satisfied with my translators, why would I bother sending them out for a couple of days or so to take a test? Why not just give them a bonus for a job well done, save money, and make my translators happy?
Next problem: how do we keep track of who has taken the test, who has passed, and who has failed? Will such a list be available to the public on the Internet, or will one have to file a request for such information about a translator? What will happen when some translator forges accreditation, as inevitably someone will? If an individual can forge a medical license and practice medicine without ever having been to medical school, which people have managed to do in the U.S., why not a translator? Will there be consequences? If so, what? If not, then one of the values of accreditation is lost.
All right, enough of the problems associated with an accreditation exam. I hope I have suggested that there are as yet more than a few fundamental hurdles associated with nationwide accreditation, enough so that I believe an accreditation system is a futile exercise that will merely complicate our industry. But there is another side to this, one that we should look at briefly before leaving this topic.
Continues ...
(By Roger Chriss - USA)
|
Accreditation and standards - 1. In theory, an accreditation exam sounds like a brilliant idea - Translation Articles - Trally.com
|
