Localization Training: Towards an Industry-Based Requirements

Localization Training:

Towards an Industry-based Requirements’ Gathering Model

A dissertation submitted

To Kent State University in partial

Fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Loubna Bilali

August 2018

Except for previously published materials

Dissertation written by

Loubna Bilali

B.A., Chouaib Doukkali University – El-Jadida, Morocco, 2006 M.A., Chouaib Doukkali University – El-Jadida, Morocco, 2008 M.A., Kent State University – Kent, OH, USA, 2010 Ph.D., Kent State University – Kent, OH, USA, 2018

Approved by

______, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Keiran Dunne

______, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Greg Shreve

______R. Kelly Washbourne

______Erica Eckert

______Andrew Barnes

Accepted by

______, Chair, Department of Modern & Classical Language Studies Keiran Dunne

______, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences James L. Blank

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... iii List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... x Dedication ...... xii Acknowledgements ...... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1. Why Training in Localization? ...... 2

2. The Research Problem ...... 4

3. Research Questions ...... 6

4. Significance of the Study ...... 7

5. Structure of the Study ...... 9

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 10 1. Overview of Localization...... 11

a. Historical milestones: Emergence and evolution...... 11

b. Localization scope...... 14

2. Localization and Translation in the Context of GILT ...... 17

a. Localization as a profession...... 22

3. Conceptual Framework ...... 24

a. Training versus education (or the vocational versus the academic)...... 24

b. Curriculum versus pedagogy (or the “how” vs. the “what”)...... 31

c. Curriculum models in translation and interpreting...... 33

d. Translation pedagogy models...... 40

iii

e. Skill, competence and expertise...... 45

f. Competence models...... 46

Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 56 1. Method ...... 57

2. Documentary Research Description and Procedure ...... 59

3. Questionnaire Description and Procedure ...... 65

a. Participant selection and description...... 65

b. Questionnaire design...... 67

c. Data collection...... 69

d. Data analysis...... 70

4. Semi-structured Interview Description and Procedure ...... 71

Chapter 4: Results ...... 74 1. Documentary Analysis ...... 74

a. Corpus analysis – job descriptions...... 74

b. Corpus analysis – Program and course descriptions...... 83

2. Questionnaire Analysis ...... 89

a. Stakeholder 1: Employers ...... 89

b. Stakeholder 2: Instructors ...... 103

c. Stakeholder 3: Practitioners ...... 120

3. Semi-structured Interview Analysis ...... 137

a. Interviewing employers...... 137

b. Interviewing instructors ...... 141

c. Interviewing practitioners...... 147

Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 152 1. Industry Needs in Localization ...... 155

a. Job descriptions’ perspective: What do the job descriptions say? ...... 155

b. Employers’ perspective: What do employers say? ...... 161

c. Practitioners’ perspective: What do practitioners say? ...... 167

2. Assessment of Current Localization Training Opportunities ...... 171

a. Analysis of localization training opportunities: What do localization programs have to offer?

171

b. Instructors’ assessment of training: What do instructors say? ...... 176

3. Divergence and Convergence: Is There a Gap? ...... 183

a. How does the industry perceive localization training? ...... 183

b. How does academia perceive localization training? ...... 187

4. Moving forward (How to Improve on Training) ...... 189

a. Industry talk...... 189

b. Academia talk ...... 192

Chapter 6: Conclusion ...... 197

1. Summary of the Study ...... 198

2. Implications of the Study ...... 206

a. Curricular and pedagogical implications...... 207

b. Industry implications...... 210

3. Limitations of the Study ...... 211

4. Future Research Directions ...... 213

Appendices ...... 215 Appendix A: IRB Documentation ...... 215

Appendix B: Recruiting Message (Questionnaire) ...... 218

Appendix C: Questionnaire for Employers ...... 219

Appendix D: Questionnaire for Practitioners ...... 231

Appendix E: Questionnaire for Instructors ...... 246

Appendix F: Recruiting Message (Semi-structured Interviews) ...... 260

Appendix G: Semi-structured Interview Questions for Employers ...... 262

Appendix H: Semi-structured Interview Questions for Practitioners ...... 263

Appendix I: Semi-structured Interview Questions for Instructors ...... 264

Appendix J: List of Job Titles and Industries ...... 266

References ...... 273

List of Figures

Figure 1. Typical software localization project component (adapted by Dunne, 2014 p. 150, adapted from

Esselink, 2000, p. 10)...... 12

Figure 2. GILT dependencies (Dunne, 2006, p. 6)...... 20

Figure 3. The phases of the study...... 58

Figure 4. The process of JD keyword analysis...... 60

Figure 5. Sample of the keyword frequency list...... 61

Figure 6. List of collocates of the keyword “experience.” ...... 62

Figure 7. A concordance of the collocate “localization experience.” ...... 63

Figure 8. Generic keyword frequency...... 75

Figure 9. Types of required experience...... 76

Figure 10. Types of required skills...... 77

Figure 11. Required tool knowledge...... 78

Figure 12. Required education...... 78

Figure 13. Required education by major...... 79

Figure 14. Job descriptions per industry...... 80

Figure 15. Categories of localization job titles...... 83

Figure 16. Total number of staff employed...... 90

Figure 17. Commonly requested languages...... 91

Figure 18. Types of localization work companies request...... 92

Figure 19. In-house vs. freelance localization practitioners...... 93

Figure 20. Localization practitioners with certificates vs. degrees...... 94

Figure 21. Training opportunities within companies...... 95

Figure 22. Instrumental skills according to employers...... 96

Figure 23. Systemic skills according to employers...... 97

vii

Figure 24. Translation skills according to employers...... 98

Figure 25. Technological skills according to employers...... 99

Figure 26. Project management skills according to employers...... 100

Figure 27. The importance of localization training according to employers...... 101

Figure 28. Instructors’ involvement with the industry...... 107

Figure 29. Localization courses within academic programs...... 107

Figure 30. Number of credits assigned to localization courses...... 108

Figure 31. Localization training modalities...... 108

Figure 32. Focus of localization courses...... 109

Figure 33. Types of instruction in localization courses...... 110

Figure 34. Types of localization tasks performed by students in courses...... 111

Figure 35. Languages supported in localization courses...... 111

Figure 36. Instrumental skills according to instructors...... 112

Figure 37. Systemic skills according to instructors...... 113

Figure 38. Translation skills according to instructors...... 114

Figure 39. Technology skills according to instructors...... 115

Figure 40. Management skills according to instructors...... 116

Figure 41. Types of localization work...... 125

Figure 42. Localization-related tasks...... 126

Figure 43. Types of project components that practitioners work with...... 126

Figure 44. Practitioners’ translation activities...... 127

Figure 45. Instrumental skills according to practitioners...... 128

Figure 46. Systemic skills according to practitioners...... 129

Figure 47. Translation skills according to practitioners...... 130

Figure 48. Technological skills according to practitioners...... 131

Figure 49. Management skills according to practitioners...... 132

viii

Figure 50. The importance of training considerations for practitioners...... 133

Figure 51. Challenges of localization training according to practitioners...... 134

Figure 52. Kelly’s 2005 curricular design model...... 154

Figure 53. Localization job profiles...... 167

Figure 54. Relationship between academic and industry stakeholders in light of the services that the market requires...... 198

Figure 55. Sequence of data collection...... 212

List of Tables

Table 1. Process, People and Performance Stage (Anastasiou & Schäler, 2009, p. 3)...... 23

Table 2. Adapted Sample Program Fact Sheet (OPTIMALE, 2011)...... 64

Table 3. Thematic Sections of Questionnaires for each Population Group...... 68

Table 4. Outline of the Semi-structured Interviews...... 72

Table 5. Themes that Emerged from the Interview Data...... 73

Table 6. Breakdown of Localization Job Titles...... 81

Table 7. Types of Institutions and Degrees Offering Localization...... 84

Table 8. Titles and Hosting Units of Programs Offering Localization...... 85

Table 9. Localization Course Titles...... 87

Table 10. Language Combinations in Localization Training Programs...... 89

Table 11. Distribution of Organizations by Type...... 90

Table 12. Distribution of Fields of Activity (By Volume or Turnover)...... 91

Table 13. Job Titles of Respondents...... 92

Table 14. Years of Experience for Localization Practitioners...... 94

Table 15. Screening Criteria for Hiring Localization Practitioners...... 95

Table 16. Employers’ Reaction to Practitioners' Weaknesses...... 102

Table 17. Academic Background of Instructors...... 104

Table 18. Professional Certifications of Instructors...... 104

Table 19. Kinds of Localization Training Pursued by Instructors...... 105

Table 20. Years Teaching University-level Localization Courses...... 105

Table 21.Localization Courses...... 106

Table 22. Academic Background of the Practitioners...... 120

Table 23. Professional Certifications of the Practitioners...... 121

Table 24. Kinds of Localization Training Pursued by Practitioners...... 122

Table 25. Practitioners’ Employment Status...... 123

Table 26. Years of Professional Experience...... 123

Table 27. Types of Clients for which Practitioners Provide Service...... 124

Table 28. Clients’ Geographical Locations...... 124

Dedication

To my parents, Faiçal and Saadia, who taught me the value of education, and instilled in me a passion for lifelong learning

To my professors who believed in me, and made me feel I belong

To my friends who supported me in every single step of this Ph.D. journey

xii

Acknowledgements

They say it takes a village to raise a child, in my case; it took a village to write a dissertation. This dissertation is the collective effort of many individuals who made a great impact on my doctoral journey. I would like to sincerely thank my dissertation advisor, Dr.

Keiran J. Dunne, for his expertise, guidance, and support not only throughout the dissertation process but since my first graduate courses in the translation program at Kent State. Dr. Dunne encouraged me to develop my research persona, work independently, own and defend my choices. The opportunity to learn from him during this experience has been a real gift; so thank you for your investment in me, Dr. Dunne!

I extend a special thank you to Dr. Gregory Shreve for sharing his expertise during the conceptualization and the data analysis phases of the study, Dr. Shreve, thank you for providing insights essential to this research and for always being available and supportive over the years. I am also grateful for my committee members. Dr. Kelly Washbourne, thank you for joining in this journey and for your guidance and leadership in translation pedagogy. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Erica Eckert for her thoughtful criticism, insightful and enthusiastic input, and to Dr. Andrew Barnes for the attention he devoted to my project and his thought- provoking comments and questions during my defense.

I am also grateful to Dr. Massardier-Kenney for believing in me and supporting my research since our first encounter 10 years ago in Morocco. Thank you for your dedication to students’ success and for challenging me in all the right ways. Thank you to Dr. Baer and Dr.

xiii

Wakabayashi for helping me present and publish my first research paper and for being always available and helpful; your commitment to academic scholarship has been very inspiring.

Special thanks go to all the professors and the staff of the Modern and Classical

Language Studies Department and the Institute for Applied Linguistics (IAL) at Kent State

University for serving as role models and leading by example. Thank you for creating the right environment for me to grow as a student, researcher and teacher.

Thank you to the Institute for Applied Linguistics for awarding me a Master’s scholarship, a Doctoral Fellowship and travel support for conferences throughout my doctoral studies. Thank you to Kent State University’s Graduate Studies for awarding me the University

Fellowship and organizing a series of dissertation boot camps that allowed me to make so much progress in my writing. Thank you to the University Statistical Consulting Services for their valuable help at different stages of my study.

I am greatly indebted to the Mikati family who about a decade ago became my second family, hosted me as an international student coming from Morocco. Fetna and amou Fadel welcomed me into their lives, made me feel more than home, and have been a source of comfort, strength and inspiration.

I am especially grateful to my parents, Faiçal and Saadia for their unwavering support and prayers. They have been an endless source of unconditional love, and hope and very remarkable examples of perseverance, commitment, altruism, and hard work. I would also like thank my aunt Nezha for always being there for me regardless of the distance and for supporting me in all of my decisions and serving as a real source of inspiration and as my life coach. Thank you to my brother, Hicham for always reminding me of the joy of brotherhood and constantly

xiv finding ways to bring a smile to my face. Thank you to my extended family members, aunts, uncles, and cousins for their support and for all the positive vibes they have been sending me.

I have been very fortunate to be part of great community of graduate students at the IAL.

I am grateful to my friends and colleagues in the Ph.D. program and beyond for sharing their time, experience, insights, joy, and stress and for the many group counseling hours we spent in

SFH 318, our second home! The journey would have not been as rich and full of learning were it not for the friends who provided emotional support over the last few years. Thank you for being there throughout the stressful writing stages of this dissertation. Thank you for the cheers, tears and laughs. Your care and constant presence enabled me to find the motivation to keep moving on and to grow as a person and young researcher.

I owe a great deal to the participants in this study as well, and I hope they learned as much as I did in this experience. Finally, I want to thank all of those people who, once upon a time, were my teachers and who helped me begin this long journey. Their names are too numerous to mention, but many of them inspired me to continue learning and sharing with others.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the people who, in crossing my life pathway, left unfading marks which contributed to making me the person I am today. Thank you to all my friends around the world for the positive energy and thoughtfulness.

Loubna Bilali

June 8, 2018

Kent, Ohio

Chapter 1: Introduction

“There is an emerging consensus in the localization industry that our industry will confront a severe talent shortage in the coming years unless there is a focused effort to proactively create and manage the supply of professionally trained staff. To effect change, industry leaders, academics, trainers and certification experts need to meet to assess the challenges and to develop a sustainable strategy that will address job categories, education and incentives.” (LocWorld ADT, 2015)

The market for translation and language services has experienced tremendous changes over the past two decades, thanks to technological developments in the field of personal computers and software, as well as the advent and evolution of new internet-based modes of communication and entertainment. In fact, efforts by businesses to target international users with products and services that cross linguistic and cultural borders has prompted the emergence of what is currently known as the Language Industry. This same impetus has also driven the shift in this evolving industry from handling traditional printed documents to manipulating high volumes of digital text (“content”) in a range of formats for a wide variety of media, devices, and audiences worldwide. Technological advances that have produced an arsenal of tools geared toward assisting and leveraging translation and localization operations have also boosted the growth of the language services sector. As a result, the evolution of the market has required a redefinition of the role of the translator, reflecting the shift from the translation of text to the localization of content, a practice aiming at the adaptation of digital material for the global market. As the market evolves and roles shift, academic offerings need to change in terms of training content, objectives and outcomes in order to stay current with that evolution.

Localization is “the linguistic and cultural adaptation of digital content to the requirements of a foreign market” (Schäler, 2007, p. 120). Such customizations take into account the linguistic, cultural,

technical and legal expectations of the target audience with the goal of enabling people “to use content, products, and services in their own language, according to their own culture and according to their own personal needs” (Van Genabith, 2007). Localization can only be fully operational and easily understood when contextualized with reference to other processes known as GILT —Globalization,

Internationalization, Localization, and Translation— (Dunne, 2006). Essentially, with globalization as a strategy and as a goal, products need to be internationalized first at the design level that is neutralized so that they can be easily adapted to specific locales during the localization process.

This study contributes to the literature on localization training by examining the content of university training programs along with localization market needs and requirements. It opens with a discussion of the context in which localization has evolved and how it operates within the language industry, as well as in the context of academic training. The study then examines curricula models applied in translation training. Finally, a defined process for gathering and identifying market requirements along with academic course and programmatic outcomes is suggested based on the results of questionnaires and interviews with participants from the professional and academia sector of localization, and on an analysis of documentation from academic localization courses and their content.

1. Why Training in Localization?

“The links between research and the reality of the translation market may need critical scrutiny in terms of how we define our concepts, how we design and implement research, how we use research findings to bring about changes as well as how we educate future translators.” (Jääskaläinen et al., 2011, p. 145)

Since the early 1990s the world has witnessed the emergence of a global market of language services, referred to in this dissertation as the Language Industry (LI), thanks to the forces of globalization and the digital revolution, the commoditization of the PC and the arrival of the Internet

(Dunne, 2006). To keep up with the global economic dynamic, gain a spot in the international market, and

remain competitive in the digital economy, multinational firms and software developers have focused on marketing products and services that cross linguistic, cultural and geographical borders without the need for redesign. Indeed, “wider availability of complex products has meant an increase in technical documentation” that must be translated into many languages worldwide (Drugan, 2013, p.10). This market orientation, in turn, has driven the continuous expansion of the multibillion-dollar Language

Industry, which is growing at an annual rate of 6.5%–7.5% and is estimated to reach USD $45 billion by

2020 (DePalma, Piemeier, Stewart & Henderson, 2016).

In order to meet the ultimate goal of “going global,” companies have had to establish new processes and adapt legacy practices to meet globalization requirements. Hence the large-scale need for internationalization (I18N),1 localization (L10N),2 and translation arose in the 1980s and 1990s and the imperative to implement them efficiently has increased drastically over the past 15 years thanks to the evolution of the Internet and the proliferation of electronic devices on which users access content. These major changes fueled by the increasing volume of published multilingual content have not only affected the business strategies and processes of language service providers who adopted an outsourcing model

(Gouadec, 2007, p. 314), but have also expanded to other stakeholders in the LI. The ever-growing volume of digitized content has accentuated the need for localization tools and practices that can handle software, websites and multimedia material. Moreover, technologies have been developed to facilitate the execution and management of large-scale translation projects for localization purposes. The changing technological landscape along with evolving professional expectations and requirements mean that translation practitioners need new sets of skills to perform the various duties and fill the numerous roles required of them in their professional work. In theory, translation training programs should expand their curricula to address and reflect current and projected market directions in the coursework. The urgency of

1 Internationalization is often abbreviated using the meronym “i18n, in which the numeral “18” indicates the number of letters between the first and last letter of the word, i.e., “i” and “n.” 2 Likewise, localization is often abbreviated using the meronym “l10n,” in which the numeral “10” indicates the number of letters between “l” and “n.”

aligning curricula with current industry requirements is underscored by the rapid growth of the industry.

According to the United States Department of Labor, demand for interpreters and translators is predicted

“to grow 18% from 2016–2026, much faster than the average for all occupations” (US DOL 2018).

2. The Research Problem

Making the case for localization investment was traditionally a difficult undertaking (DePalma,

2002, p. 1) until companies began to realize the profitable return on investment and the global presence that result from properly designing multilingual websites, software applications, and content for different countries (locales). According to Brooks (1998),

In [Fiscal Year] 1998 more than 60% of Microsoft’s revenues came from markets outside of the United States. The majority of these revenues come from non-English speaking markets, and a key component of Microsoft’s international strategy has been to lead the industry in the delivery of localized products to these markets. Microsoft revenue from localized product exceeded $5 billion. (as cited in Lommel, 2007, p. 9)

Likewise, S&P Dow Jones Indices (2015) “estimates that U.S information technology companies generated 59% of sales overseas in 2014, compared with 48% for companies in the broader S&P 500 index” (Clark, Wakabayashi, & Barr, 2016). This localization industry has undergone many macro- and micro-level changes and adjustments as the object of localization has evolved from software user interface and documentation to websites, videogames, smartphones, and all types of multimedia content.

In the late 1990s and into the new millennium, the industry also worked on defining its processes, concepts, and the skill sets of its practitioners and started to integrate translation-training programs based on the research findings of industry and education initiatives such as MeLLANGE (Multilingual E-

Learning for Language Engineering), LEIT (LISA Education Initiative Taskforce) and LETRAC

(Language Engineering for Translators Curricula). Given the multifaceted nature of the industry, training in this field has required the implementation of more interdisciplinary approaches that combine multilingual, multicultural, multimedia, and multi-technological models and features. Checking these facts combined with a quick look at the number of training programs specializing in localization or partly offering localization courses in North America (a mere 7 graduate degree programs and 10 certificates

across the United States as of the time of this writing), it became evident that despite the strong and sustained growth of the localization industry, this industry still lacks comprehensive training programs and curricula tailored to the needs of the market and to the goals of localization businesses. There is an increasing need for localization, and consequently, for university programs to train localization practitioners. Lambert (1976) once wondered whether “universities are flexible enough to account for systematic and rapid changes,” he came to the conclusion that “in our contemporary world, we need new models for observation, analysis, action – and teaching” (as cited in Drugan, 2013, p. 185) that would enable academic institutions to embrace the changes and shifts driving the industry and adequately adapt to constantly evolving tasks and practices.

With respect to academia, Translation Studies has extensively researched translation competence models, translation pedagogy, teaching and learning approaches and assessment. Discussions about the relationship between translator training and the industry have been at the core of many academic endeavors that emphasize the importance of envisioning a training that accounts for changes in the profession (Kiraly, 2000; Colina, 2003; González Davis, 2004; Schäffner, 2005; Kelly, 2005; Olohan,

2007). The difficulty of defining the nature of the relationship between the academy and the industry was captured by González Davis (2004a) when she said “an underlying question in our field and indeed in any other professionally oriented program of university studies is: practice versus academe or practice plus academe?” Kiraly (2005) sees great value in using market trends to inform training content and curricular decisions:

If we want out products and services to be accepted by the market, we must conduct survey research among market participants, if we want to investigate the efficacy of the Translator Education programs we offer, one of our main sources of information will be the translation services market (p.1099).

