EST Colloquium on Research Assessment in Translation Studies Criteria in Translation Research Assessment Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast 27 September 2008

EST Colloquium on Research Assessment EST Colloquium on Research Assessment in Translation Studiesin Translation Studies

Criteria in Translation Research Assessment Criteria in Translation Research Assessment

Heidrun Gerzymisch-ArbogastHeidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast

27 September 2008

ESIT, Paris

Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast Criteria in Translation Research Assessment

Criteria in Translation Research Assessment - Problems & Perspectives –

I. IntroductionII. Problems in Assessing TS ResearchIII. Possible Solutions and Suggestions

I. IntroductionAssessment is ever-present in academic research and is gaining increasing importancein the eyes of academic and public authorities. There are formal regulations and procedures as well as traditions, and these are associated with some uncertainties andproblems, in particular about the adequacy of criteria, the availability and competence of

assessors, and interference from extraneous factors. In TS, the problem is compounded by the diversity of research issues, approaches and

paradigms in the discipline, by the small size of the TS community, which sometimes turns assessment into a ‘family matter’ in which assessors cannot be truly anonymous, and by the fact that most TS research is done within departments of languages, literature etc. rather than TS departments.

II. Problems in TS research assessment

Translation has a centuries-long tradition and has historically raised many complex and controversial scientific questions in a number of disciplines: theology, literary studies, philosophy, semiotics, anthropology and intercultural communication, philology and linguistics.

With the resulting diversity of solutions, comments and opinions fromwithin these separate disciplines, it is natural that translation research has developed heterogeneously, dependent upon each discipline’s explanatory models.

Only in the past century has Translation moved from such peripheral perspective into the center of conceptual and methodological thought being influenced by the thought processes of other disciplines and itself influencing and being applied to other disciplines.


This is why TS research assessment is still highly problematic and a matter of controvery and insecurity relating to the circle (and availability) of assessors, the profile of the person and work to be assessed (e.g. dissertations, papers), the situative framework of the assessment (e.g. time pressures) and the assessment itself with respect to form and content (e.g. a consensus on the criteria to be used)

The focus of my presentation today will be on the question of criteria in TS research assessment.


II. Problems • the assessor(s):

(individual) assessor’s profile (background and area of specialization (‚TS’ or other), perspective (paradigm affiliation(s) and potential bias), relationship to other assessors (influence), ethics; (collective): organization’s or association’s standards and conventions or other requirements; ethical and professional standards;

• the assessed person’s profile:(individual): (background, research training, status (young scholar, colleague, academic practitioner, experienced researcher), relationship to assessor or other researchers; individual objective and expectations; (collective): affiliation to a particular research ‚school’; cultural perspective (discourse ‚style’);

• the situation of assessment time, place, initiator of assessment, purpose of assessment‚ standards & conventions, ‘other requirements’


II. Problems

• the work to be assessed

(a) general type (thesis, dissertation, research paper), topic, interdisciplinary dimensions, paradigm or ‚school’ positioning, length (quantity), form‚ ‚content quality’

(b) the assessment (‚meta’ considerations on ‚quality’) descriptive aspects and/or standards (e.g. questioning & hypothesis, research aim and methodology, ‚state of the art’, added value for TS and research perspectives, weighting of the standards against each other, ranking of works to be assessed)


II. Problems and consequences

A lack of transparency of how these problems may interact and how to

cope with them may lead to• unverifiable and possibly unjust assumptions with the result of

possible bias; • undue pressure on the assessor to ‚conform’ and thus to possibly

unjustified assessments;• over-evaluation of form elements and/or under-evaluation of ‚added

value’; • wide variability of assessment criteria and/or individual over-

emphasis with respect to the applied criteria;


III. Possible solutions and suggestions

These problems and the adverse consequences can be tackled on twoLevels:on a ‘collective’ level, for instance by suggesting (and enforcing)assessment centers and standards set, for example, by an

organizationlike EST. These would have to specify:

• the profiles of eligible assessors; • the profiles of elegible candidates and of the work to be

assessed;• the conditions (situative framework) and the purpose of the

assessment;• the criteria against which the assessment is to be made and

their relative importance in the assessment.


Establishing TS research assessment criteria is difficult because oftheir inherent subjectivity. Because it is not possible to completely ruleout the subjective factor, subjectivity should at least be made ‚intersubjectively verifiable’. Here are suggestions for questions that may help: Does the work to be assessed offer a• Problem statement (= questioning and hypothesis) and aim of

research?• ‘State of the Art’ statement?• Theoretical foundation and methodology statement?• Suggested ‘solution’ of the problem statement?• Application of the suggested solution?• with, of course, the usual introductory and concluding statements,

as well as selected references with respect to the question and research background.



Concluding remark

But even if we reach a consensus on criteria and appropriate assessment conditions we must accept the fact that assessment involves individuals which leaves room for individual attitudes and preferences. It is therefore all the more important to find a consensus on a collective framework for TS research assessment including a set of assessment criteria.

Documents

EST Colloquium on Research Assessment in Translation Studies Criteria in Translation Research Assessment Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast 27 September 2008