This view was further emphasized by Calvo (2011) who argues that curriculum models “can be the product of sound academic research, methods and analysis (e.g., using TAPs, interviews of employers, surveys answered by translators or professional associations, or other sorts of observational, empirical or reflective techniques)” (p. 15) that bring industry and academia together for a mutually beneficial

interaction. Research and debates about accommodating market needs, transferability of skills and employability in the context of translator training have not expanded to include localization as a discipline situated at the cross point of other disciplines, i.e., translation, linguistics, culture, technology and business. From an industry standpoint, current and projected market growth suggests that localization is a viable occupation that contributes to national economies. Yet, there is no clear status for it as a professional activity and it often appears under language or business services. The lack of visibility of localization as a profession and as an academic discipline indicates that there is a pressing need for research devoted to localization matters that address and assess localization processes, products, skill sets, training models in comparison to what the industry expects with respect to skills and practitioner profiles.

In this respect, Folaron (2006) believes that “[c]ommon ground between professional practice and academic discourse can be expanded through the interdisciplinarity that characterizes localization.” (p.

206)

In light of the growth of the LI, but dearth of training programs and lack of critical pedagogical reflection on localization, the research problem can be summarized as follows: how do we develop a needs assessment-driven model of required skills (or programmatic outcomes) to enable the creation of market-oriented localization curricula? This problem can be approached using models from translation curricula and pedagogy as well as training in other disciplines supported by a market needs analysis to develop a systematic way of gathering requirements to identify desirable localization training program outcomes. This process will take into account the incentives, needs, and expectations of the market, and of localization trainers and practitioners as well.

3. Research Questions

The ability and readiness of academic institutions to adjust to current and emerging market needs has always been debatable. As a matter of fact, such expected adaptation cannot happen in a vacuum; it must be guided by a thorough analysis of professional, social, and disciplinary considerations, among

others (Kelly, 2005). The following research questions will tap into these dimensions in order to address the research problem:

(1) What does the Language Industry need in terms of localization practice? (Do localization

stakeholders on the buyer and seller sides have similar needs?)

a. What professional profiles (skill set) does the industry seek when selecting and

recruiting candidates to perform localization work?

(2) What kind of localization training do current translation and localization programs in the U.S.

offer?

a. What do trainers do to prepare new graduates for the localization market?

(3) What expectation gaps, if any, exist between training and work?

The goal of the study is to answer these questions while offering a systematic way of gathering the requirements for localization professions based on the findings of a three-dimensional research design that examines the opinions of three major stakeholders of the localization industry, namely companies representing the recruiting market, trainers representing academia and localizers representing the workforce. The study does not propose to evaluate whether localization training succeeds or fails in meeting market demand and expectations, but to report and reflect on the localization profession and training situation in the U.S. context.

4. Significance of the Study

“Everyone talks about training in the language business. But if you aren’t developing a cutting-edge skill set, you might be cutting yourself out of the market.” (Esselink, 1999, p.22)

Identifying curricular outcomes through a requirements-gathering model tailored to the localization service industry offers great value in the context of translation training. It is meant to help fill the skill, knowledge and business gaps that are keeping academia behind the industry it is expected to serve. The output of such a model will be efficient when directly derived from industry and academia-

driven assessments supplemented by feedback from practitioners. By integrating proposals for the improvement of university training in localization put forward by employers, instructors, and localizers, the model can inform the development of university programs responsive to market needs. Ultimately, this model can help relaunch the conversation about how to bring the best of the professional and academic worlds to the localization classroom. This goal has ignited debates within translation studies for more than a decade, as Malmkjær (2004) points out:

One means towards avoiding a split between a profession and its academic discipline is to ensure that teaching programs have face validity for members of those professions in which students might seek employment. For a translation program to achieve face validity for the translation profession, the profession needs to be convinced that graduates of the program have acquired at least some of the knowledge and skills necessary for success in the profession. For such programs to have face validity for students, the students need to feel reasonably confident that the program will equip them for a career (p. 2).

The present study is significant in several respects. First, it highlights the need for interaction, cooperation and communication between academia and the language industry in gathering requirements to help bridge the gap between course and program outcomes and market expectations and to align market needs with training objectives. Second, it raises awareness of the growing importance of localization training as a standalone discipline by providing valuable insights into the specificities of localization practices, the requirements of the job market, as well as the current and projected profiles and career paths of future professionals (i.e., graduates of translation programs). Finally, it outlines a process whereby an outcomes- based training map tailored to localization needs can be created. This map relies heavily on the results of a cross-industry and cross-academic consultation process. Overall, this may be considered the first empirical study carried out in the U.S. about localization training that asks the academic and professional sectors to reflect on ways to move forward with training. It provides a model of requirements gathering upon which academic programs can draw to enhance the relevance of their curricula and the skills developed by students, which in turn will presumably enhance the employability of these programs’ graduates.

5. Structure of the Study

This dissertation is presented in six chapters. Chapter One provides an introduction, a short background to frame the study along with the statement of the problem and significance of the study. This chapter also presents the research questions that motivated the study. Chapter Two presents a survey of the literature including a historical overview of the localization industry, its processes and activities genres. It also introduces and highlights the conceptual framework describing concepts around which the study revolves: pedagogy vs. curriculum; training vs. education and skill vs. competence. Chapter Three outlines the methodology used for data collection and analysis. It describes the methods and instruments used in the study, and defines the design of the questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. This chapter also explains the process of data collection and the tools used for corpus analysis and qualitative data collection. Chapter Four reports the results of the three data sets: the corpus of job descriptions and academic program; the questionnaires targeting the three stakeholder groups (employers, practitioners, instructors) and the follow-up semi-structured interviews. Chapter Five provides a discussion of the findings that emerged from the analysis of each data set in the light of the research questions. It draws connections and comparisons and ends with recommendations from stakeholders representing industry and academia about best practices that can enhance localization training. Chapter Six offers a summary of the study, and outlies the implications and limitations of the study, as well as avenues for further research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

As discussed in the first chapter, the localization industry has evolved as a response to companies’ need to expand sales by crossing geographic borders and entering new markets. Since its emergence in the late

1980s, the localization industry has been relying on a number of processes, tools and technologies to provide more multilingual digital content simultaneously to global customers. Such processes have enabled localization to adapt wider ranges of content types, and ideally, to diminish linguistic and cultural barriers standing in the way of a borderless, highly connected global marketplace. According to Garcia

(2010) “the demand for translation is growing, but mostly within the localization slice of the language market” (p. 275). Localization strategies have been integral to increasing profits from international markets. As the localization industry has advanced and broadened its sphere, the training and skill sets of its practitioners have evolved to keep abreast of industry needs and requirements. This chapter begins by reviewing the literature to provide a background of the localization industry, its conception, evolution and the scope of its activities, and its position within the GILT model. The chapter then turns to the conceptual framework for the study where training and education, pedagogy and curriculum, skill and competence are examined in the light of scholarship from a number of disciplines. Defining these concepts is essential for framing this study. Several curriculum, pedagogy and competence models within translation studies will be addressed with a focus on potential applicability to localization training.

1. Overview of Localization

a. Historical milestones: Emergence and evolution.

Localization started with the commoditization of personal computers and computer technology. It emerged as the use of software shifted from the restricted settings of corporations and academia to the general public in the 1980s (Esselink, 2003). The same period witnessed “the first international ventures of US-based computer hardware and software firms,” as companies such as Sun Microsystems and

Microsoft began to expand their businesses to Asia, Australia and Europe (Esselink, 2003). These market expansions3 required certain adaptations of products to comply with local market conventions and legal requirements. As Sviridova and Fadyeyeva (2009) point out, “local laws often require all imported hardware or devices to be accompanied by a user manual in the local language.” It was equally important for end-users to interact with localized versions of software products. Urien, Howard and Perinotti (1993) observe that “for a software product to have wide market acceptance in a non-English speaking environment, it was essential to convert the software so that users saw a product in their own language and firmly based in their culture” (p. x). The commercial impetus of localization found a safe haven in

Ireland, where a number of economic and linguistic factors helped the country to attract many of the world’s largest digital publishers4 and subsequently to become the world’s number one exporter of software (Schäler, 2007, p. 120). This status allowed Ireland to play a pivotal role in the advancement of localization research and training initiatives that are discussed in section C.

In the first two decades of its existence, software localization was primarily concerned with providing different language versions of software user interface and supporting documentation, as shown in Figure 1, taking into account such factors as character sets, scripts, sorting rules, date formats, calendars, and decimal separators.

3 European market expansions targeted France, Italy, Germany and Spain, also known as FIGS countries. 4 The list of the World’s largest digital publishers that serve international markets from their headquarters in Ireland include: Apple, Dell, eBay, Google, Hewlett-Packard IBM (Lotus), Intel, Lionbridge, Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, SAP, Sun, Symantec and Vivendi Universal Games (Schäler, 2007, p. 120). For further discussion of the central role of Ireland in the localization and international software development see Sterne (2004).

Figure 1. Typical software localization project component (adapted by Dunne, 2014 p. 150, adapted from Esselink, 2000, p. 10). Localization processes were initially independent from software development, which generated many technical issues related to language support and hard coding. A number of challenges arose due to the lack of readiness of software programs to accommodate languages with different character sets and requirements such as those that need double-byte characters (East-Asian languages) or bi-directional display (Middle-Eastern languages) or diacritics (Central and Eastern European languages). After a series of trials and errors, it became increasingly apparent that more standardized and preparatory processes were needed at earlier stages of the development. Thus, internationalization (I18N) was introduced as a step occurring prior to localization to enable the adaptation process by separating locale- specific features (content) from the software code (functionality) (Esselink, 2003a). This cost-effective step prepares and helps neutralize different components of a software product to avoid retrofitting efforts during the localization phase.

The 1980s and 1990s witnessed the establishment of the localization services industry with the creation of the premier non-profit organization in this sector, the Localization Industry Standards

Association (LISA) in 1990 with the mission of:

promoting the localization and internationalization industry and providing a mechanism and services to enable companies to exchange and share information on the development of processes, tools, technologies and business models connected with localization, internationalization and related topics (LISA, 2003).

LISA’s work aimed at supporting the young industry, fostering best practices, establishing language technology standards, and sharing enterprise globalization expertise among its members. Its services included setting standards and specifications, organizing forums, training workshops on tools, processes

and workflows, online resources and Special Interest Groups (SIG) that handled a series of industry- related topics. Regrettably, after almost two decades of service, LISA ceased operation in 2011 and the

European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI) established an Industry Specification Group, the

Localization Industry Standards, to maintain and improve on LISA standards. Its standards are available free online via the GALA website (Guillemin and Trillaud, 2012, p. 38). In addition to LISA, other initiatives were launched to support the fast growing industry. The Localization Research Centre (LRC) was founded in early 1999 at the University of Limerick in Ireland. The LRC’s “mission [was] to be the educational center of excellence for the localization industry and play a pivotal role in advancing research in this domain” (Shäler, 2007, p. 124). In fact, the center acted as a major hub for information on localization and aimed at documenting industry processes, trends and technologies and strengthening cooperation among academic, industry and government bodies.

The industry has also seen the creation of other professional organizations such as the

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) in 2002. The goal of GALA has been to offer a platform for collaboration and sharing of knowledge pertaining to the language enterprise and the global business community. The 2000s were also marked by the launching of Localization World Conference

(LocWorld) in 2003 in a collaborative effort between the founder of the Localization Institute5 and the publisher of MultiLingual Magazine.6 LocWorld has aimed at promoting networking opportunities and international business among different collaborators and professionals in language and translation services and technologies.

5 The Localization Institute was founded in 1996 to provide online and onsite customized training, seminars and certifications. It also organizes conferences and roundtables covering different facets of the industry and allowing Language Industry professionals to access information, learn about time- and cost-effective localization processes, network and benefit from the skills and expertise of each other (The Localization Institute, 2016). 6 Multilingual Magazine started as a buyer’s guide in 1987. It covers an array of topics ranging from translation and localization to language technologies, content management, global web, internationalization and current trends in the language industry.

b. Localization scope.

The inception of localization was also influenced by the digital revolution and the introduction of the Internet The World Wide Web network implemented by Berners-Lee in the 1990s and made available to the public in 1991 allowed data access and information sharing among users by means of the hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP), the hypertext markup language (HTML) and a web browser (Folaron, 2012, p.

8). Defined as “the universe of network-accessible information, an embodiment of human knowledge”

(Berners-Lee et al., 1992, p. 52), the expansion of the Web as a social network provided access to

“international markets to any company that publishes a website” (Dunne, 2006, p. 3) and facilitated the growth of e-commerce.

The need for localization has evolved from both business and end-users’ perspectives. Companies have increasingly realized that localization enables them “gain market share by breaking into new markets and having more comparative advantages over [their] competitors” (Fernandez Costales, 2009, p. 3).

From a user’s standpoint, Fernandez Costales (2009, p. 4) a that not only does lLocalization helps to integrate usability and accessibility elements into the user’s experience (Fernandez Costales, 2009, p. 4).

Research also shows that “users perceive a company more favorably when they see a version of its website in their mother tongue, regardless of their English proficiency” (Tong and Hayward, 2001, p. 4).

A number of studies reveal that “website localization and cultural customization can lead to better website navigation, web usage, and attitudes towards the site; it can even yield higher purchase intentions” (Singh,

2012, p. 148). According to a 2014 report by Common Sense Advisory entitled “Can’t Read, Won’t Buy” that surveyed 3,002 consumers in 10 non-English speaking countries, “87% of consumers who can’t read

English don’t buy products or services at English-language websites” (DePalma, 2014). The results of the

“Can’t Read, Won’t Buy” report highlight a major variable in consumer buying preferences , namely language;, “this preference for their native language leads many who are unsure of their reading skills to avoid English-only websites, spend less time during their visits, and not buy products that lack instructions or post-sales customer support in their language,” Observes DePalma (2014). Language

preference also highlights the importance of translation and localization for providing a global customer experience when marketing or selling goods and services in a global market.

The move to digital hypertexts brought another dimension to localization. In the 1990s and early years of the 21st century, the concept of localization expanded beyond desktop software to encompass websites, extended to encompass websites,7 and other forms of online documents, reflecting the advent and evolution of the World Wide Web, the rapid expansion of Internet access around the world—which was available to some 3.7 billion people in 2018 (Internet World Stats, 2018)8—and the great increase in the number of Internet users speaking languages other than English. This shift in the scope of localization has intensified as mobile internet usage has surpassed desktop internet usage. By 2016, “smartphones and tablets [had] become king as the share of desktop web browsing traffic [had shrunk] to 48.7%” (Gibbs,

2016). Web localization,9 as Pym points out, “has thus become a lucrative, dynamic, and inter- professional field, often involving marketing, design, and software engineering, as well as linguistic processes” (2011, p. 410). The development and growth of technologies such as mobile web, crowdsourcing applications and cloud computing with Software as service (SaaS) platforms have increasingly blurred the distinction between the two main application domains of localization (i.e., web and software), “with web sites containing more and more software functionality and software applications increasingly deploying a Web interface,” as Esselink observes (2003, p. 27).

Concurrently, the industry has benefited from the advances made in Computer-Assisted

Translation (Bowker, 2002, p. 18). CAT tools such as translation memories (TM) and terminology management systems (termbases), independent of or integrated into localization tools whereby software user interfaces are adapted for other locales, facilitated the handling of large-scale localization projects and helped to maintain high levels of consistency and productivity. The use of such tools has enabled simship, i.e., the simultaneous “shipment” or release to market of multiple different language versions of

7 For a thorough discussion of website localization, see Yunker (2003) and Jiménez-Crespo (2013). 8 See Internet usage statistics by region, see Internet World Stats (Internet World Stats, 2018). 9 For insights on developing and localizing international websites, see Singh (2012).

a product. Simship has traditionally encompassed a minimum of five languages: English, French, Italian,

German, and Spanish (a grouping of languages known as “E-FIGS.”) and has helped companies to greatly reduce time-to-market.10 This competitive advantage was made possible by leveraging CAT tools which allow for the systematic use, reuse, and maintenance of corpora of translated materials.

The expansion of localization has not been confined to websites, but has extended to another growing market: multimedia interactive entertainment software (MIES), commonly known as video games.11 “By the end of the 1990s, video games had become a full-fledged entertainment industry, challenging the pre-eminence of the film, music and book industry” (Bernal-Merino, 2014, p. 3).

According to a report published by Woodside Capital Partners in 2015, revenue from gaming sales in

Europe reached almost $20 billion in 2014, while sales in the United States exceeded the $20 billion mark in the same year (Woodside Capital Partners, 2015, p. 4). In addition, the game industry is forecasted to grow 4.9% from 2011 to 2019E whereas social/digital gaming alone is expected to produce $13.8 billion in revenue by 2019 (Burger & Heller, 2015, p. 5–9). Such market growth powered by competition has been possible thanks in part to the availability of localized versions of the games, enabling them to reach a much wider audience. In the 1990s, game localization focused primarily on the translation of manuals and installation guides. The proliferation of game players around the world necessitated several tailoring efforts to make the games fit specific linguistic, cultural expectations and legal conventions, such as

“platform compliance standards, country-specific age ratings, legal frameworks and similar information that is important for the reception of the product in each of the target cultures” (Bernal-Merino, 2014, p.

2). Complete or full localization and the simultaneous releases of several language versions began to appear in the 2000s and has become a more standard practice with the rapid increase in game users belonging to multilingual and multicultural communities (Bernal-Merino 2011, p. 16).

10 Time-to-market refers to the time between production and readiness for sale in the market. 11 Video games include computer-based, consoles-based, and digital gaming platform including social, mobile, casual Massively Multiplayer Online games (MMOs) and Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing games (MMORPGs) in which gamers are interacting online with players from around the world.

In recent years, localization has expanded once again in response to the advent of mobile technologies. Mobile devices and tablets have become a major channel for communication and entertainment. In addition, these wireless devices present a viable tool for e-commerce and more specifically Mobile Commerce (m-commerce) or mobile e-commerce, since they are Internet-enabled with enhanced and optimized platforms for the purchase of goods and services. Such devices and the multi-purpose applications they carry are increasingly subject to different degrees of adaptations given the high penetration rates of mobile technologies in many countries. In 2012, mobile e-commerce was expected to account for “24.4% of overall e-commerce revenues by the end of 2017” according to Allied

Business Intelligence (ABI) Research (2012). The actual growth of m-commerce as a percentage of overall e-commerce during this period significantly exceeded this projection: by 2018, “m-commerce sales totaled $1.357 trillion, making up 58.9% of digital sales” (eMarketer, 2018). This emerging and rapidly evolving commercial sector is likely to generate strong demand for localized content. As Ray observes, “with a billion tablets already online and four billion smartphones predicted to be in use worldwide by 2017, mobile is the next frontier for companies to implement and fine-tune the global customer experience” (Ray, 2016, p. 13). The localization industry continues to embrace the dynamic of global market demands and to add more and more technologies to its portfolio, which helps foster best practices, gain more control over content, and expand growth.

2. Localization and Translation in the Context of GILT

The idea behind localization is not completely new: “artists, traders, marketers and missionaries realized hundreds of years ago that their products and ideas sold better if they were adapted to the expectations, culture, language and needs of the potential customers,” as Parrish observes (2003, as cited in Schäffner, 2009, p. 157). However, since the term localization (L10N12) first surfaced in the late 1980s, there has been no consensus about what exactly it entails. Definitions vary depending on the perspective

12 Localization is sometimes referred to using the numeronym L10N, where 10 is the number of letters between the “l” and “n,”

of the practitioners and stakeholders involved (Dunne, 2006, p. 1). Generally speaking, localization refers to the process by which software or a website is adapted linguistically and culturally to fit a specific locale and meet the needs and expectations of that locale’s users. The term is derived from the word

“locale,” defined by Cadieux and Esselink (2002) as “a group of people identified by their common language and cultural conventions . . . we name locales by language-country pairs; for example, French-

Canada is one locale, while French-France is another.” According to Esselink (2003, p. 4), localization is a matter of “combining language and technology to produce a product that can cross cultural and language barriers.” The now-defunct Localization Industry Standards Association (LISA), specifies the aim of localization as “taking a product and making it linguistically and culturally appropriate to the target locale (country/region and language) where it will be used and sold” (LISA, 2003). This definition corresponds to the beginning of the industry, when creating regional versions of desktop software products was the primary focus of localization. LISA’s 2005 definition was revised in subsequent publications to reflect the evolution of localization practice. A 2007 version states that “localization is the process of modifying products and services to account for differences in distinct markets” (LISA, 2007, p.

11). The other major industry association, GALA, has adopted a definition that highlights the translation process that accompanies localization and points out the additional elements that localization addresses as it moves beyond translation:

Localization is the process of adapting a product or content to a specific locale or market. Translation is only one of several elements of the localization process. In addition to translation, the localization process may also include: Adapting graphics to target markets; modifying content to suit the tastes and consumption habits of other markets; adapting design and layout to properly display translated text; converting to local requirements (such as currencies and units of measure); using proper local formats for dates, addresses, and phone numbers; addressing local regulations and legal requirements. (GALA, 2016).

With the advent of the Internet, definitions of localization expanded to include the publication of material on the World Wide Web, which fueled the development of e-commerce. Similarly, the Excellence in

European eContent Localization (EEEL) project considers localization as “adapting to processes that support the creation and management of multilingual web content, together with the web architectures required for multilingual environments” (as cited in Folaron 2006, p. 199). The evolving nature of

localization practice and its integration of different functionalities and content blurred the boundaries between software and websites, which had traditionally been seen as distinct application domains. As

Esselink observes, “content translation projects are now often considered as localization projects simply because of the complex environments in which the content is authored, managed, stored and published”

(2003, p. 4–7). In recognition of the expanding scope and increasing complexity of the localization environment, Schäler has drafted a framework for localization and proposes another definition which identifies localization as “the provision of services and technologies for the management of multilinguality across the digital global information flow” (2004, p. 2). This definition highlights the fact that localization is a product-and process-oriented industry characterized by the prevalence of digital content and the multiplicity of languages involved. Dunne (2006) proposes one of the most comprehensive definitions for localization underscoring the levels as well as the process of adaptation that products undergo

The processes by which digital content and products developed in one locale (defined in terms of geographical area, language and culture) are adapted for sale and use in another locale. Localization involves: (a) translation of textual content into the language and textual conventions of the target language, (b) adaptation of non-textual content (from colors, icons and bitmaps, to packaging, form factors, etc.) as well as input, output and delivery mechanisms to take into account the cultural, technical and regulatory requirements of that locale. In sum, localization is not so much about specific tasks as much as it is about the processes by which products are adapted. (Dunne, 2006, p. 4).

Although many definitions of localization are expressed in terms of “making appropriate,” “modifying in order to account for differences,” “adapting,” and “customizing” products to fit target markets, these terms are not synonymous. Indeed, Medina et al. (2007) distinguish between adaptation and customization as two different strategies. In their view, adaptation is “the mandatory alteration of domestic target market-dictated product standards—tangible and/or intangible qualities—as to make the product appropriate to foreign environmental conditions,” whereas customization is “the optional modification of domestic target-market-dictated product standards, tangible and intangible characteristics, as to make it economically and culturally appropriate to foreign customers” (as cited in Haron, 2016, p. 3).

However both strategies are subsumed under the larger umbrella of localization.

The practice of localization has come a long way since the 1980s. It has experienced many macro- and micro-changes, from integrating new technologies and services to expanding its scope and business goals, which have been reflected in its constantly evolving definitions. Nevertheless, localization can be understood properly only in relation to other processes with which it is associated, namely translation, internationalization and globalization. Keeping in mind the evolution of localization practice and its relationships to the different upstream and downstream processes is especially important when considering localization education and training. The success of localization efforts depends highly on the degree to which the product in question has been prepared for localization. Preparing a project for localization is known as internationalization. This step, which “takes place at the level of program design and document development” (Esselink, 2000, p. 2), aims at preventing any modification or breaking of program code and enables cost-effective localized end-products. Localization and internationalization both depend on a broader and more inclusive organizational process of globalization (G11N), which encompasses the marketing orientation of a given company and the strategies it adopts to address the global market, taking into account marketing, sales and support considerations (Schäler, 2008). As shown in Figure 2, this relationship involving the four interdependent processes of Globalization,

Internationalization, Localization and Translation is known in the Language Industry as GILT (Cadieux &

Esselink, 2002). Each process became an integral part of the other one, and their success and effectiveness rely heavily on the adoption and implementation of “enterprise level commitment to globalization strategies” as Dunne (2006, p. 6) asserts.

Figure 2. GILT dependencies (Dunne, 2006, p. 6).

As “the forerunner of the encounter between traditional translation and the technologically configured global, digital world” (Folaron, 2012, p. 14), localization has brought new perspectives to the

practice of translation. It has imposed a wider range of tasks and complex processes with regards to the content to be transferred. It has required the automation of the processes involved, and identified different degrees of adaptation (i.e., partial vs. full localization). Drawing boundaries between translation and localization has always been problematic. As Pym (2010) points out, “the localization industry generally sees translation as part of localization; theorists from other paradigms sometimes see the relation the other way around--for them, localization is just a special kind of translation” (p. 136).

Distinguishing between translation and localization can be addressed at many levels. In many respects, translation tends to present a fundamental stage in localization that in turn is encapsulated in the

GILT paradigm. The main concept of adaptation to the different requirements of a given locale is relevant to both translation and localization. Adaptation in translation focuses on linguistic, extra-linguistic and cultural elements, while adaptation in localization expands beyond the linguistic and the cultural to include local standards, technical settings, and encodings. The nature of the content to be processed also differs in translation and localization. Source and target texts in translation are frequent topics of discussion while localization brings in a commercial emphasis centered less on a document or text than on a product tailored to users in a given locale. Thanks to the advent of content management systems and single-source authoring/publishing, the notion of “source text” (ST) has undergone major transformation.

Increasingly, documents have been supplanted by lists of decontextualized strings or chunks of content to be translated separately (Pym, 2004). Instead of text, localization handles digital content involving

“multimodal material” that may contain “text, graphics, audio and video applied to a large variety of services or products, from websites to desktop applications, video games and courseware” (Schäler, 2008, p. 196). Thus, the volume and diversity of the material to be adapted determine the processes, activities and tools required to carry out the necessary adaptations, and these processes, activities and tools are not necessarily part of standard translation practice.

Localization projects may contain several components, “such as software, sample files, online help, online and printed documentation, collateral materials and multimedia demos” (Esselink, 2003, p.

69). The localization of some of these components might occur prior to finalizing the original product. In

addition, some of these components may involve dependencies and may also need to go through many update cycles. The use of translation technology, such as translation memory and terminology management systems, localization tools designed to facilitate the translation of software Graphical User

Interface (GUI), and machine translation systems, have enabled the processing of large scale projects.

Their application enables systematic use and reuse of legacy translations, increased terminological consistency and productivity, as well as tighter control of content. Such tools have become imperative for the large-scale management, storage, maintenance, coordination, and testing of material.

a. Localization as a profession.

Given the complexity of localization projects13 and the many stages they must go through, the involvement of a team of vendors is a must. Division of labor, in this regard, resulted in the appearance of

“a professional profile traditionally not associated with translation, to wit: the project manager (PM), under whom all projects and coordination of tasks were organized” (Folaron, 2012, p. 12). Typical localization project teams involve a project manager who acts as a middle man and supervises the project entirely. His tasks consist of defining the project scope, scheduling, budgeting, maintaining contact with clients and vendors and ensuring that deadlines are respected. A localization engineer14 prepares the source files for translation; he is also in charge of decompiling/compiling software components and handles cosmetic and functional testing15 (Esselink, 2003, p. 75). The language manager or lead linguist oversees the creation of language style guides, establishes terminology databases for consistency purposes and addresses linguistic issues. Translators are responsible for translating, proofreading, and running linguistic testing of translations (Esselink, 2003, p. 74). Anastasiou & Schäler (2009) provides a concise summary of the difference between the “GIL” processes, people involved and stages (see Table 1).

13 For a presentation of the project-based nature of localization, see Gouadec (2007) and Jiménez-Crespo (2013). 14 For an introduction to the fundamental concepts of localization engineering and the task of a localization engineer, see Esselink (2002). 15 For a thorough discussion of the different types of software localization assessment, see Dunne (2009).

Table 1. Process, People and Performance Stage (Anastasiou & Schäler, 2009, p. 3).

Internationalization Localization Globalization

The strategy of

Functional in any language Adaptation of products, bringing a product

and content (linguistic and services, and digital content or service to the Definition cultural data) separated to a cultural- linguistic global market,

from functionality market involving sales and

marketing

Software developers, Translators, proofreaders, Marketing and sales People producers and authors of software engineers, project personnel digital content managers, testers, publishers

Bringing to the Development and design of Translation and adaptation of market the a digital product (content) Stage text, user interface, and internationalized or service (pre-requisite for cultural conventions and localized localization) product or service

Understanding how localization and translation processes and stakeholders connect is as essential as understanding the framework within which a given localization training program is set up. Just as localization and localization-related processes have evolved in response to certain needs, so must training evolve to meet specific needs and developments, such as the profiles of vendors, the nature of the content handled, the tools involved, and the work structure and expectations. This is what the President of the

American Translators Association (ATA) had called for back in 1999 when discussing the future of the LI:

It is important to note that the software industry will “absorb” more and more translators/linguists in general. The key for associations, universities, training programs, and employers is to re-think and re-design the training and the curriculum of translation programs to meet the linguistic and technical needs of the localization industry, since a sizable number of future translators will be

working directly or indirectly for the software industry. (O’Keeffe, 1999 as cited in Samson, 2005, p. 103)

Within Translation Studies (TS), Fernandez Costales (2009) and Pym (2006) offer interesting perspectives on the ways in which localization and translation studies can greatly benefit from each other from a theoretical standpoint and provide new insights into academic training. Fernandez Costales believes that although the localization industry is strong, it lacks “a theoretical framework that can be effectively supplied by translation studies” (2009, p. 4). Conversely, Pym suggests that “translation theory has a lot to learn from localization. Efficiency, teamwork, client-liaison and technology know-how are just a few examples” (2006). This suggested potential complementarity invites us to investigate how both disciplines are being addressed in training and teaching.

3. Conceptual Framework

a. Training versus education (or the vocational versus the academic).

Although training and education may share common features, and although the terms “training” and “education” are sometimes are used interchangeably, they are not synonymous. It is commonly understood that “universities are not in the business of ‘training,’ their business is ‘educating’”

(Essenhigh, 2000). This statement distinguishes between the concepts of training and education as they apply to the responsibilities of the university as an academic institution. Distinguishing between these two concepts, The Oxford Living Dictionaries defines education as “the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university, the theory and practice of teaching,” whereas it defines training as “the action of teaching a particular skill or type of behavior through regular practice and instruction” (2016). This distinction was advanced by Holmes (1975) who emphasized the broader scope of education as opposed to the narrower scope of training. Holmes contends that:

Training, in contrast to education, develops skills and techniques for handling given materials and facts and situations. Education admittedly includes some training in the earlier stages of learning. But the educated person shows independence and creativity of mind to fashion new skills and techniques, new patterns of thought. She has acquired research ability, the power to gather, sift, and manipulate new facts and materials, and to handle altogether novel situations.” (1975, p. 5).

Likewise, Milano and Ullius (1998) clearly differentiate between the two concepts, stating that “education focuses on learning about; training focuses on learning how” (p. 4). These definitions suggest that education is a more inclusive and synthesizing process while training is limited to specific skills and performance. Training and education serve different purposes over different time horizons depending on the subject matter, goals, and the type of outcomes desired. Training is task- and performance-driven while education is oriented towards thinking through the process of a given task. Thus, education can be a predecessor of training and training can present one way to achieve the goals of education.

In Translation Studies, these very terms have been at the heart of many definitional battles that question the academic status of a yet vocational16 activity and the framing of translation theory and practice within the academic enterprise. Many of those debates have maintained the dichotomous nature of theoretical education vs. practical training. Reed (2008) notes that the concepts of training and education address different needs and how “the focus of training, the most commonly used term, is on skill development in specific areas, while the focus of education is on broad understanding of the theories, issues, and processes” (Reed, 2008, p. 1). This view is supported by Kearns (2008) who explains that “the verb to ‘train’ is one which is inherited from the vocational tradition, a tradition with its origins in the specificity of the apprenticeship rather than the generality of academe” (p. 208), which, in turn, mostly reflects a humanist and highly intellectual tradition.

Historically, the notion of translator training has operated in informal settings; as Pym and

Caminade (1998) report, “translators . . . have been trained informally, basically through trial and error, unstructured apprenticeship arrangements, or any of the various translating activities that accompany the study of a foreign language” (p. 280). These linguists, self-taught bilinguals or mentored apprentices with good command of foreign languages, were used to provide translation services for religious, state, military, diplomatic purposes or for knowledge dissemination. The formation of training centers came as

16 The Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies defines vocational education as “oriented to preparing people to perform successfully in the workforce . . . focused on labor needs and concrete outcomes.” For a thorough discussion of vocational education, see Finch & Crunkilton (1999).

a response to pressing state needs and interests. In fact, there were a few initiatives, centuries ago, in

Europe and Asia such as the Colbert decree in France in 1669 which set up “the training of French-born students as interpreters for Turkish, Arabic and Persian” (Pym and Caminade, 1998). Europe also saw the establishment of the Oriental Academy by Empress Maria Theresa in 1754 that provided many orientalists and interpreters to the Habsburg court over the years (Delisle and Woodsworth, 1995, p. 270–

271). The Middle East witnessed the founding of the Egyptian Translation school known as Al-Alsun

[The Tongues] in 1835. In Asia, Chinese government officials in charge of “Foreign Affairs created institutions for the training of translators in areas like shipbuilding and weapons manufacture in the nineteenth century” (Pym and Caminade, 1998).

Nevertheless, translator and interpreter training did not take any professional or academic label or structure until the mid-twentieth century (Pym and Caminade, 1998). Institutionalized translator training programs as currently recognized started in the 1930s17 in many Western, Eastern European counties and in the U.S. either in the form of undergraduate or graduate degree programs to serve a number of national and international purposes. These programs were housed either in independent foreign language institutes or in university-level independent institutions, some of which were subsequently integrated into university systems and associated with appropriate departments. Some programs have focused on either translation or interpreting. There was also the option of vocationally-oriented training that tended to be specialized in specific areas of the profession and which led to certificates and vocational diplomas. In addition to institutional training, a rise in non-institutional training marked the mid-twentieth century.

Professional bodies began to organize and joined efforts to establish guidelines and standards to regulate and promote the profession. Non-institutional training took shape through professional associations that

17 The first batch of general translator and/or interpreter training started with the Moscow Linguistic University (ex•Maurice Thorez Institute, founded in 1930), the RuprechtKarlsUniversität Heidelberg (1933), the Université de Genéve (1941) and the Universität Wien (1943). After World War II, another group was established including the Universität Innsbrück (1945), the Karl FranzensUniversität Graz (1946), the Universität Johannes Gutenberg Mainz (at Germersheim, 1947), and the Universität des Saarlandes (at Saarbrücken, 1948). Two French institutions, the École Supérieure d’Interprètes et de Traducteurs (ESIT) and the Institut Supérieur d’Interprètes et de Traducteurs (ISIT), followed in the 1950s (Kelly, 1998).

developed certification programs, workshop and webinar series, mentoring structures and continuing education programs that allowed their members to earn points to maintain their credentials. This type of training also benefitted from the support of academic associations and societies that hosted education and training divisions or committees promoting research and training communities.

In addition to the many political, economic, academic, and social changes behind the growing need for translation services, an increasing awareness about the importance of training in translation as opposed to training in languages led to the creation of translator training initiatives. Such programs also benefited from the establishment of Translation Studies (TS) as an autonomous academic discipline in the

1980s following the seminal work18 of Holmes (1987). Holmes developed a map that has served as the foundational blueprint of the field. It specified two branches: “Pure” and “Applied.” In his map,

Translator Training (teaching methods, testing techniques and curriculum planning) belonged to the

“Applied” branch along with Translation Aids, and Translation Policy and Criticism, whereas the “Pure” branch involved the theoretical and descriptive considerations which were subsequently developed in product-oriented, process-oriented and function-oriented Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS).

Regardless of the suggested split between the theoretical and practical ends of the discipline advanced by

Holmes’ model, the shift in the discipline’s status boosted interest and research. The development of theoretical models of best practices for teaching translation and interpreting principles, which impacted institutional training, followed. In this regard, Kim (2012) estimates the number of translation and interpreting programs offered at the university level around the world to be more than 600, which represents an enormous increase from the estimated 108 translation training centers in the 1980s and the estimated 250 programs in the 1990s (Pym and Caminade, 1998). Such remarkable growth in institutionalized translator training has contributed to more discussions of vocational versus academic orientations in the pursuit of translation education.

18 Holmes’ seminal work “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies” was presented at the Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics in Copenhagen in 1972. It was then posthumously published in 1987 and 1988. For a detailed account of Holmes’ model, see Holmes (1987) and Toury (1995).

Translation Studies scholars have devoted substantial attention to the dichotomy between education and training. Kelly and Martin (2009) argue that in general terms, “‘training’ tends to be preferred by those who adopt a more vocational or market-driven approach to developing translator and interpreter skills” (p. 127). On the other hand, “‘education’ is favored by those who situate the acquisition of these skills in the broader social context of higher or tertiary education” (p. 127). Kelly and Martin’s distinction frames polarized opinions of two TS scholars, Mossop and Gouadec. For Mossop,

the function of a translation school is not to train students for specific existing slots in the language industry, but to give them certain general abilities that they will then be able to apply to whatever slots may exist 5, 10, 15 or 25 years from now. In other words, I think university-based translation schools must uphold the traditional distinction between education and training. They must resist the insistent demands of industry for graduates ready to produce top-notch translations in this or that specialized field at high speed using the latest computer tools. (2003, p. 20).

Mossop’s view emphasizes the humanistic grounding of translation training while Gouadec (2003) represents the other end of the spectrum, calling for more market-oriented and targeted translator training:

[I]f we are to cater for the needs of society at large, we should strive to train qualified translators (better and better qualified translators if not more and more qualified translators), whether we decide they should be linguists or technicians (in the broader sense) at origin. The whole architecture of the programme – or at least the emphasis, varies according to the population we do enrol, with a common core made up of translator strategies, translating technologies, job-oriented training, and project management. (Gouadec, 2003, p. 11).

A view that reconciles these two perspectives is presented by Ulrych (2005), who emphasizes the professional development associated with translation education.

The task of translator education is, in short, not to shape a finished product but rather to provide graduate translators with the enabling (Fawcett 1987:37) and transferable skills that will place them in a position to deal confidently with any text, on any subject, within any situation at any time and to be able to discuss their performance with fellow translators and clients. (Ulrych, 2005, p. 23)

For Bernardini (2004), who considers the matter from a pedagogical perspective, the aim of education “is to favor the growth of the individual, developing her cognitive capacities, and those attitudes and predispositions that will put her in a position to cope with the most varying (professional) situations.” (p.

19) The aim of training, conversely, “is to prepare learners to solve problems that can be identified in advance through the application of pre-set, or ‘acquired’ procedures” (p. 19). This distinction seems in line with the previous generic views on education and training. Recognizing the significance of education,

Bernardini (2004) maintains that translators should be educated, not simply trained, because “translation is an activity that requires educated rather than trained professionals” (p. 22). According to Bernadini,

“training someone through a transfer of knowledge is relatively easy and fast, but hardly a generative process,” whereas “educating a student takes time and effort, but one can trust that she can then go out and learn the rest for herself” (p. 19). Therefore, Bernardini’s main concern remains in prioritizing

“capacities to be fostered rather than competencies to be gained” (p. 21). Following this line of argument,

Bernardini believes that “once learners have gone through a solid translator education (i.e., long and demanding, both cognitively and culturally), they are ready to start their training” (p. 24), especially since

“training may come with experience, but education is unlikely to follow the same course” (p. 28).

Bernardini concludes that the preparation and development of translators should be based on a well- thought-out and a well-balanced combination of education and training (p. 27).

In distinguishing between “translator education” and “translator training,” Pym (2009, p. 6) argues that training “is associated with the (mostly linguistic) skills needed to produce an acceptable translation (‘translation competence’), the acquisition of which will always be a combination of instruction and practice.” Conversely, Pym considers that education involves the acquisition of “a wide range of technical skills” that allows graduates to interact with different professionals, and “locate and evaluate information for themselves and discover the norms and ethical principles by working on authentic professional tasks” (Pym, 2009, p. 7). Globally, training and education represent nothing but two major contexts of teaching along with other contexts such as orientation and briefing as described by

Kohls (1995). In this regard, Wilss (2004) claims that translation teaching has the responsibility of addressing “the day-to-day purposes of translation work, the communicative targets of translation, and the systematization of translation teaching and translation learning” (p. 10).

Looking into how education and training19 have been addressed thus far is suggestive, to a large extent, of the importance of reducing the gap between the two concepts and including both in the process of preparing translators. Reed (2008) argues that, “while it is possible to begin the translation process with basic skills gained by training in a variety of areas, effective work with an understanding of the implications and ramifications of novel challenges requires the broader comprehensive knowledge gained by education” (p. 1). This view highlights the potential interdependency between training and education and moves away from the dichotomous nature of the relationship which supports “the compartmentalization of different forms of knowledge” (Wolf, 1989, p. 42) and heads more towards complementarity in the wake of interdisciplinary approaches to translation theory and practice.

Highlighting the importance of education with respect to localization, Folaron (2006) notes that in the process of designing localization curricula in academic programs, “a productive educational environment can be created in which elements of practical training tasks and intellectual academic exercises are developed synchronously and creatively through a process-rich context, organized loosely in terms of ‘competences’ as desirable outcomes” (p. 212). Along the same lines, Wright (2004) maintains that a distinction between the two forms of instruction should be clear enough for both academics and students per the objectives and outcomes of each form, namely the difference between “short-term, tool- specific training and the long-term educational goals that define the proper scope of a university curriculum.” (p. 592)

As far as academic interest in localization is concerned, the first graduate program in software localization was established in 1997 at the University of Limerick. The Institute of Localization

Professionals (TILP), founded in 2002, was the first and only organization providing accreditation for localization trainers and certification for localization professionals worldwide (Schäler, 2007, p. 121).

Since then, a number of academic education and professional training initiatives have been launched in

Ireland and North America in the form of graduate programs specialized in localization tools and

19 For a detailed account of the relationship between the education and training, see Kearns (2008).

technologies operating under the supervision/observation of industry partners. Other models of instruction appeared in Europe where universities with already-established or newly founded Translation Studies degrees or programs started including localization-oriented modules in their curricula and hosting “annual summer schools and professional development courses.” (Schäler, 2007, p. 124) The increasing demand for, and expectations of, properly trained localization providers surpassed the supply of graduates of academic programs, which led to the establishment of the Certified Localization Professional program

(CLP) towards the end of the 1990s. The CLP brought together a large group of enterprises, IT companies, training providers and universities with the aim of developing a prototypical job profile in software localization, identifying the necessary skill set, and designing curricula and assessment programs (Schäler,

2007, p. 125). The Irish localization program development cycle has set the example for involving academia and the industry in curriculum development for a blended academic and professional training undertaking.

Defining the concepts of education and training as learning and application processes helps frame informed discussions with the stakeholders in this study and define both the educational and training aspects of the input to be gathered as well as the outcomes to be specified. This raises questions about the pedagogy and curricula that are designed to enable students to achieve the desired outcomes.

b. Curriculum versus pedagogy (or the “how” vs. the “what”).

Just as we examined the relationship between training and education, we need to examine the relationship between pedagogy and curriculum. The concepts of pedagogy and curriculum are interconnected in the sense that pedagogy “refers to the art and science of teaching” (Marfell, 2017), that is, teaching methods, learning processes and the different modes of interaction with the material designed for study, whereas curriculum is associated with “the course of study, body of courses, or program of training at a school or university” (Kridel, 2010, p. 616). Doyle (1992) considers the two areas to be

“separate but interrelated” (p. 486) and defines pedagogy as

the processes or the ‘how’ of schooling, the human interactions that occur during actual teaching episodes . . . at the same time, a curriculum is intended to frame or guide teaching practice and cannot be achieved except during acts of teaching. Similarly, teaching is always about something

so it cannot escape curriculum, and teaching practices, in themselves, imply curricular assumptions and consequences. It is difficult, therefore, to avoid stumbling on curriculum when one is trying to understand teaching, or commenting on pedagogy when one is deliberating about curriculum. (p. 486).

Pedagogy is concerned with how the teaching operates whereas curriculum specifies what is to be taught.

Given the many ways in which and the levels at which these two areas interact, it remains difficult to differentiate the two in the teaching environment where the content (curriculum) is to be delivered through different strategies and methods/channels (pedagogy) while following a given sequencing.

Structurally, Greeno, Collins and Resnick consider curriculum as “a set of educational goals and a sequence of learning activities that are intended to promote development towards those goals.” (1996, p.

33). Those goals represent what Finch and Crunkilton (1999, p. 11) view as “the sum of learning activities and experiences that a student has under the auspices or direction of the school.” Posner (2004) argues that in theory, curriculum definitions vary depending on whether curriculum is perceived as a means of education, an end of education or the plan of actual learning (2004, p. 5). According to Posner, curriculum relies on seven concepts: “scope and sequence; syllabus; content outline; standards; textbook; course of study and planned experiences” (p.5). In addition to those concepts, Posner differentiates between five different types of curricula or concurrent curricula:

 The official curriculum, which “is the curriculum described in formal documents.”

 The operational curriculum, which presents the “curriculum embodied in accrual teaching

practices and tests.”

 The hidden curriculum, which represents “the institutional norms and values not openly

acknowledged by teachers or school officials”.

 The null curriculum, which involves the “subject matters not taught” and finally;

 The extra-curriculum, which “comprises the planned experiences outside the formal

curriculum.” (Posner, 2004, p. 14).

These five coexisting curricula contribute in different ways and forms to the operation of a course of studies. They reflect the educational philosophies of the institution that by extension shape the learning

experience. Conceptually, all five facets defined above need to be considered when analyzing, assessing and developing curricula. For the purpose of this dissertation, the focus will be on the official curriculum, which aims “to give teachers a basis for planning lessons and evaluating students, and administrators a basis for supervising teachers and holding them accountable for their practices and results” (Posner, 2004, p. 12). Thus, curriculum is viewed here as a road map or blueprint that encompasses a series of processes and interactions20 grounded in humanistic and socio-constructivist philosophies of education.

c. Curriculum models in translation and interpreting.

Curriculum models are context-dependent and vary considerably from one institution to another and from one country, tradition and market to another. Those models are a clear manifestation of their programs’ educational philosophy, operational aims, goals and resources in addition to the nature and duration of the training they serve. Kelly and Martin (2009) identify a number of curricular trends that shape curriculum models in translation and interpreting: the language combinations, the way modules or courses are organized around areas of study that address required competences (language skills, culture or civilization, translating, interpreting, instrumental skills, documentary research or terminology management) and the placement of specialized translations towards the end of the curriculum as opposed to non-specialized translation courses (p. 295). Other considerations concern the coexistence of theory and practice, the extent of technology use, the rise of online and blended modes of instructions, and the prospect of new career paths in the language services industry, in addition to the backgrounds of the trainers.

One of the earliest attempts to identify major components of a translation and interpretation curriculum was advanced in 1941 by Velleman, who proposed five components: area studies, multidisciplinary studies, applied language arts and linguistic studies, practicum courses and deontology

20 These aspects of the curriculum were first introduced by Sawyer (2004) who distinguishes between “(1) curriculum as a process which can be seen as the sequencing of the content of instruction; and (2) curriculum as a form of interaction and exchange, which includes the structuring of the learning environment in a specific cultural context” (Sawyer, 2004, p.97).

(as cited in Sawyer, 2004). These generic components have served as the basis of a number of translator training programs. Proceeding from Velleman’s model, Arjona (1984a) discusses five general curriculum models that focus on the relationship of sequencing between translation and interpretation at the program level. She differentiates between the linear, modified linear, Y or forked-track, modified Y track and parallel track models. These five models are further refined by Renfer (1991) who narrows them into four curriculum models:

 Two-tier system where translation and interpreting courses are offered in consecutive stages.

 Translator and interpreter courses run in parallel, followed by two separate final

examinations.

 The ‘Y-model’ where the curriculum for translators and interpreters separates after a common

curricular trunk for all students.

 Postgraduate interpreter training (in translation and interpreting schools) or intensive on-the-

job training in international organizations.

Renfer (1992) analyzes the benefits and shortcomings of each plan of study, and concludes that the two-tier model provides the most comprehensive basis for instruction. Learners gain awareness of the communicative as well as the linguistic and textual analysis facets of translation. This exposure to translation and the development of translation skills at this stage present a solid background for subsequent interpreting training. Hönig (1995) proposes an open, diversified and modularized model.

Such a model relies on a course of study in multilingual communication, focusing on communicative competence in a native and a foreign language supplemented by electives designed to develop cultural, research and subject-matter competencies. Students can then proceed to a specialized track of their choice leading to a degree (as cited in Sawyer, 2004). For Hönig, the lack of a pre-established sequencing of instruction in this model provides the students with the flexibility to construct their course of study according to their skills, interests, and professional and personal goals. However, the model is broad enough that it is difficult to account for a set of specific profiles upon completion of such a plan of study.

Sawyer (2001) argues that the development, use and evaluation of a curriculum requires the identification and recognition of the interrelationships between curriculum components, their nature, levels of interaction and their sequencing as specified by Beauchamp (1975).21 These diverse components include “skills-based components (translation vs. interpretation), knowledge-based components

(acquisition of domain expertise), and deontological components (knowledge of the profession, e.g. professional identity, ethics and business practices).” (p. 53)

One of the initial attempts to ensure the quality of training curricula in translation and interpretation (T&I) was initiated in 1960. The growing need for professional translators and interpreters after World War II led the translation and interpretation institutes at the universities of Geneva,

Heidelberg, Mainz/Germersheim, Paris-Sorbonne, Saarbrücken and Trieste to establish a “T&I quality circle” known as the Conférence Internationale Permanente d’Instituts Universitaires de Traducteurs et d’Interprètes (CIUTI) [International Permanent Conference of University Institutes of Translators and

Interpreters]. This multinational organization promotes excellence in T&I training and research in higher education and helps enhance the employability of graduates, particularly among institutions offering master degrees in this field of study. The organization also acts as an advocate for recognizing and endorsing the status of translators and interpreters by organizing forums where training institutions and industry partners can meet, conducting programs for training trainers in T&I, and awarding annual prizes for best MA dissertations. CIUTI considers translation and interpreting studies as independent disciplines.

To that end, the organization has developed guidelines22 and quality standards for its member institutions to comply with and integrate in their training curricula. CIUTI’s core requirements include the importance of combining practical training with academic qualifications, the centrality of language competence as a precondition in translation training and the necessity of having a curriculum based on the theoretical and

21 “A curriculum theory is a set of related statements that gives meaning to a school’s curriculum by pointing up the relationships among its elements and by directing its development, its use, and its evaluation” (Beauchamp, 1975, p. 58). 22 The full range of CIUTI’s guidelines and statutes are available on the organization’s website (http://www.ciuti.org).

applied research of the teaching staff. In addition, the teaching staff should possess relevant credentials and be able to introduce professional experience and professionally-relevant training (CIUTI website,

2016). Quite similar to CIUTI’s interest in T&I research and training, the POSI project (Praxisorientierte

Studienhalte in der Dolmetscher- und Übersetzerausbildung) [Practice-oriented Study Content for the

Training of Translators and Interpreters], a practice-oriented curriculum project for T&I training, was established in 1986. The project defined a “desired professional profile of the professional translator/interpreter” and identified “central issues to be addressed in any course of training leading to the academic qualification of interpreter or translator” (POSI, 1996). These cooperation-driven initiatives were further consolidated by the International Federation of Translators (FIT) founded under the auspices of UNESCO back in 1953, which strived in the early 1980s to adopt an international recommendation on the professional profile of translators and interpreters and to issue guidelines on training and on the qualifications of translators and interpreters based on the work of its Committee on Training and

Qualification (FIT website, 2016). Other forms of collaborations saw light with FIT, CIUTI, the

Directorate General for Translation at the European Commission and the Association of European

Translation Companies with the aim of establishing communication channels between training institutions and the industry, outlining core curricular components, setting up accreditation measures, and determining the professional profile of translators and interpreters while working towards the formation of the European Translation Platform.

Toward the end of the 20th century, many of the goals and motivations of CIUTI found echo in one of Europe’s major higher education initiatives that resulted in significant curricular reform, the

Bologna Declaration. This reform sought to harmonize the European higher education system and the setup of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010. This process introduced, among other things, a three-cycle system (bachelor/master/doctorate) and many quality assurance measures and guidelines to establish “a new framework for compatible and comparable, more competitive and more attractive studies for Europeans and for students and scholars from other continents” (Bologna Process,

2009). This process of degree optimization and system harmonization led to a major curricular reform in

line with the principles of the original Declaration, “particularly with regards to curricular development, inter-institutional co-operation, mobility schemes and integrated programs of study, training and research” (Bologna Declaration, 1999). As far as translator training is concerned, the Bologna process’ principles were reflected in the European Master’s in Translation (EMT) project. This project was launched through a partnership between the Directorate General for Translation at the European

Commission and a number of European universities offering master’s level translation programs. This partnership is intended to serve as a “quality label” that raises the quality benchmarks and adopts a skill- oriented competence framework which enhances responsiveness to evolving market demands. Faced with the increasing need for multilingual language services, the project also aims to promote exchange among network member institutions and to “produce translators competent in all aspects of translation service provision, including marketing, customer relations, time and budget management and invoicing, as well as training in new technologies and specialist fields” (EurActiv, 2009). Currently, the EMT network includes 63 European translator training programs that are subject to extensive quality criteria focusing on

“the structure of the program, human resources, infrastructure, and career support & monitoring” (Kunte

& Vihonen, 2016) in addition to the implementation of the EMT core competencies further discussed in the skills vs. competences section later in this chapter.

In parallel to the curriculum-led initiatives to foster international cooperation between translator training programs, a large volume of research and publications has emerged that is concerned with training and translator education23 vis-à-vis market needs. The objective of this work has been to determine competencies, skills and relevant knowledge components of the evolving translation profession that need to be incorporated in curricula. Ideally, the industry determines the profiles and professional goals of its professions and careers while academic institutions develop courses that attempt to meet the requirements of those professions. As Neubert (1989) points out, “the study of translation and, in

23 For a thorough discussion of models of translation training, see Nord’s model (1988, 1991) and Snell-Hornby’s trends in translator education (1992), Gabr (2003/2007), Kelly (2005), and Kearns (2006).

particular, the academic institutions where translation practice is taught do not exist in an intellectual ivory tower. They serve social needs.” (p. 5) Along these lines, Gabr (2003/2007) derived a balanced curriculum design, development and implementation model based on research on professional training, human resource development and Total Quality Management (TQM). His approach builds on the needs of three major stakeholders: “the needs of the market, the needs of translation departments and—equally important—the needs of the students.” (Gabr, 2007, p. 66) Cooperation among these key participants will help to develop program objectives and set outcomes in line with the expectations of both internal customers (students) and external customers (employers). Gabr’s TQM-based model outlines training as follows:

 Training can be broken down into tasks, which constitute a series of related steps.

 All related tasks carried out to accomplish a desired result are grouped into a process (e.g.

market needs analysis, material development, etc.).;

 Actors assigned a series of related tasks, that is, a process, have interdependent roles in the

training effort.

 A group of related processes can be seen as an integral phase (e.g. pre-program development,

implementation, post-implementation, etc.).

 Breaking down training into processes enables the training team to focus on problems,

analyze the root causes and make necessary improvements.

 A process in the training cycle is usually initiated to meet a customer’s needs. This implies

that the customer will have to be involved from the very beginning to eliminate errors in

satisfying the customer’s need because the process will have to be steered by factual data

provided by the customer, not assumptions (Gabr, 2007, p. 73).

Along the same lines, Kelly (2005) argues that one of the major stages in curricular design is to determine

the institutional and social context in which training is to take place, and from there establish their objectives or intended outcomes with input from the professional sector for which students are to be trained, from society at large and from the academic disciplines involved. (p. 2).

Clearly, formulating educational objectives is of paramount importance since “these educational objectives become the criteria by which materials are selected, content is outlined, instructional procedures are developed and test and examinations are prepared.” (Tyler, 1949, p. 3) This view is also shared by Mager (1975), who emphasizes the criticality of defining instructional aims. According to

Mager,

Objectives, then, are useful in providing a sound basis (1) for the selection or designing of instructional content and procedures, (2) for evaluating or assessing the success of the instruction, and (3) for organizing the students’ own efforts and activities for the accomplishment of the important instructional intents. In short, if you know where you are going, you have a better chance of getting there. (1975, p. 6)

Kelly analyzes the different resources allowing the formulation of objectives and identifies the following: social needs, professional standards, industry needs and views, institutional policy and constraints, disciplinary considerations and student/trainee profiles (Kelly, 2005, p. 22). These different components help to form and inform, in one way or another, in the content of the training, its structure, its methodology, the teaching approaches it involves and the skills it is intended to hone. In the same vein,

Pym also emphasizes the fact that besides market interest, there are other local factors, needs and constraints that can inform training organization and curricular decisions. These factors relate to students’ demands, teachers’ demands, university administrations, national and regional governments besides other university departments and disciplines with which constant negotiations are being held (Pym, 2002, p. 2–

3). Identifying learning outcomes based on a combination of the input provided by the three groups of participants (i.e., employers, instructors, practitioners), and teaching methods corresponding to the achievements of pre-determined learning goals will confer greater focus and transparency upon the course.

As Roy (1984) observes, “curriculum design is the hallmark of professional training. Without it, you have guesswork, choices of tradition, and sometimes chaos. With it, you have a higher probability of successful education and training” (p. 36), The few studies that have discussed localization curriculum planning

(LETRAC 1998; LEIT 1998) have been concerned with the tasks and skill sets involved in the fields of internationalization and localization, which will be examined in a later section. For instance, the project

LECTRAC (Localization Engineering for Translators Curricula) was launched by the European

Commission in order to design market-suitable curricula. The stated rationale of LETRAC is as follows:

Industrial companies are using sophisticated software and tools in all areas of document creation, terminology management and translation. Changes in these commercial environments have not yet been fully reflected in the training of translators and technical writers who need to develop appropriate skills and knowledge in information technology (IT) to match the environments of their major prospective employers (as cited in LETRAC, 1998).

Other initiatives have been more geared towards defining guidelines and best practices as well as creating and sharing e-learning training materials for translation and localization that address the evolving needs and expectations of a growing profession and industry. Major European initiatives include the eCoLoRe24 project (2002), the eCoLoTrain25 project (2006), and the eCoLoMedia26 initiative (2008), all targeting more open and responsive curricula resulting in market-ready graduates.

d. Translation pedagogy models.

Translator education witnessed a fundamental shift in the late 1990s away from the long-standing dilemma over theory vs. practice and from transmissionist teaching models in which knowledge is imparted to trainees instead of being constructed by the trainees. Translation teaching has welcomed new debates about skill sets, learning outcomes, curricular content and pedagogical methodology (Baer and

Koby, 2003; Malmkjær, 2004; Schäffner, 2000) and welcomed the integration of socio-constructivist models (Kiraly 2000) calling for process-oriented, project-based learning experiences replicating real-life

24 eContent Localisation Resources (eCoLoRe) is an initiative of the University of Leeds Centre for Translation Studies. It aimed at bringing together academicians and industry professionals in order to build a corpus of training resources tailored to the need of the language industry. The eCoLoRe project was administered under a larger initiative entitled MeLLANGE (Multilingual eLearning in Language Engineering) whose objective was to adapt the vocational training of translators and language professionals in Europe to the new needs of the market through “the collaborative creation of corpus-based e-Learning teaching content in translation, language resource management and technology.” (MeLLANGE Project website, 2007) 25 Building upon the eCoLoRe initiative resources, the eCoLoTrain project developed and tested innovative training opportunities (blended learning) for translator trainers and teachers. eCoLoTrain guidelines and courses “were meant to complement already existing translation programs, by identifying and developing resources for topics that were revealed to be neglected by the majority of traditional translation teaching institutions” (Secară & Hartley, 2006). 26 eCoLoMedia: Vocational Training in Multimedia eContent Localisation: Developing shareable and customisable resources for vocational training in multimedia eContent localization is a European collaborative project that draws together “academics, professional associations, content developers and software developers to build online resources to respond to these identified needs in vocational multimedia translation training” (eCoLoMedia website, 2010).

situations in the classroom. In fact, translator training has greatly benefited from an interdisciplinary reach: advances in research methods as well as developments in the disciplines of translation studies, foreign language teaching, linguistics, cognition and expertise studies have brought about some systematic and less systematic approaches to the teaching of translation. The notion of pedagogy has stood at the heart of debates about the relevance of theory versus practice. The what and the how of teaching translation have been one of the first challenges to address. Baer and Koby (2003) explain that “if our teaching methodology is of the traditional kind . . . in which the master passes on his/her knowledge to the passive apprentice, we may fail to produce translators who are capable of the flexibility, teamwork and problem- solving that are essential for success in the contemporary language industry” (p. viii). This threat of failure was identified by Kiraly (1995) as a “pedagogical gap” that stems from “the lack of clear objectives, curricular materials, and teaching methods” (p. 5). While experimenting with models from neighboring disciplines (e.g., foreign language instruction and language acquisition), translation pedagogy started to gain, firstly, an awareness of the needs of translators as it was “time to offer translators tools, not rules” (Robinson, 1991, p. xvi). Secondly, translation pedagogy acquired a stronger connection to the profession thanks to “the language engineering industry and the recent development of highly sophisticated and customized programs and tools” as Baer and Koby indicate (2003, p. ix). This awareness has led to embracing student-centered orientation in education, the adoption of a socio- constructivist model and an emphasis on revisiting curricular design in relation to translation pedagogy

(Gabr, 2001; Kelly, 2005; Kearns, 2006). Kosaka and Itagaki (2003) observe that localization education witnessed “a paradigm shift from constructivist to social constructivist practices in translation pedagogy”

(p. 232) such that knowledge is being created and constructed out of experience that is built cooperatively and is kept up-to-date with the constantly changing environment. This social-constructivist orientation was also influenced by higher education’s shift away from a “coverage” model to a learning outcomes- based model. One of the earliest attempts to address translation pedagogy was academically-driven and

initiated by Delisle (1980) who stressed the necessity to set clear and achievable teaching objectives based on Bloom’s taxonomy.27 According to Delisle, formulating such objectives up front is very advantageous as it facilitates teacher-student communication, the selection of teaching material and learning activities, and it provides a basis for assessment (Delisle, 1998, p. 21–22).

A more practical perspective on training was advanced by Nord (1991) who suggested a model that places more emphasis on the student learning experience and less on teaching. She called for a functionalist approach closely tied to the reality of the professional practice. The student, in this model, is exposed to “realistic translation commissions” and is walked through the steps to produce an adequate target text in conformity with the brief (the who, what, where, when and why of a translation request) while steadily acquiring necessary competences along the way (Nord, 1991, p. 144). This learner-centered approach was backed up with new considerations that drew more attention to translation as a process rather than as an end-product. Gile (1995), a key advocate of this model, argued that “the idea is to focus in the classroom not on results, that is, not on the end product of the translation process, but on the process itself . . . the process-oriented approach indicates to the student good translation principles, methods, and procedures,” which allows them to better assimilate of the processes and provides them with enough time to closely address each step of the process alongside its problems one at a time (Gile,

1995, p. 10). Gile explained that his sequential model of translation might be more convenient in the beginning of training and would be more beneficial if supplemented with a product-oriented component towards the end to ensure that all aspects of the translation were covered.

In the same vein as the functionalist model, Vienne (1994) and Gouadec (1994) proposed the situational approach to advance the idea of having students operate within a framework set by the instructor who has designed and carried out the set of translation tasks to be assigned, and who acts as the initiator in the translation process without simulating professional tasks (Vienne, 1994, p. 52). Conversely,

Gouadec (1994, 2003) suggested integrating “real translation commissions for real clients into training

27 For a thorough discussion of Bloom’s taxonomy and how it applies to translation teaching, see Delisle (1998).

programs,” thus giving more credibility to the situation/task, an idea that was later implemented by Kiraly

(2000).

In their approach to curriculum, Hatim and Mason (1997) apply principles of text linguistics to the classification of texts in translator training. Their starting point was the question, “on what basis could the selection, grading and presentation of materials for the training of translators be carried out most effectively?” The authors take as their point of departure the notion of “the classification of language use in terms of rhetorical purpose” (p. 149) in order to generate a set of text types which “provides the essential link between text and context” (p. 150). This text typology is then linked to the process of translation and to the translator at work. Essentially, the different text types they identified—instruction, exposition, and argumentation—present unique challenges and involve different translational procedures.

Given how important it is to understand the use of language and the many instances where texts meet contexts, Hatim and Mason (1997) call for training to be organized around text typologies. Away from text typologies, Robinson (1997; 2003) challenges the traditional in-class mode of instruction and puts forward an integrated approach. His approach combines conscious, analytical academic learning and subliminal, holistic real-world learning with the ability to move back and forth between both ends of such learning continuum (2003, p. 2–3). Robinson views translation as an

intelligent activity involving complex processes of conscious and unconscious learning; we all learn in different ways, and institutional learning should therefore be as flexible and as complex and rich as possible, so as to activate the channels through which each student learns best (Robinson, 2003, p. 49).

The ability to continually switch from in-class (slow, systematic) to outside-of- class (rapid, unconscious) learning methods when required is essential for accommodating the many ways and situations in which people learn and when learning happens. Given the interdisciplinary aspect of translation, theorists such as Hurtado Albir (1999) and González Davies (2004) borrowed the task-based approach, popular in foreign language instruction, and incorporated it into translation training. As its name indicates, the task- based approach is based on the design of tasks,

concrete and brief exercises that help to practice specific points . . . leading along the same path towards the same end, or task [understood as] a chain of activities with the same global aim and a

final product. On the way, both procedural (know-how) and declarative (know-what) knowledge are practical and exposed (González Davies, 2004, p. 22–23).

According to Hurtado Albir and González Davies, task-based instruction requires a “curricular design based on learning outcomes” for which a set of tasks is to be designed and carried out. One of the major goals of this approach lies in “bringing the real world into the classroom” by exposing students to contextualized and profession-related challenges. The realistic nature of the tasks enhances students’ self- confidence and triggers higher-order cognitive processes related to problem-solving and decision-making.

The socio-constructivist approach led by Kiraly (2000) has built on that the task-based approach, partially, and come to occupy a central place in translation training. Kiraly advocates a new pedagogy for translation and applied theoretical constructs from social constructivism to establish a collaborative approach between instructor and learner in translator education. His major interest is “learner empowerment” via interaction with the community and through engagement with collaborative translations organized in the form of authentic projects. His project-based approach aims to replicate real- life situations simulated in the classroom. Learners get to work collaboratively and decide on the skills necessary to conduct specific tasks and to manage the projects assigned to them by exchanging thoughts and negotiating solutions. These socio-constructivist approaches have proven valuable and constructive, with varying degrees, in the context of translator training as they can serve different training phases and expand from the task level to the global or holistic orientation of the program. In addition to the translation curriculum and pedagogy building blocks suggested by Kelly (2005), research on translator training has generated a great deal of interest in the notions of competence and the skill sets required or recommended for translation work. Identifying the required skill set and competencies needed for performing translation was necessary for education and training purposes. Schäffner (2000) maintains that

“in any professional environment, performance is judged according to certain clearly defined objectives and needs, which demand a specific type of competence” (p. xiv). The following section addresses the defining characteristic of skills, competences and expertise as they relate to translation and localization.

e. Skill, competence and expertise.

The controversial concepts of skill and competence have long been debated in higher education and in translation studies. Debates about the notion of skill hearken back to 1928, when Hans Renold defined it as “any combination, useful to industry, of mental and physical qualities which require considerable training to acquire” (More, 1980, p.15). More recent scholars acknowledge that skills can be acquired through practice as well and not solely through training (Winterton, Delamare, Stringfellow,

2005, p. 10). Many skill acquisition models concerned with skill types, skill acquisition stages, and cognitive skills have been developed (Fitts and Posner, 1967; Anderson, 1987; Rasmussen, 1986). Proctor and Dutta (1995) proposed what is believed to be a comprehensive conception of skill as “a goal-directed, well-organized behavior that is acquired through practice and performed with economy of effort” (p. 18).

This conception covers the objective of the skill being a solution that meets a specific need. This solution is processed in terms of structured behaviors performed over a period of time with increasingly less effort.

Proctor and Dutta differentiate between perceptual, response selection, motor and problem-solving skills, many of which can be developed through practice and measured by speed and/or accuracy of performance

(as cited in Winterton, Delamare, & Stringfellow, 2005, p. 12). Research has also differentiated between domain-general and domain-specific skills. A joint study launched by the American Society of Training and Development (ASTD)28 and the U.S. Department of Labor highlights how technology has contributed to many changes in the workplace that led to changes in required skill sets. The study emphasizes the importance of linking learning outcomes directly to job performance (Lane, 1992) and identifies 16 basic skills:

1. Foundation skill: Learning how to 2. Personal management: self esteem learn

3. Reading competence 4. Personal management: Goal setting/ motivation

28 The American Society of Training and Development was rebranded in 2014 and its official name is now the Association of Talent Development.

5. Writing competence 6. Personal management: Personal/career development

7. Computation (mathematics) 8. Group effectiveness: Interpersonal skills competence

9. Communication – Listening 10. Group effectiveness: Negotiation (conflict (interpersonal skill) resolution)

11. Communication – Oral (verbalize 12. Group effectiveness: Teamwork thoughts) (interpersonal skill)

13. Adaptability: Creative thinking 14. Influence: Organizational effectiveness (and conceptualization)

15. Adaptability: Problem solving 16. Influence: Leadership (and shared leadership) (and organization)

The European Qualifications Framework (EQF, 2008),29 an instrument created by the European

Commission to help ensure the mobility of its graduates and the recognition of certificates and degrees across the 28 member countries, distinguishes between knowledge, skills and competences. In the EQF, skills are described as “cognitive (involving the use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking), and practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools and instruments)” (EQA,

2008), whereas competence is defined “in terms of responsibility and autonomy” (EQA, 2008). This framework relies on eight European reference levels (from basic Level 1 to advanced Level 8) that are associated with specific learning outcomes. It equally covers higher education qualifications

(undergraduate and graduate degrees) and also vocational and professional qualifications. Much more could be said concerning skills especially as they apply to translation and localization practice, and chapter three will outline the skill sets identified as specific to this dissertation.

f. Competence models.

The concept of competence or competency has been used in many disciplines. According to the

Oxford English Dictionary, competence is defined as the “sufficiency of qualification; capacity to deal

29 A detailed outline of the European Qualification Framework levels and descriptions is available in the European Commission section on Learning Opportunities and Qualification in Europe: https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/content/descriptors-page

adequately with a subject.” (OED, 2016) It has also been described as “the capability to apply or use a set of related knowledge, skills, and abilities required to successfully perform ‘critical work functions’ or tasks in a defined work setting” (USDOL, 2012 as cited in Clark, 2017). Competence involves the ability to use and perform skills effectively. In cognitive psychology, competence appears on a continuum that accounts for abilities, competences and expertise. Competence is thus defined as “the set of skills needed for performance in one or more life domains at the journeyman-level or above” (Sternberg, 2005, p. 15) whereas expertise refers to “the set of skills needed for a high level of mastery in one or more domains of life performance” (Sternberg, 2005, p. 15). Much interest is focused on the ways in which competence is constructed and how the individual’s mental model evolves along that continuum to reach sophisticated and complex levels of thinking and problem solving. Based on their research, Ericsson and Smith identify competence as “consistently superior performance in a specified set of representative tasks for the domain that can be administered to any subject.” (Ericsson and Smith, 1991, p. 731) Attempts to quantify expert knowledge have led to suggestions that at least 10.000 hours of deliberate practice are necessary to acquire expertise (Ericsson and Charness, 1994, p. 741).

Similarly, Dreyfus and Dreyfus developed a five-stage model of adult skills acquisition that is concerned with skill learning and not profession learning. Based on their model, “skill in its minimal form is produced by following abstract formal rules, but that only experiences with concrete cases can account for high levels of performance” (Dreyfus, 1980, p. 3). This model, which has been widely applied to several areas of education, such as aviation, public health, engineering, medicine, and sports, comprises five distinct levels: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. It accounts for

progression from analytic behavior of a detached subject, consciously decomposing his environment into recognizable elements, and following abstract rules, to involved skilled behavior based on an accumulation of concrete experiences and the unconscious recognition of new situations as similar to whole remembered ones. (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986, p. 35).

In Translation Studies, the concepts of skill and competence came forth with the attempts of conceptualizing the theoretical and practical sides of the discipline. Research on translator training has revolved around the fundamental notion of competence (Wilss 1976; Koller 1979; Delisle 1980; Bell

1991; Nord 1991; Pym 1993; Kiraly 1995; PACTE 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2011; EMT 2009). This very concept has been essential to the discipline because identifying a set of translation core competences has helped to establish training models and to design focused training modules and assessment material to reflect the acquisitions of those core competences. Martínez Melis and Hurtado Albir (2001) point out that “the definition of translation competence and the process by which it is acquired is of crucial importance in teaching translation since it provides the guidelines in establishing the learning objectives and the pace of teaching” (p. 280). However, reaching a defined list of translation competences was not an easy task. Conceptually, translation competence was defined as “the knowledge and skills the translator must possess in order to carry out a translation” (Bell, 1991, p. 43).

Nevertheless, given the multidisciplinary nature of Translation Studies, the concept of competence in this field has undergone a terminological evolution. It varied between transfer competence

(Nord, 1991, p. 161), translational competence (Toury, 1995, p. 250), translator competence (Kiraly, 1995, p. 108), translator’s competence (Kussmaul, 1995, p. 33), translation performance (Wilss, 1989, p. 129), translation ability (Pym, 1993) and translation skill (Lowe, 1987, p. 57). Accounting for this variety of conceptual approaches, Campbell (1998, p. 6) proposes three major uses for the concept of competence in

Translation Studies:

a) the development of psychological models of the translation process;

b) the summative evaluation of the quality of translations as products; and

c) the training of translators .

The concept then evolved from purely linguistic considerations (linguistic, textual and transfer knowledge) to encompass more disciplinary (subject-field knowledge) and technical considerations (Delisle, 1980;

Roberts, 1984). Many models were developed along the way that attempted to add a number of competences such as cultural and quality assessment competence (Nord, 1991, p. 235). Nonetheless,

Kiraly (1995) proposes a constructivist approach to translation teaching and calls for transcending the mere concept of translation competence and for focusing instead on translator competence, which “entails being able to use tools and information to create communicatively successful texts that are accepted as

good translations within the community concerned” (p. 13–14). In the context of training, Kiraly’s approach focuses on the empowerment of trainees to enable them to develop their “professional selves” through exposure to authentic material, professional and realistic tasks. Such professional competence relates to “the translator’s ability to work within the social and ethical constraints of translation situations in a manner that is consistent with the norms of the profession” (Kiraly, 1995, p. 30–31). This will foster trainees’ autonomy and awareness of their responsibilities within the context of work. Neubert (2000, p. 6) summarizes the previously proposed models in five areas that are key to the translation act: language, textual, subject area, cultural, and transfer competence.

Another major player in the translation competence debate is the PACTE30 group. In 1997, this group launched a longitudinal study to develop a translation competence model. The resulting model has been empirically examined and refined over a decade to include six subcomponents of translation competence that are all interrelated: bilingual, extra-linguistic, instrumental, strategic, psycho- physiological and knowledge about translation sub-competences (PACTE, 2011, p. 331; 2005, p. 610).

According to PACTE, the strategic sub-competence is central to the model because it is responsible for mobilizing the other sub-competencies, planning translation processes, evaluating them, ensuring their efficiency and troubleshooting any deficiencies (PACTE, 2005, p. 610).

Building on the PACTE groups’s model, Alves & Gonçalves (2007) present a cognitive model of translator competence that is based on relevance theory (p. 41). Their model postulates that a translator’s competence encompasses both procedural (knowing how) and declarative knowledge (knowing what) rather than relying on either of them. Their model also distinguishes between generic translator’s competence (GTC) and specific translator’s competence (STC). GTC is defined as “all knowledge, abilities and strategies a successful translator masters and which lead to an adequate performance of translation tasks” (Alves and Gonçalves, 2007, p. 44). STC operates through conscious or meta-cognitive

30 Process in the Acquisition of Translation Competence and Evaluation group at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona in Spain.

processes, being directly geared to the maximization of interpretive resemblance (Hurtado Albir and

Alves, 2009, p. 65). Alves and Gonçalves’ model finds echo in translation pedagogy and more particularly in competence-based training (CBT), learning and teaching approaches. This model places competences at the heart of learning and curriculum design (Hurtado Albir, 2017, p. 14). It is defined as

“a complex know how to act resulting from the integration, mobilization and organization of a combination of abilities and skills (which may be cognitive, affective, psycho-motor or social) and knowledge (declarative knowledge) used effectively in situations with common characteristics” (Lasnier,

2000, p. 32). Similar to the translator’s competence which calls for the combination of the know what

(discipline knowledge) and know how (practical problem-solving skills), Lasnier extends the competence scope to the know how to be/act (including affective, social skills). CBT also differentiates between specific competences related to and reflective of a given discipline and general competences that can apply to a wide range of fields. The European Union Working Group on Basic Skills, Foreign Languages

Teaching and Entrepreneurship31 (2003) defines generic competence as “a transferable, multifunctional package of knowledge, skills and attitudes that all individuals need for personal fulfillment and development, inclusion and employment” (2004, p. 11). Such a comprehensive definition accounts for competences applicable to a variety of contexts and settings relative to the personal, professional and social levels. General competences constitute a central component in the Tuning Educational Structures for Europe pilot project32 (2004). Tuning offers three sets of general competences: a) instrumental competences can be of cognitive, methodological, technological or linguistic nature and aim at achieving a goal; b) interpersonal competences refer to the ability to interact and communicate with others; and c)

31 One of the working groups established in 2001 as a result of the Report on the concrete future objectives of education and training systems in Europe. The group addressed the following objectives: developing skills for the knowledge society; developing the spirit of enterprise; and improving foreign language learning (Implementation of “Education & Training 2010” EU Working Group, 2003 as cited in Kelly, 2007). 32 The Tuning project is a pilot program supported by the European Commission in the framework of the Socrates program. The project was carried out between 2000 and 2004 with 135 European higher education institutions from 27 countries. The main goal was to document the most important skills, knowledge and attitudes expected upon graduation (generic and specific competences). The project was concerned with seven fields: Business, Education Science, Geology, History, Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry (see González and Wagenaar, 2003, 2005).

systemic competences involve the capacity to understand systems, apply knowledge and generate change

(Hurtado Albir, 2017, p. 15).

In an analysis of the major trends in translation competence literature,33 Kelly (2005, 32–33) believes that “competence is a broader concept than skills, covering knowledge (declarative), skills

(procedural) and attitudes” (Kelly, 2007, p. 131). She derived a list of translation competences from a curriculum design perspective:

 communicative and textual competence in at least two languages and cultures;

 cultural and intercultural competence;

 subject area competence;

 professional and instrumental competence;

 strategic competence;

 interpersonal competence; and

 attitudinal or psycho-physiological competence.

Along the same lines, the European Master’s in Translation (EMT), a network initiated by the

Directorate-General for Translation at the European Commission and a number of European universities offering master’s degrees in translation that abide by a set of commonly agreed upon requirements and criteria, defines the concept of competence as “the combination of aptitudes, knowledge, behavior and know-how necessary to carry out a given task under given conditions” (2009). The network specifies a granular model of six minimum competences; translation service provision competence (with its interpersonal and product dimensions), language competence, intercultural competence (with sociolinguistic and textual dimensions), information mining competence, thematic competence, and technological competence. Given the componential nature of translation competence models proposed so

33 See Wilss, 1976; Nord, 1991; Campbell, 1998; Schäffner, 2000; Neubert, 2000; Kelly, 2002; Pym, 2003; Colina, 2003; Kearns, 2006; and Morón Martin, 2009 and TC in translation process research: Krings (1986), Gerloff (1987, 1988), Séguinot (1989), Tirkkonen-Condit (1990, 1992), Jääskeläinen (1990, 1996), Alves (1995), Danks (1997) and Schäffner & Adab (2000).

far, Pym (2003) suggests a minimalist approach that focuses on the “translational part of the practice.” It defines competence as the “ability to generate a series of more than one viable target text (TT1, TT2 ...

TTn)” and the “ability to select one viable TT from this series, quickly and with justified confidence” (p.

281) without discarding the linguistic and commercial range of skills that remain necessary.

Additional components and sub-competences related to different factors that come into play in the translation process have been added to the competence paradigms making them more exhaustive.

However, even though the different models outlined above may differ in their categorization or terminology, they all agree on the basic prerequisite of what translation entails and which Schäffner (2005) recapitulates as “the combination of knowledge (knowing what), skills (knowing how), and ability to reflect (knowing why)” (p. 243). The development of competence models not only helps define the translator profile and qualifications and determine the core of translation practice but helps inform curriculum development as it attempts to respond to societal needs.

Thus, this concept has served for the identification of cognitive components pertinent to the translation process. It also has been useful for assessment purposes and for determining training objectives. As this hardly agreed upon construct has been subject to many debates, those proposals paved the way to a series of competence models. Those models have attempted to capture at different points in time a selection of core competences essential to translators. There has been considerable overlap between the competences outlined. A general overview of the different sketches shows that the most common and prominent competences across the models relate to four basic elements:

1. linguistic competence in the two languages;

2. cultural competence of the two cultures;

3. domain-specific competence; and

4. transfer competence.

Successively, other dimensions were considered and participated in making these components

(competences) more focused or granular to cover all the possible aspects of the translation practice (task).

Such lately added competences relate to the cognitive dimension proposed by Shreve & Danks (1997),

and the professional, psychological competence and strategic sub-competences suggested by the PACTE group (2000). Shreve (2006) considers translation competence from an expertise studies standpoint. In

Shreve’s view, translation competence refers to “the ability of an individual to use multiple translation- relevant cognitive resources to perform a translation task.” This accumulated know what and know how- based knowledge, training, and experience cover four competence areas: linguistic, cultural, textual and translation knowledge.

The PACTE group’s updated sub-competence model (2005) which integrates bilingual, extra- linguistic, strategic, and instrumental knowledge about translation, along with psycho-physiological sub- competences seems to best meet localization training needs. This model allows for building cognitive skills to help future practitioners navigate the micro- and macro- levels of source texts moving from decontextualized segments into constructing contextualized chunks of information (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 169). Another useful aspect of this model for localization is the addition of instrumental competence, which emphasizes the necessity of tools usage. As Garcia (2010, p. 275) observes, “training in computer- aided translation is a must.” This statement resonates with Langewis’ assertion that “translators should be educated in the main features and characteristics of a translation-memory tool, and the advantages the use of tools will have in the scope of a localization project” (as cited in Esselink, 1999, p. 24). Garcia further elaborates that university programs involved in translation training need to teach the use of translation memory (TM) and other related technologies along with the distinctive skills required for segment management (2010, p. 277–278). These thoughts find echo in Wright’s (2004) model of localization competence that was among the first suggested models in the field. It was grounded on the LISA initiative to determine the skills required in the industry for localization-related professions. This market-oriented model accentuates the highly technological aspect of the industry (p. 591). Along similar lines, Folaron

(2006) suggests an extensive model of localization competences focusing on the understanding of three main components: management, technology and language-culture (p. 212–217). These three components reflect working conditions involving team-based work, project workflow, and tool-oriented processes. In the light of such recommendations, Ferreira-Alves (2010) argues that

In the face of this new configuration of the translator’s profile and function, it seems important that the kind of training provided should be as polyvalent and versatile as possible, as well as sufficiently multifaceted, integrated and multimodal. It should be geared towards the so-called new satellite professions or extensions of the task of the translator (i.e. localization industry) and conveniently open and available so as to solve the problem posed by the specialist/generalist dichotomy. (Ferreira-Alves, 2010, p.15).

The industry has also worked on defining more accurately the skill sets of its practitioners and started to integrate translation training programs toward the end of the 1990s. As we have seen, several attempts to determine job profiles and identify the skills required for localization-related work were launched such as the LISA Education Initiative Taskforce (LEIT)34, the Language Engineering for Translators Curricula

(LETRAC)35 and the Certified Localization Professional (CLP) program.36 The results of these initiatives will be discussed in Chapter Five, in comparison to the findings of this dissertation. Given the multifaceted nature of the industry, the pace at which technology and the Internet have been advancing, as well as the emergence of new language and content types, the tasks, expectations and the nature of the localization jobs will undergo many changes. Currently, discussions are devoted to project management, localization engineering and to QA engineers, internationalization engineers, global production managers, globalization directors, account managers, evaluation specialists and others. The ongoing evolution of new localization vendors’ job titles only serves to underscore the importance ofe more interdisciplinary approaches that would combine multilingual, multicultural, multimedia, and multi-technological models and features for implementation in training. The skills may not be completely new; however, the convergence of some skills and the integration of others may be necessary. While valuable research has been focused on translation related competences, translation and interpreting teaching and curriculum development, localization has not received enough attention with regard to training approaches and job market requirements. In an effort to address the dearth of comprehensive research dedicated to

34 An educational commission within the Localization Industry Standards Association. 35 LETRAC is a project funded by the European Commission in 1998 which aims at implementing Language Engineering (LE) components in BSs and MSs translator curricula. 36 Program providing education and certification in internationalization and localization offered by The Institute for Localization Professionals (TILP).

localization education vis-à-vis industry expectations, the current study presents a requirement-gathering model that surveys three major stakeholders: localization employers, instructors and practitioners. The goal is to identify job profiles and skill sets and to determine how current training has been addressing localization industry demands.

Chapter 3: Methodology

This dissertation is conducted with the aim of describing, analyzing, and evaluating localization training offered in American universities by looking at the curricula used for that purpose and by collecting relevant job description data. It draws on assessments presented by employers providing localization services, localization instructors, and localization practitioners who have received formal university training in the field of translation and localization. This chapter outlines the methodology used in the study and describes the data collection and analysis processes. Different data sets are discussed in detail as are the selection of participants and the development of the instruments. Lastly, an overview of the quantitative and qualitative analysis methods is provided.

The study presents a three-pronged needs assessment framework for localization. It elicits the perspectives of three groups of stakeholders in the localization industry (employers, trainers, and practitioners) to ensure the development of a well-informed and systematic methodology for gathering requirements with the goal of improving localization education. According to Reviere et al. (1996), “as a type of applied social research, needs assessment is meant to foster program development and policy- making” (as cited in Li, 2001, p. 290). Along those lines, Li underscores how “results from needs assessment can be used to make decisions about internal programming and resource allocation. They can also inform our decision about materials selection, curricular design and teaching approaches” (p. 289).

To gather comprehensive and up-to-date information related to the three stakeholder groups in this study, namely employers, trainers and practitioners, a mixed-method approach was adopted whereby document analysis, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were used to ensure a thorough assessment, definition and understanding of the needs of each segment. As detailed in Chapter 1, the research

questions motivating this study revolve around the needs of language services industry in terms of localization work; the professional profiles that the industry seeks when recruiting and selecting candidates to perform localization work; the localization training that current American translation and localization programs offer; and the question of whether any expectation gaps exist between localization training and the workplace.

This study employs an exploratory, descriptive-interpretative mixed-methods research design to elicit the data corresponding to the market and to the academic environment. Mixed methods emerged in the 1990s as the “third methodological movement” (Cherryholmes, 1992, p.13; Teddlie & Tashakkori,

2009, p.76) bringing together both quantitative research that tracks down the “generality of a given phenomenon or feature . . . regularities, tendencies, frequencies, distributions” and qualitative research which allows drawing “conclusions about what is possible” (Williams and Chesterman, 2002, p. 64).

According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2007), a mixed-methods approach presents a “more complete picture” (p. 33) and provides “a more comprehensive means of legitimizing findings” (2003, p. 355) as opposed to relying on quantitative or qualitative analysis alone. Adopting this approach for the current study will enhance the reliability of the conclusions drawn by going beyond the quantification of skills and job criteria and requirements.

1. Method

Data collection was undertaken in three phases (see Figure 3). In the first phase, a keyword map was generated based on document analysis of job and program descriptions corpus. In the second phase, an online questionnaire targeting the three population groups was administered via Qualtrics™, a software tool available through the Division of Information Services at Kent State University. The questionnaire was made available online to enlarge the pool of potential participants. The selection criteria were based on the participants’ roles and involvement in the localization industry. Descriptive statistics were used for post-processing the data. This post-processing identified information that was discussed further through follow-up semi-structured interviews which constitutes the third phase of the

study. The interviews were conducted with seven participants from each population group who expressed interest in providing more information and sharing their views. Given the involvement of participants in the study, approval from Kent State University’s Institutional Review Board was necessary. All the required IRB documentation, forms, data collection instruments, recruitment scripts and consent forms were prepared and submitted to the Division of Research for the Protection of Human Subjects on

October 7, 2015. IRB approval was obtained on October 30, 2015 and written consent was acquired from the questionnaire respondents and semi-structured interview participants throughout the data collection process (see Appendix A).

Figure 3. The phases of the study.

2. Documentary Research Description and Procedure

a. Corpus design.

The first part of the study comprised a documentary research of market expectations in the form of job advertisements. Generally, job descriptions represent one of the major recruiting tools in the process of employee selection. The documentary research relied on the compilation and analysis of a corpus37 of 150 online job descriptions (JD) relative to localization industry job offerings. Those JDs were gathered from the following websites: linkedin.com, indeed.com, careerbuilder.com, Glassdoor.com, us.jobs and monster.com. The following bulleted points represent the standard job description data categories that were collected:

 Company Overview

 Job Title

 Job Description (duties/tasks)

 Job Requirements/Qualifications

o Education

o Experience

o Skills

Specific job descriptions were selected for documentary research based on two criteria: the job title included the word “localization” and the job site was located within the United States. The corpus was compiled over a six-month period (from September 2015 to March 2016) and the result of the compilation process was a collection of all of the full texts of the JDs that appeared on the aforementioned websites during the six-month period in question. These job descriptions were different in length, ranging from 96 to 1694 running words.

b. Corpus analysis.

37 A corpus is a body of text defined by Zanettin as “collection of electronic texts assembled according to explicit design criteria […] representing a larger textual population” (2002, p. 11).

The analysis of this corpus allowed the identification and exploration of current career paths, types of positions available for localization graduates, patterns of trends in terms of the skills sought by

LSPs as well as job requirements defined by LSPs. More particularly, the purpose of this analysis was to identify patterns using keyword analysis in each data category of the localization job ads, i.e., listing of tasks, requirements in terms of education, experience, and skills. The analysis serves to identify the central and peripheral topics based on the frequency of keyword occurrences and the category to which they belong. This frequency analysis allowed the generation of a job description keyword map. The JD keyword map pinpoints the most frequently mentioned keywords (topics) throughout the corpus.

Job descriptions were extracted from the online platforms mentioned above. They were then saved in .TXT files using Unicode encoding. A sub-corpus covering each data category, i.e., job tasks, qualifications and skills, was created to generate the keyword frequencies per category (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. The process of JD keyword analysis.

These sub-corpora were processed using WordSmith Tools (5.0.0.334), a corpus analysis software program that assists in processing linguistic content and provides quantitative data relative to word lists, frequency of words, types, tokens, concordances, and key-word-in-context (KWIC) lines. The first step

was to generate a WordList that was compared to a general reference corpus WordList to derive a list of

KeyWords. The reference corpus used was the Open American National Corpus (OANC).38 Once the

KeyWords list was generated as shown in Figure 5, a concordance analysis was processed for the most frequently occurring content keywords that related to job requirements in terms of education, experience and skills.

Figure 5. Sample of the keyword frequency list.

A list of collocates for each keyword was processed with the help of the tool and each occurrence was checked manually. Below is a sample of the collocates of the keyword “experience” Figure 6 indicates that the keyword experience occurred 490 times within the experience sub-corpus. It collocated with a number of other keywords as indicated in the word list and which occurred on its left (L1-L2-L3) or its right (R1-R2-R3).

38 The OANC is a freely available 15-million word subset of the American National Corpus of American English that contains written and spoken data collected since 1990.

Figure 6. List of collocates of the keyword “experience.”

The list of keyword collocates enables us to identify all possible associations of a keyword, and thus any linguistic patterns the job descriptions may contain. Figure 7 displays an example of the association of the keywords localization and experience. Such a list was validated against the number of occurrences listed in Figure 5. A similar process was followed to document the first 14 highly frequent keywords.

Figure 7. A concordance of the collocate “localization experience.”

The findings of the linguistic analysis were then organized into four clusters that helped visualize market requirements and preferences regarding localization qualifications: Experience requirements; skills requirements; tools knowledge requirements; education requirements (major and level). The linguistic analysis also expanded its scope to analyze the job titles. It mapped out the job titles with the industries they belonged to and categorized them in terms of the different localization activities associated with them (i.e., engineering, management, sales, translation, and quality control/assurance). For the sake of focusing on skill sets, the analysis did not cover the tasks outlined in the JDs.

The second part of the documentary research was concerned with the academic (both public and private) side of localization. It provided an overview of the translation training programs in the United

States that either specialize in localization or offer localization courses as part of their curricula. This section targeted programs’ curricula and course descriptions. It sought to examine the objectives laid out by training programs. Program or course information was organized in the form of a fact sheet based on

OPTIMALE (Optimizing Professional Translator Training in Multilingual Europe). OPTIMALE represents one of the most recent research initiatives in the field of translator training conducted by the

Erasmus academic network and funded by the European Union’s Directorate-General for Education and

Culture over a three-year period from October 2010 to September 2013. The project developed and used a fact sheet for mapping translator training across Europe. It also used survey methods to assess market and social needs, enhance the quality of translator training and disseminate best practices (OPTIMALE 2013).

Table 2 presents a sample fact sheet that was adapted for this study to facilitate the contextualization and pre-processing of academic programs data. Information collected via program fact sheets were subsequently organized into tables that helped draw comparisons between programs and courses taking into account all the data categories outlined below.

Table 2. Adapted Sample Program Fact Sheet (OPTIMALE, 2011).

LOCALIZATION PROGRAM FACT SHEET

Institution name Entity responsible for the program Institution Program name Location Public Institution Private type University College Website Identification Program director Undergraduate Level Graduate Certificate Face-to-face Type Distance learning Duration Credits Working language pairs Program modules

Number of courses in localization Description Course(s) name(s) | Credits Courses Core type Elective Prerequisites (if applicable) Localization course(s) description(s)

Instructor(s) of record Course Learning Outcomes Instrumental Translation Skills Technological Project management

3. Questionnaire Description and Procedure

This portion of the study employed two data collection instruments: questionnaires and semi- structured interviews. The questionnaires were designed to function as an initial contact in order to obtain demographic data on the three stakeholder groups mentioned earlier, (employers, trainers and practitioners) and their views about localization. The questionnaires also enabled recruitment of participants in the semi-structured interviews by inviting respondents to indicate if they were willing to participate in follow-up interviews.

a. Participant selection and description.

This study targets three population groups. The first group consists of companies’ and localization service providers’ managers, vendor managers, and project managers, because they are the main industry professionals who interact with localization practitioners during the recruiting process and throughout the execution of projects. For the purposes of this study, an LSP is defined as “a company with two or more employees that offers services and/or technology related to the transfer of information from one language into another” (Kelly, 2010, p. 1). The second set of participants consists of current instructors of localization and translator training program directors who are involved in training and in curricular design, and ideally, who attempt to make the training content meet the demands of the profession. The third set of participants includes localization practitioners who are graduates of translator training programs and who have been actively working in the localization industry for a minimum of one year.

The questionnaires’ participants consisted of a total of 10939 respondents, of which 29 were employers, 22 were instructors and 58 were practitioners. Participation criteria for employers included managers within LSPs specialized in localization or engaged in localization activity who have employed or contracted localization professionals. The variables established for instructors were localization teaching experience within translator training programs that offer courses or degrees in localization. The conditions of participation for practitioners were at least one year of experience in localization-related work and formal training in localization and/or translation. The three questionnaires were made available online via social networking platforms (LinkedIn groups), translation portals (Proz.com), professional organization listservs and blogs (ATA Divisions, ATISA), translation association mailing lists, and personal communications (emails) with industry and academic contacts over a three-month period from

March 2016 through May 2016.

The validity of the questionnaire instrument was tested in order to determine that the instrument satisfied the 1999 APA standards (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991). Evidence based on content was addressed through conducting a literature review and fully covering relevant materials in the field aligned with the theoretical framework in use. The researcher first created a draft which was verified by two research methods experts to make sure there was sufficient coverage (face validity). Evidence based on response processes was conducted through a pre-test administered online to a small group of individuals who are similar to the participants from the three population groups in order to account for ambiguities, confusing wording, ease of response and the time necessary to complete the questionnaire before the questionnaires were made accessible to participants. Evidence based on relations to other variables was satisfied through the semi-structured interviews. The questionnaires were tested carefully prior to the beginning of data collection to eliminate any potential inconsistencies, contradictions or deficiencies. This instrument underwent proofreading, revisions and assessment by a translation studies research methods

39 37 out of the 109 were incompletes with the following breakdown 11 incompletes in the employers’ group, 7 incompletes in the instructors’ group and 19 incompletes in the practitioners’ group.

expert. Several instances of questionnaire trials were run online to ensure the proper functioning of the platform and its compatibility with different browsers. In terms of reliability, internal consistency was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, a reliability test whose coefficient ranges between 0 and 1 and assesses that the questions used are internally consistent. The scale exhibited a high level of internal consistency as determined by Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.891 for the employers’ questionnaire, 0.868 for the instructors’ questionnaire and 0.874 for the practitioners’ questionnaire.

b. Questionnaire design.

This instrument was inspired by a number of industry organizations’ research initiatives concerning the localization profession, which were conducted in late 1990s in the form of surveys that investigated job profiles and skills required in localization-related professions in order to help develop educational curricula. A review of those industry research projects methodologies and findings encouraged the adoption of a set of questionnaires as one of the three instruments used in the present study.

Three sets of questionnaires were administered to the three sample groups involved in the study; each group received a different, specifically tailored questionnaire (see Appendices C-D-E for the complete questionnaires). One questionnaire (henceforth Employer-Questionnaire), directed to LSPs, company managers, vendor managers, and project managers, sought to determining what these hiring forces seek in their search for localization vendors. These attributes included the general applicant profile, education and both hard and soft skills sought, as well as the rationale behind those criteria. This questionnaire also sought to identify potential challenges that LSPs face in the recruiting process and during projects, and to collect LSPs’ suggestions for the enhancement of training.

The goal of the questionnaire directed to academics, i.e., localization instructors in university programs and institutes, is to examine the professional profile or set of skills that these training programs are designed to develop. It explores the objectives of the courses, the rationale behind their content, the ways in which the professors relate the training they provide to the industry, and how they think they can improve on it.

The questionnaire targeting practitioners who are graduates of translation and localization training programs and who have been actively working for at least one year for the localization industry collected professionals’ views about the education they received and address the degree to which they feel that the content and outcomes helped them transition to the workplace. The questionnaire sought to uncover the types of challenges they encountered and to document how they think the training they received could be improved.

The questionnaires were divided into four sections or thematic clusters as indicated in Table 3.

The first section addressed the profile of participants and their connection with the industry. The second section looked into the particularities of their occupations, i.e., recruiting localization vendors, teaching localization or providing localization services. The third section was concerned with the skills that each population group perceived as necessary in localization. The last section considered the participants’ views on localization training and their suggestions on how it could be further improved.

Table 3. Thematic Sections of Questionnaires for each Population Group.

Section Employers Instructors Practitioners

Section One: Company profile The instructor profile The localization Profile Activities and Teaching credentials practitioner background information and experience. educational and related to the company professional profile. director, vendor manager, or HR person. 7 questions 9 questions 9 questions Section Two: The relationship Localization teaching The characteristics of Localization- between the company (coursework, localization tasks and related work and its localization curriculum, learning activities the vendors. outcomes, etc.) practitioner performs. 7 questions 20 questions 18 questions Section Three: Skills required in Skills required in Skills required in

Skills localization from an localization from the localization from a industry/employer’s instructor’s practitioner’s perspective. perspective. perspective. 5 questions 5 questions 5 questions Section Four: Assessment of Assessment of Assessment of Training localization training in localization training localization training assessment relation to market from an instructor from a practitioner’s demand. perspective. perspective. 6 questions 7 questions 8 questions

Qualitative data were recorded using a five-point Likert scale ranging from a minimum of 1, meaning

“very unimportant,” “strongly disagree,” “not effective” or “not at all challenging” to a maximum of 5, meaning “very important,” “strongly agree,” “very effective” or “extremely challenging.” This five-point

Likert scale provided the participants with a neutral choice in the form of scale-neutral 3 to account for the “not applicable” or “none” option. Using the five-point Likert allowed the quantification of responses from each participant of each population group. It also enabled the measurement and comparison of degrees of agreement with the items listed and to rate the importance of different skills grouped in five categories (instrumental skills, translation skills, technological skills, systemic skills and project management skills) as well the effectiveness of specific training offerings. Such responses can be compared and parsed for interpretation and statistical analysis purposes. Qualitative data was gathered from the responses to open-ended questions, which allowed participants to elaborate on their answers.

The number of open-ended questions was kept to a minimum to keep the questionnaires length within reason.

c. Data collection.

The questionnaires were built using the Qualtrics™ software application available through the

Division of Information Services at Kent State University. The invitation to participate in the study

(recruitment message) along with the link to the questionnaires was posted on several online platforms and sent via emails (see Appendix B). The first page of the questionnaire displayed the consent form

indicating the nature of the study and the goals and expectations. Upon reading the consent’s terms and conditions, participants were invited to take part in the study by selecting (“yes”) or to exit by selecting

(“no”) if they did not wish to proceed. The participants had to select their role within the localization industry in order to access the survey that best fit their profile. They were presented with three options: 1) translation and localization manager; 2) translation and localization practitioner; 3) translation and localization instructor. Based on the trials and Qualtrics estimates, each questionnaire was expected to take approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. The questionnaires were made available online for a three- month period. A reminder message was sent after the first and second months. Upon finishing the questionnaire, participants were prompted to take part in a follow-up interview. A second mini-survey was necessary to collect the names and email addresses of respondents who expressed an interest in participating in a follow-up interview because the questionnaires were set up to collect data anonymously without capturing or storing any identifying information such as name, email or IP address. At the end of the questionnaire, an automated thank you note was displayed.

d. Data analysis.

Given the nature of the study, both quantitative and qualitative analyses were used to process the data collected. The first part of the questionnaires results analysis used descriptive statistics with frequency tables providing an overview of the responses to each question and the ratings of different items (skills, effectiveness of training, market and training challenges. With regard to incomplete responses, a median imputation was conducted and the median for each variable (i.e., each skill set option) was used to fill in the missing values. This process was applied because it did not affect the data.

Qualitative analysis was performed on the responses to the open-ended questions; four such questions were addressed to the employers and practitioners and seven such questions were included in the instructors’ questionnaire. This qualitative analysis relied on the use of Qualtrics Text Analysis feature which enables the organization and tagging of textual responses under relevant topics. These topics were created after the participants’ responses are recorded; the topics reflect themes found in the

participants’ responses and help derive patterns in the participants’ views. The responses to these questions were then triangulated with the interview data.

4. Semi-structured Interview Description and Procedure

To gain deeper insight into the views and assessments provided by the above stakeholders, further details were sought through a series of follow-up semi-structured interviews which constitutes the third instrument in the study. This instrument is considered to be the “most common qualitative strategy used in mixed method design” (Morse and Niehaus, 2009, p. 127). The interview questions, open-ended with a few prompts to offer a degree of freedom to the participants, helped to collect more focused and some unexpected information deemed relevant to the study.

The interviews were carried out remotely via Skype (Version 7.46) over a four-month period from

June through September, 2016. A total of 21 participants representing the three population groups was interviewed individually; seven were practitioners, seven were instructors and seven were employers. The interviews lasted between twenty-five minutes and an hour and fifteen minutes. All interviews were recorded in .mp4 file format using both Olympus VN-8100PC Digital Voice Recorder and iPhone 5C’s

Voice Memo digital recording app as a backup. All interview procedures, structure, recording and transcriptions were standardized to avoid potential bias or any sort of personal influence.

Interviewees’ contact information was collected from the interview recruiting survey.

Interviewees were contacted via an email message that containing the invitation to participate in the semi- structured interviews (see Appendix F) along with the consent form explaining the interview procedure, potential uses of the research findings and details pertaining to the anonymity of their personal information and the secure storage of the data collected. The interviewees’ approval for audio recording was requested. Interviewees were also informed of the possibility of receiving copies of their interview recordings. The semi-structured interview questions for each population group consisted of four parts (see

Appendices G-H-I) as indicated in Figure 7, with an average total of twenty questions:

Table 4. Outline of the Semi-structured Interviews.

Employers Instructors Practitioners

Demographics/Profile (background information)

 Localization market and  Localization  Localization practitioners’ hiring conditions/process program/courses training and working  Localization skills  Localization skills conditions  Assessment of localization  Assessment of localization  Localization skills training training (practitioners’ perspective)  Assessment of localization training

At the beginning of the recording, the interviewer read a scripted introduction summarizing the goals of the study and reviewing the interview procedure. The interviewees were invited to request clarification when needed to resolve any ambiguity. They also were asked for comments or suggestions toward the end of the interview. Interview recordings were saved in a password-protected laptop. The recorded data were then transcribed in a Microsoft Excel file. The transcription was a time-consuming process that took 5 days for 14 hours of recording. A mark-up system was adopted to transcribe verbatim the oral narrative using […] for pauses, [] for laughs, [bold] for emphasis, [///] for omitted personal information and [?!?] for inaudible content.

The analysis of qualitative data used a coding system that helped categorize and assign specific themes to the responses. According to Boyatzis, there are three different ways to develop thematic codes, theory driven, prior research driven or data driven (1998, p. 29). The assignment of themes was data- driven. The processing of semi-structured interview data was done in the Excel file that contained the transcribed data organized in three sheets with attributes referring to the interviewee’s group and ID. The initial data-driven coding used the interview questions as a starting point; additional themes emerged from the raw data after close reading.

Table 5. Themes that Emerged from the Interview Data.

This theme-based categorization and analysis allowed for a consolidation of the views and for comparison to be drawn of the participants’ responses within each population group (employers, instructors, practitioners) and across the three groups. The analysis of interview data focused particularly on the themes marked in bold in Table 5. Those findings were then juxtaposed to the questionnaires’ findings.

This chapter set out the methodology used to address the research questions and outlined the three stages of the study along with data collection procedures and the quantitative and qualitative analyses processes.

An overview of the mixed methods research paradigm was presented first, followed by a detailed explanation of the instruments, the documentary research based on the corpus of localization job descriptions and U.S. localization program descriptions. The second phase of the study relies on questionnaires targeting three population groups (employers, practitioners and instructors). The last instrument used was semi-structured interviews which were set up as a follow-up to the questionnaires involving participants who expressed interest in sharing their opinions in more detail.

Chapter 4: Results

The present chapter is organized into three major sections which present the results obtained via the three instruments used in this study. The first section presents the findings of the analysis of the corpus of job descriptions with a focus on the qualifications, skills and education that the industry is seeking. This section also includes the comparison of fact sheets of translator training programs offering localization courses in the U.S. The second section reports on the results of the three questionnaires targeting employers, instructors and practitioners. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively to examine differences among the views of the three population groups. The third section presents qualitative data collected from semi-structured interviews with participants representing the three population groups mentioned above. Interview data was analyzed to compare the three population groups’ views regarding the current and future status of localization training versus market requirements and expectations. The different sets of data help to consolidate the findings and triangulate the three stakeholders’ perspectives on training.

1. Documentary Analysis

a. Corpus analysis – job descriptions.

The corpus under study consists of 150 localization job descriptions collected from six job portals over a six-month period from September 2015 to March 2016. The linguistic analysis of the corpus focused on keywords appearing in three data categories, namely job qualifications in terms of experience, skills, and education. The scope of the analysis was expanded to consider job titles and the industries to which those jobs belonged in order to contextualize the requirements gathered. Instead of annotating the

corpus with tags, it was more relevant for this study to generate tree sub-corpora that consist of qualifications, skills and tasks extracted from the initial job descriptions and processed using Wordsmith

Tools.

Figure 8. Generic keyword frequency.

Regarding generic keywords frequencies, as shown in Figure 7, the most frequent words relate to localization positions’ requirements and expectations in terms of experience, abilities and education.

These keywords were further analyzed along with their collocates in context. Some of the keywords

(labels used to describe skills, and experiences)40 were consolidated in order to have a reflective and concise image of patterns emerging from the JDs.

i. Experience requirements.

In the qualifications sub-corpus, the types of required experience that are most frequently listed for localization jobs are management experience (25%) and localization experience (24%), which together represent nearly 50% of the total number of occurrences of the various types of experience sought in the corpus. The third most frequently cited type of required experience professional/industry experience (8%), followed by software engineering (6%), translation (5%) and international experience

40 Keywords such as management experience and managing experience were merged to present one category; professional experience and work experience appear under professional/Industry experience.

(5%). The remaining types of experience mentioned in the job descriptions (tools experience, mark-up language, internationalization, programming, web publishing, work, product development, team management, testing, and language experiences) each appeared in 2% to 4% of the JDs in the corpus, as shown in Figure 8, which reports the frequencies of occurrence of the various types of experience. These findings suggest that the top types of required experience for localization jobs are management and localization, with software engineering, translation and tool know-how also being sought to a lesser degree.

Figure 9. Types of required experience.

ii. Skills requirements.

As for the skills required, communication skills are highlighted throughout the corpus: written communication skills represent 25% while verbal/oral communication skills stand for 17% of the total skills required. Organizational skills and problem solving skills each represent 11% of the total occurrences of collocates containing the word skills, management skills 9%, and English language skills

7%. The remaining skills mentioned (analytical, interpersonal, presentation, leadership, time management and critical thinking skills) all range between 2% and 4%, as indicated in Figure 9. As shown in Figure 9, major emphasis is placed on communication abilities in the JDs, along with the ability to manage projects and troubleshoot problems.

Figure 10. Types of required skills.

iii. Tool knowledge requirements.

Computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools (44%), localization tools (29%), and project management tools (11%) are the most prominent types of required tools in the JDs that comprise the corpus. The remaining tools (social media, process automation, internationalization, Microsoft office suite, testing, software development, globalization, and sales tools) each represent 1% to 4% of the total occurrences of required tools knowledge.

Figure 11. Required tool knowledge.

iv. Education requirements.

In terms of education, two main trends appear. At the degree level, there seems to be a tendency to seek candidates with undergraduate degrees, whether Bachelor of Arts (62%) or Bachelor of Science (22%), while Master’s-level education is only listed as a requirement by 16% of the JDs under study, as shown in

Figure 10.

Figure 12. Required education.

If we drill down into the majors required for localization work, degrees in computer sciences are sought most frequently (36%) followed by engineering (15%) and localization (10%). While majors such as

linguistics or foreign languages, technical fields, business and translation each represent 6% of the corpus, education in English and creative writing, information technology, MBA, communication, life science and computational linguistics each account for 1% to 4% of the total occurrences. This finding raises questions about the academic and educational context in which localization training needs to be or in which it is expected to be offered. Are there localization degrees per se, such as a BA in localization? If not, then how can JDs require a degree that does not exist?

Figure 13. Required education by major.

v. Localization job titles.

For the sake of contextualizing the JDs in relation to the companies that produced them, a mapping of the companies and the industries to which they belong was deemed necessary. The labels41 used to define industries/sectors were collected from the portals in which the JDs were published (see

Appendix J). Many of these labels are broad and do not specify the nature of the business offering

41 Information technology; business services; media; manufacturing, retail, advertisement and publications; entertainment and recreation; biotech and pharmaceuticals; accounting and legal; telecommunications; education; and finance.

localization services. For instance, companies appearing under business services include Moravia

Worldwide, ADP, TEKsystems, Inc., and RR Donnelley. Even though Moravia specializes in language services, ADP is in software development, TEKsystems is a provider of IT staffing while RR Donnelley is an integrated communications company, they are all listed as being part of the business services sector.

Companies listed under IT include Facebook, Netflix, Expedia, Inc., and SDL, among others. Once again, the label IT is very broad, given that it encompassed fields as diverse as social networking services, entertainment, recreation, translation and content management services. According to the labels used on the portals, 45% of the job descriptions are from companies in information technology; 21% are from business services firms, 11% are media-related, 8% represent manufacturing companies, while 6% are from the retail industry. The remaining sectors represent each 1% to 2% of the industries portrayed in the corpus and include advertisement and publication, biotech and pharmaceutical, entertainment, Internet, accounting, telecommunication, education and finance.

Figure 14. Job descriptions per industry.

The corpus under study contains 45 job titles. These titles belong to a number of job categories within localization that range from localization project management, vendor management, to engineering, sales, marketing, and quality assurance. They also vary depending on the level of experience required to obtain the title (entry level vs. senior positions). These titles reflect, to a greater extent, the company’s culture

and internal structure. Using a data-driven approach to coding, the job titles were grouped by category, as reported in Table 6.

Table 6. Breakdown of Localization Job Titles.

Category of Localization Total by Job Titles Frequency Job Titles Category Localization engineer 15 25 Software localization engineer 7 Localization release engineer 1 Engineering Director of localization*42 1 Localization and release support 1 analyst

Localization project manager 25 54 Localization coordinator 6 Localization program manager 7 Localization producer* 3 Associate producer of localization 1 Localization lead* 2 Manager of localization services 1 Localization product manager* 1 Localization manager 1 Project Management Content operations manager 1 Localization team manager, customer 1 services Assistant manager of localization 1 Localization program director 1 Vice president of localization 1 Localization and translation 1 operations manager Localization solutions architect 1

Localization testing specialist 2 8 Localization QA engineer 1 Quality Assurance Web localization QA analyst 1 Localization test engineer* 1 Localization QA tester 3

Localization/Translation recruitment 1 2 Vendor Management coordinator Localization vendor manager 1

Sales/Marketing Localization client development 2 9

42 Job titles followed by an asterisk could fit in more than one category.

manager Localization sales manager 2 Localization account manager 2

Bilingual [language] customer 1 support and localization Marketing localization specialist 1 Marketing program manager, 1 localization

Localization specialist* 9 28 Content localization specialist 3 Localization associate 3 Localization copy editor 2 Localization writer/editor 2 Localization analyst 3 Translation/Localization Localization editor 1 Technical localization specialist 1 Localization process analyst 1 [Language] localizer 1 Contract localization specialist* 1 Localization consultant* 1

The frequency with which the six categories of job titles occur in the corpus indicates a predominance of managerial positions in localization (43%). Translation/Localization and Engineering are a distant second and third, with 22% and 20% of the total occurrences, respectively. The relatively low frequency of job titles in the categories of sales, quality assurance and vendor management (6%, 7% and 2%, respectively) indicates much lower demand.

Figure 15. Categories of localization job titles.

Keywords analysis of the JD corpus reveals several patterns in relation to the required experience, skills, technology, and education for localization jobs. Given that the majority (66%) of job descriptions analyzed belongs to the information technology and business services sectors, there is a noticeable focus on managerial and localization experience, an emphasis on written/oral communication skills, and on organizational and problem solving skills. As for tools, attention is placed on computer assisted translation tools along with localization tools. As far as the education requirements are concerned, undergraduate degrees take a significant share with an interest in computer science, engineering and localization majors.

b. Corpus analysis – Program and course descriptions.

This section reports on the results of a survey (i.e., based on the developed program fact sheet) of translator training programs which offer localization-related courses in the United States. The survey examined the type of institution (public vs. private); the specifics of the degree (degree vs. certificate; undergraduate vs. graduate; face-to-face vs. distance learning); as well as the number of localization courses offered, their titles, descriptions and whether they are core or elective courses. The survey

identified 53 approved translation degree and certificate programs43 (ATA Website, 2017) offered by 13 academic institutions.44 These 13 institutions offer 17 degrees or certificates in localization for documented programs fact sheets based on the information published on each institution’s website).

i. Academic offerings in localization.

For ease of comparison, Table 7 aggregates the information about institutions and degree types.

The corpus of academic programs providing localization training consists of 8 public and 4 private universities plus one independent institute, the Localization Institute, which is a professional body that offers training in localization and global marketing. The breakdown of degrees offered by each type of institution is quite similar. The 8 public institutions offer a total of 9 programs (4 graduate degrees and 5 certificates in translation) whereas the 4 private institutions offer a total of 8 programs (3 graduate degrees and 5 certificates). Noticeably, localization courses are mostly part of the graduate level degrees and certificates except for 2 undergraduate certificates belonging to the same program.45 When comparing the modes of delivery, there are 12 face-to-face academic offerings versus 8 distance learning offerings.

Some of the programs provide the same degree in two modes of delivery (i.e., face-to-face and distance learning) simultaneously and some programs offer the online option only in specific language pairs.

Table 7. Types of Institutions and Degrees Offering Localization.

Degree(s) 4 (graduate) Public 8 5 (3 graduate, Certificate(s) Institution Type 2 undergraduate) Degree(s) 3 (graduate) Private 5 Certificate(s) 5 (graduate) 13 17

43 According to the American Translators Association list of approved translations and interpreting schools. 44 New York University (New York), University of Maryland (Maryland); Kent State University (Ohio), Wake Forest University; University of North Carolina at Wilmington (North Carolina), The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley; University of Texas Arlington (Texas), Localization Institute (Wisconsin), University of Washington (Washington), University of Denver (Colorado), University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign (Illinois), University of Massachusetts Amherst (Massachusetts) and The Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (California). 45 The Department of Modern Languages at the University of Texas Arlington offers an undergraduate Certificate in Localization and Translation and a Certificate in Localization and Translation Dual Option.

When checking the programs offering localization courses, what is noticeable is that all degree programs are offered at the graduate level in the form of Master’s degrees. Based on their titles, the 7 existing

Master’s degree programs are focused on translation studies with one degree including interpreting studies and one specializing in localization as indicated in Table 8. On the other hand, the certificates seem to address “localization” in their program title. Only 2 out of the 10 certificate titles did not include the term “localization” while 6 out of 10 certificate titles mention translation along with localization.

Some certificates also include marketing, project management and audiovisual translation in their titles.

As for the academic units hosting the degree programs, it appears that 5 out of the 7 MA programs are hosted within language departments apart from the Master of Professional Studies in Translation which belongs to the Professional Graduate Program within the Office of Extended Studies at the University of

Maryland. The other exception is the MA in Translation and Localization Management offered by the

Middlebury Institute of International Studies. With respect to the certificates, there are three main patterns: some certificates are provided by language departments, some are offered within offices or units of professional and continuing education and some are offered by an independent, industry-oriented institute specialized in localization.

Table 8. Titles and Hosting Units of Programs Offering Localization.

Program Name Hosting Entity/Unit

Department of Languages, Master of Arts in Translation Literatures, and Cultures > Studies Comparative Literature MA Translation and Localization The Middlebury Institute of Management International Studies at Monterey Modern and Classical Language Degree Master in Translation Studies > Institute for Applied Programs Linguistics Master of Professional Studies in Translation (Translation and Office of Extended Studies > Localization Project Management Professional Graduate Programs Track) School of Professional Studies > Master's in Science in Translation Foreign Languages, Translation, and

Interpreting

Department of Romance Languages > MA in Interpreting and Graduate Program in Interpreting and Translation Studies Translation Studies School of Literatures, Cultures and Master's in Translation Studies Linguistics > Center for Translation Studies

Certificate in Localization: Professional and Continuing Customizing Software for the Education World Certificate in Localization and Department of Modern Languages Translation Certificate in Localization and Department of Modern Languages Translation Dual Option Advanced Diploma in Digital School of Professional Studies > Media Translation and Foreign Languages, Translation, and Localization Interpreting College of Professional and Certificate of Advanced Study in Continuing Studies > Global Affairs Translation Studies Certificates Program Graduate Certificate in Department of Romance Languages > Translation Studies – Language Graduate Program in Interpreting and specific – Spanish Translation Studies Localization Project Management Localization Institute Certification Global Digital Marketing & Localization Institute Localization Certification Certificate in Global Digital The Swain Center for Executive and Marketing & Localization Professional Education Graduate Certificate in Department of Literature and Cultural Localization and Audiovisual Studies Translation

ii. Localization courses.

Across the different academic programs involving localization in their curricula, there are 28 courses in which localization is the main subject or constitutes a module within a course (see Appendix

K). It is important to point out that 7 of the 28 courses aggregated are offered by the same institution.46

When examining the course titles looking for patterns in the way localization has been labeled, it appears that in the 15 consolidated titles, 3 do not use the word “‘localization”: Translation Technology;

Multilingual Desktop Publishing; and Global Digital Media Marketing, as shown in Table 9. These courses may not be directed to localization practice but cover localization-related matters such as technology and marketing processes. Although it seems there is no consistency or agreement on the titles that are inherent to the structure and the curricular focus of each program, the course titles that occur in more than one program suggest an emerging pattern of introductory courses on localization, localization- marketing courses, project management and technology-oriented courses. The course titles that occur in two of the 17 existing programs are the ones about localization and terminology, and localization as a profession, whereas the course titles occurring once, thus in a single program, are the ones focusing on one mode or type of localization practice, such as software localization; website localization; games localization, digital media localization; or the business side of localization.

Table 9. Localization Course Titles.

Course Titles Number of Courses Translation Technology 3 Multilingual Desktop Publishing 1 Website Localization 1 Software and Games Localization 1 Localization Project Management 3 Financial Side of Localization 1 Localization as a Profession 2 Software Localization 1 Introduction to Software and Website Localization 4 Localization and Translation of Software and Web Pages 3 Localization Engineering 1 Localization and Terminology 2 Global Digital Media Marketing 4 Localizing Digital Media for Different Countries 1

46 The Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey

As for the status of these courses within the curricula of the 17 programs under study, localization courses appear to be core courses in 16 of the programs. There is one graduate certificate in which the localization course is an elective. The number of credits assigned to localization courses across these programs is 3 credits apart from the MA degree that specializes in translation and localization management.

While examining localization courses’ titles, attention was also drawn to the descriptions of courses to identify skills that were emphasized. At the graduate level, the 7 MA programs’ courses focus primarily on technological skills followed by translation skills, then instrumental skills including research and understanding of the profession. The least emphasized skills relate to project management. On the certificates’ side, similar trends were observed; major emphasis is placed on enhancing technological skills which are followed by instrumental skills then translation-related skills and finally project management.

iii. Language combinations.

After examining the titles of programs and courses specializing in localization in addition of their hosting units, the analysis scanned the language combinations involved in such programs. What is visible is the fact that 4 certificates in localization do not include any languages other than English in their training. There are also two programs which do not specify a foreign language in combination with

English as they are open to “any language going into English.” Two programs specialize in the English-

Spanish combination only. As Table 10 indicates, 9 of the 17 programs offering localization include

Spanish; 7 include French; 5 include Arabic, German and Chinese; 4 include Russian; 3 include Korean and Portuguese, and 2 include Japanese, whereas Italian and Persian are each offered in one program.

Table 10. Language Combinations in Localization Training Programs.

Programs Languages Involved in Offering the Localization Programs Language Spanish 9 French 6 Arabic 5 German 5 Chinese 5 Russian 4 English 4 Korean 3 Portuguese 3 Japanese 2 [Any language] into English 2 Italian 1 Persian 1

The analysis of the corpus of academic programs provided an overview of major training trends in localization training in the United States. It examined the programs’ offerings across different institutions, the academic units hosting such programs, courses’ types, titles along with the prevalent skills and the languages involved in such training.

2. Questionnaire Analysis

This section reports on the data obtained in the three questionnaires targeting three population groups: employers, instructors and practitioners. The questionnaires’ data were extracted from the

Qualtrics application and organized based on four main sections, i.e., participants’ educational and professional backgrounds and current profiles, views on localization skills, and their assessment of training. The data is presented using tables and graphs for visual clarity. The opinions of the three groups on localization skills were juxtaposed to examine similarities and differences among their views.

a. Stakeholder 1: Employers

Twenty-eight employers representing the localization industry participated in this questionnaire.

A selection of the data obtained is organized according to the order of appearance.

i. Employer profiles.

The employers who responded to the questionnaire belong to different types of organizations.

Over three quarters of the participants are commercial translation and localization service providers with

21.4% representing localization services within other business organizations either public or private.

Table 11. Distribution of Organizations by Type.

Organization Type Percentage Responses Language Services Provider (LSP) 78.57% 22 Private or public company (other than LSP) 21.43% 6 Total 100% 28

The participants reflect the diversity of the language industry in terms of size, with close to fifty percent of the respondents employing more than 30 staff members while a quarter of the employers reported fewer than 5 salaried staff. Another 17.8% of the respondents employed between 11 and 20 full time staff.

Figure 16. Total number of staff employed.

The main fields of activity of these businesses cover a wide range of language industry services. 85.7% of the participating employers reported translation as their main field of activity, over half of them specialized in localization and a little less than half of them worked in language consultancy. About a quarter of the respondents work on CAT/MT tool development, while 21.4% of them specialize in technical writing and documentation management. 10.7% of participants work in software development and 17.8% reported their core services as “Other” without providing any specific area of specialization.

Table 12. Distribution of Fields of Activity (By Volume or Turnover).

Fields of Activity % Translation 85.71% Localization 57.14% CAT/MT tool development 25.00% Technical writing and documentation management 21.43% Language consultancy 42.86% Software development 10.71% Other (please specify) 17.86%

Respondents were asked to identify the most commonly requested languages provided by their companies.

As shown in Figure 16, 25 out of the 28 employers reported French as a commonly requested language;

21 out of the 28 stated Spanish, 20 indicated Chinese, 15 reported German and 7 employers mentioned

Portuguese and Japanese. Arabic was reported by 5 of the 28 companies, Russian appeared in 4 of the responses, Vietnamese and Punjabi in 3 responses while Ukrainian, Somali, Korean, Italian and Amharic were each mentioned by one employer.

Figure 17. Commonly requested languages.

Regarding the roles of the respondents within their companies, 37% are project managers, 14.8% equally serve as operations/marketing directors and translation managers. 11% of the employers were owners/presidents of their organizations and 7.4% equally operate as CEO/managing directors and localization project managers. On the other hand, a quarter of the participants indicated “Other” as their job title without providing details about the nature of their role/position.

Table 13. Job Titles of Respondents.

Job Title % Project Manager 37.04% CEO/Managing Director 7.41% Owner/President 11.11% Operations Director/Marketing Director 14.81% Translation Manager 14.81% Human Resources Manager 0.00% Vendor Manager 0.00% Localization PM 7.41% VP of Localization 0.00% Other (please specify) 25.93%

ii. Localization employment criteria.

The second section of the questionnaire is concerned with hiring considerations regarding localization practitioners. When asked about the types of localization work for which their companies recruit localization practitioners, 94.4% of the respondents indicated website localization followed by

72.2% who reported software localization; 66.67% of the participants stated that they hire practitioners for desktop-publishing assignments while 61.1% are interested in multimedia localization. About half of the companies surveyed do hire for mobile localization and 22.2% need game localization services. Over a quarter of the participants selected “Other,” a few of whom supply localization services for market research questionnaires, technical documentation and localization project management.

Figure 18. Types of localization work companies request.

Based on the data, 33% of the companies do hire candidates for in-house localization-related work while

67% do not. By the same token, 78% of the employers report hiring freelance localization practitioners whereas 22% do not hire freelancers.

Figure 19. In-house vs. freelance localization practitioners.

Employers were also asked whether newly hired localization practitioners hold a translation/localization certificate. 22% of the employers report that all of their localization hires do have a certificate in translation/localization and 22% of them stated that most of their hires hold such credentials while 28% of employers believe that some of their vendors have certificates. 17% of the employers think a few of their practitioners do and11% state that none of their vendors have certificates in translation/localization. As for whether localization hires have obtained a translation/localization degree, 50% of respondents believe that most of their practitioners have a degree in translation/localization. 22% of the employers think some of their vendors have such a degree and 17% state that few of their hires have degrees in that specialty whereas 11% mention that all their vendors hold such a degree and none of the respondents reported that their hires have no translation/localization degrees.

Figure 20. Localization practitioners with certificates vs. degrees.

With regards to the years of professional experience required by the employers, the results show that the average length of professional experience in localization is 3 years with a minimum of no required experience to 5 years of experience as a maximum.

Table 14. Years of Experience for Localization Practitioners.

Std Minimum Maximum Mean Variance Deviation Minimum years of professional experience required from new 0 5 3.18 1.76 3.09 localization hires

As for the criteria of selection of new localization practitioners, over half of the respondents indicate that they focus on experience in localization and training in localization and languages, while half of them emphasize training in translation and experience in translation whereas 22% of the employers consider the institution from which candidates graduate as a criterion. Another half of the participants make use of all the criteria listed on Table 15 and 16% of them check additional criteria such as subject matter expertise, familiarity with CAT tools and interpersonal skills.

Table 15. Screening Criteria for Hiring Localization Practitioners.

Screening Criteria % Training in translation 50.00% Training in localization 55.56% Experience in translation 50.00% Experience in localization 61.11% Training in languages 55.56% Institution from which the degree was earned 22.22% All of the above 50.00% None of the above 0.00% Other (please specify) 16.67%

Since most respondents consider experience and training in localization as major criteria for the selection of candidates, an equally important factor to contemplate would be training opportunities that the employers/industry offer to localization practitioners. As indicated in Figure 21, only 56% of the participants report that their companies provide training for staff or vendors either upon hiring, or on a yearly, quarterly, on-demand or on a need-based basis. As for internships, half of the respondents indicate that they had internship offerings in localization while the other half did not.

Figure 21. Training opportunities within companies.

iii. Localization skill set.

The third section of the questionnaire addresses the localization skill sets from an employer’s perspective. The skills were organized into five sets: two sets of generic skills instrumental skills and systemic skills; and three sets of subject-field specific skills: translation skills, technological skills, and management skills. Instrumental skills are those serving cognitive, methodological, and technological abilities. Systemic skills cover a holistic understanding of the system and application of knowledge and ability of adaptation to systems’ requirements. Translation skills are concerned with the linguistic and transfer abilities, the capacity to use translation tools and resources. Technological skills involve the use of technological tools and processes. Project management skills revolve around the ability to conduct and manage localization projects from start to finish. Skill sets data are recorded using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from a minimum of “very unimportant” to a maximum of “very important” with a neutral choice of “neither unimportant nor important.” Given the strong individual responses’ tendencies regarding agreement about the importance of the statements on both extremes (unimportant and important), the

“very unimportant” and “unimportant” were clustered/combined and so were the “important” and “very important” ranges. This clustering of high and low extremes is meant to help consolidate the presentation of participants’ and the three stakeholder groups’ views.

Figure 22. Instrumental skills according to employers.

From the employers’ standpoint, there is an overall agreement on the importance of instrumental skills as indicated in Figure 22, with all participants ranking two of the instrumental skills: the ability to analyze and synthesize along with information management as important. 95% of the respondents believe that advanced computing skills are important. When it comes to research and documentation, 90% of the participants view it as an important skill whereas about 10% respond neutrally about it. As for the knowledge of the language industry and its professions, 80% believe it to be an important skill while 20% rank it as neither important nor unimportant. Another related skill, the knowledge of professional ethics and standards was ranked as important by 85% of the participants.

Figure 23. Systemic skills according to employers.

Similar to the views on instrumental skills, employers mostly agree on the importance of systemic skills with a 100% agreement on the importance of the ability to work autonomously. 95% of the participants think that the willingness to learn new tools and software packages, to work in an interdisciplinary team and to apply conceptual knowledge are all important, whereas 5% of them believe that these three skills are neither important nor unimportant. As for the willingness to engage in professional development, 85% of respondents view it as important.

Figure 24. Translation skills according to employers.

As reported in Figure 24, there are two translation skills rated by 95% of the respondents as important, the ability to translate accurately and the ability to use translation memory (TM) tools. 90% of the employers view the ability to translate/localize materials in one or more highly specialized domains and the ability to extract and manage terminology as important whereas 9.5% of them think it is neither important nor unimportant. When it comes to the ability to translate quickly, 85% of the participants believe it to be important. Linguistic creativity was rated as important by 76% of the participants, whereas 19% view it as neither important nor unimportant. Moreover, the ability to translate into the second language was equally viewed as unimportant and important by 28% of the employers while 42.8% of the respondents believe that it is neither important nor unimportant. On the other hand, the ability to post-edit machine translation was rated as important by 62% of the participants while 23.81% of them believe it to be neither important nor unimportant.

Figure 25. Technological skills according to employers.

There is a wide variety of views about technological skills among employers as shown in Figure 25. The skill that was mostly rated as important by 85.71% of the participants was the ability to understand and use markup languages with 14.29% who viewed it as neither important nor unimportant. 76% of the participants believe that understanding localization project components and the ability to troubleshoot tools problems is important, and 71.19% view the ability to process and convert files along the ability to localize multimedia content as important and 23.81% think it is neither important nor unimportant. Over half of the participants believe that the ability to understand software/video game localization processes and the ability to use machine translation systems are important whereas a quarter of the respondents think that it is neither important nor unimportant. The ability to use desktop publishing tools is the one skill that over half of the participants view as neither important nor unimportant whereas 33% of them believe it to be important.

Figure 26. Project management skills according to employers.

Views about project management skills were less diverse than the technological skills. All participants unanimously believe that the ability to specify and/or apply quality control procedures is important, and

95% view the ability to lead complex projects as important whereas 94% think that the ability to identify client requirements is important. 90% of the respondents rate the ability to identify required resources along with producing quotes as important whereas 10% think otherwise. In addition, 85% of participants view the ability to negotiate contracts with clients or suppliers as an important skill. Overall, there seems to be an agreement among the employers who participated in the study regarding how different generic and specific skill sets are important or not. Most views on skills fall into reflecting a general agreement about the importance of different types of skills presented.

iv. Employers’ perspectives on localization training.

The last section of the questionnaire focuses on employers’ opinions about university training in localization. Upon obtaining their general view on whether this kind of training is important or not, participants were invited to share their input by answering four open-ended questions.

100

Figure 27. The importance of localization training according to employers.

Over 70% of the employers participating in the study believe that university training is important for localization practice. Respondents consider that training essentially helps with both conceptual, and technical knowledge as well as enhancing interpersonal skills. According to them, training promotes/reinforces an understanding of the concepts, components and processes that play part in localization projects. Participants emphasized the role of training in building/strengthening research skills and the ability of following complex instructions. According to them, training helps in addressing linguistic and cultural challenges as well as gaining familiarity with the use of tools and workflows and quality assurance processes while working independently and confidently solving problems.

Responses to the second open-ended question capture the strengths of practitioners that were trained in localization. Participants overwhelmingly mentioned the advanced technical abilities of trained practitioners followed by organizational skills. They also shared how the ability to communicate effectively, the willingness to learn tools and processes and demonstrating a good understanding of the profession are more prevalent among trained practitioners. To a greater extent, employers stated that skills such as detail-orientation, analytical skills, flexibility, adaptability along with following instructions characterize well-trained practitioners.

101

With regards to the weaknesses observed in the work of localization practitioners, participants indicated that major weaknesses reside in a lack of interpersonal, communication and organizational skills. They also reported an absence of quality assurance measures, technical savviness and a lack of understanding of the business world as well as flexibility and management skills.

When asked about their reaction to such weaknesses, the vast majority of participants emphasized giving feedback to their practitioners and over half of them mentioned training alternatives while 44% of them indicated discarding such vendors from their recruitment pool. 16% of the respondents who selected

“Other” options did not have any plans in place to address such issues/shortcomings.

Table 16. Employers’ Reaction to Practitioners' Weaknesses.

Reactions to Practitioners’ Weaknesses % Offering training 61.11% Providing feedback 94.44% Removing the localization vendor from the recruitment pool 44.44% Other (please specify) 16.67%

The last open-ended question is concerned with new or future potential challenges that current localization training should address. There is a general agreement among respondents that the main challenges relate to the introduction of new technologies, the complexity of processes and instruction and the prevalence of content management systems in addition to the increasing need for post-editing of

Machine Translation (PEMT). Employers also mentioned the importance of cross-cultural communication component in training and keeping abreast with the industry while understanding the “big picture.”

In sum, employers’ input provided an additional view of current industry requirements with regard to localization. That view made it possible to check the LSPs’ perspective since over two thirds of the participants from the employers’ group represented the seller side. The data indicates that website localization represents a significant portion of the work that employers outsourced, followed by software localization, DTP work and other multimedia localization services. Regarding practitioners’ credentials, half of the employers reported that most of their vendors hold a degree in translation/localization and less than a quarter said that the freelancers they work with have a certificate in translation/localization. With that being said, a degree or certificate in localization in particular did not appear to be a must for

102

freelancers. The hiring criteria that appeared most important to employers was experience with an average length of 3 years required. Employers are looking primarily for localization experience, training in localization and languages, as well as experience and training in translation.

With respect to instrumental skills, employers strongly agreed (95% or higher) that the ability to analyze and synthesize; managing information, and advanced computer skills are important. Only two of the translation skills were the object of such strong employer agreement: the ability to translate accurately and the ability to use translation memory systems. The category of systemic skills contains that the largest number of skills that employers strongly agreed were important (95% or higher), and these were all soft skills: the ability to work autonomously; the ability to work in interdisciplinary teams; the ability to apply conceptual knowledge; and the willingness to learn new tools. Employers demonstrated a high level of agreement on the importance of only two of the project management skills: the ability to specify and/or apply quality control procedures, and the ability to lead complex projects. On the other hand, the skill set that did not meet with higher levels of agreement was technology skills. As for training, about two thirds of the employers believe that training is important for the practice of localization thanks to the conceptual linguistic and cultural knowledge it provides in addition to the familiarity with technology. Employers did, however, mention that training needs to be enhanced in a number of ways, which will be discussed in the next chapter.

b. Stakeholder 2: Instructors

The total of respondents who participated in this questionnaire is twenty-two instructors of localization. A selection of the data obtained is organized according to the order of appearance in the online version of the questionnaire.

i. Instructor profiles.

The first section of the questionnaire is concerned with the academic and professional profile of the participants. The instructors who responded to the questionnaire have different academic credentials.

Almost half of the instructors have a graduate degree in Translation Studies while around 22.73% have undergraduate degrees in the same field and 13.64% obtained certificates in translation.

103

Table 17. Academic Background of Instructors.

Degrees % Certificate in Translation Studies 13.64% Bachelor’s Degree in Translation Studies 22.73% Master’s Degree in Translation Studies 45.45% Ph.D. Degree in Translation Studies 18.18% Bachelor’s Degree (Non-translation related) 0.00% Master’s Degree (Non-translation related) 18.18% Ph.D. Degree (Non-translation related) 22.73% None 0.00% Other (please specify) 9.09%

As for professional certifications, about half of the participants do not hold any certification, while 10% have obtained either SDL Trados, TILP or the PMP certifications. A minimum of 5% of participants are

ATA-certified or hold a certification from the Localization Institute.

Table 18. Professional Certifications of Instructors.

Certifications % ATA (American Translators Association) 5.26% SDL Trados 10.53% Localization Institute 5.26% TILP (The Institute of Localization Professionals) 10.53% PMP (Project Management Professional Certification) 10.53% CAMP (Certified Associate in Project Management) 0.00% None 47.37% Other professional certification (please specify) 26.32%

When it comes to specific training in localization, A little over half of the instructors (54.55%) reported receiving a formal education or training in localization while 45.45% have not had any localization- specific training. Participants with formal localization training were asked to specify the types of training they have pursued as shown in Table 19. About 66.67% of the instructors have attended localization workshops, conferences or seminars and over half of them have taken University graduate specialized courses while a quarter of them have received graduate degrees on that subject matter. 33.33% of the

104

instructors have been through companies’ internal training in localization and 16% of them hold certificates in localization.

Table 19. Kinds of Localization Training Pursued by Instructors.

Kinds of Localization Training % Types of Localization % Certificate 16.67% Software localization 75.00% Undergraduate degree 0.00% Website localization 66.67% University graduate specialized courses 58.33% Games localization 33.33% Graduate degree 25.00% Mobile localization 16.67% Workshops, conferences, seminars 66.67% Audiovisual translation 58.33% Companies internal training 33.33% Desktop publishing 25.00% Other (please specify) 0.00% Other (please specify) 16.67%

The data about the kinds of localization training pursued were combined with the types of localization that instructors were trained on. Two thirds of the instructors (75%) are trained on software localization while more than half (66.67%) of them are trained on website and audiovisual translation (58.33%);

33.33% of the respondents are trained on games localization whereas a quarter of them is trained on desktop publishing and 16% have background in machine translation and localization tools.

In addition to their formal training on localization (educational background), the instructors were asked to indicate the length of their teaching experience. Over 50% of the respondents have more than 7 years of teaching experience in localization, whereas a quarter of them have been teaching for 4 to 6 years.

Table 20. Years Teaching University-level Localization Courses.

Years of Teaching Localization % Less than 1 year 15.79% 1–3 years 0.00% 4–6 years 26.32% 7–9 years 21.05% More than 9 years 36.84%

Instructors also reported on the localization courses they were responsible for as indicated in Table 21.

Over half of the respondents teach software, website or CAT tools courses. 33% of the participants checked the “Other” option and added a few courses such as introduction to localization, localization sales and solutions, localization project management, and localization quality assurance. About a third of

105

the participants (28.57%) offers training in Machine Translation whereas another third (28.57%) teaches audiovisual translation. A minimum of 4.76% of participating instructors teach games or mobile localization.

Table 21.Localization Courses.

Localization Courses %

Software localization 66.67% Website localization 66.67% Games localization 4.76% Mobile localization 4.76% Computer-Assisted Translation tools (CAT) 66.67% Terminology management 47.62% Machine translation 28.57% Audiovisual translation 23.81% Other (please specify) 33.33%

As far as industry work is concerned, responses show that over half of the instructors work in the industry: 25% of instructors engage in website localization and 20% work on software localization. Both of these types of localization represent a significant share of work performed for the industry. Other types of localization work (mobile localization, audiovisual translation and desktop publishing) seem to be comparable with a range of 12– 13% of the instructors practicing each and 7% working in game localization. The other types mentioned by two of the participants (as Other) are machine translation and eBooks.

Figure 27. Instructors’ involvement with the industry.

106

Figure 28. Instructors’ involvement with the industry.

ii. Localization training profile.

The localization training programs surveyed reported having over 60% of the instructors report offering courses at the graduate (Master’s) level and 36% of them have course offerings at the undergraduate level;

31% of the instructors provide localization courses within certificates in localization whereas 26% of them have localization-related courses as part of certificates in translation as shown in Figure 29.

Figure 29. Localization courses within academic programs.

Regarding the educational credit associated with localization course offering, 72% of the participating instructors report that their courses count for 2–3 credit hours while 22% of participants indicate that their courses carry more than 5 credit hour and only 5% of the participants report having 4–5 credit hour courses.

107

Figure 30. Number of credits assigned to localization courses.

In addition to credit hour assignment for localization courses, participants reported on the modalities of training that is specific to localization; 67% indicate offering on-site course and 33% of the instructors report having blended/hybrid courses involving face-to-face and synchronous/asynchronous instruction components.

Figure 31. Localization training modalities.

Based on the instructors’ responses, two thirds of the participants state that their localization courses are practice-oriented with hands-on activities and projects whereas a quarter of the participants report that their courses are more theoretical and 5% indicate offering more research-oriented localization courses.

108

Figure 32. Focus of localization courses.

When asked about their assessment of the types of instructions used in localization training, instructors agree unanimously on the importance of discussions. 93% of them rate lectures, case studies and individual projects as important while 86% of the participants consider readings and simulation exercises important. Over half of the participants rates project post-mortems as an important type of instruction.

64% of participants believe that reports are neither important not unimportant, while half of them think the same of online forums and 46% rate project logs similarly. On the other hand, 20% of instructors rate projects post-mortems as unimportant.

109

Figure 33. Types of instruction in localization courses.

Regarding the types of localization tasks used in courses, 80% of instructors report using localization of web pages, and translation memory creation and maintenance in their courses. Over half of the instructors mention implementing project evaluation and analysis along with testing and quality assurance in their teaching while 73% include termbase creation and maintenance in their localization courses. Around half of the instructors work on web editing and the localization of software components (UI, Help,

Documentation). About half of the instructors use machine translation engines and less than a third of them work on graphic editing. Only 20% of the instructors include multilingual desktop publishing in their courses and a minimum of 6% engage in mobile localization.

110

Figure 34. Types of localization tasks performed by students in courses.

As for the languages supported in their localization courses, 52% of the instructors cover French and

German in their courses while about half of them include Spanish, Russian, Chinese and Korean. Around a third of the instructors mention supporting Arabic and less than 30% of them cover Japanese and

Portuguese while 29% of the instructors report using English only and 11% of them support any language.

Figure 35. Languages supported in localization courses.

111

iii. Localization skill set.

From the instructors’ standpoint, there is an overall agreement on the importance of instrumental skills as indicated in Figure 36, with all participants ranking one of the instrumental skills as important: the ability to analyze and synthesize. 92% of the respondents believe that advanced computing skills along with information management and knowledge of the language industry and its professions as important. When it comes to research and documentation, 85% of the participants view it as an important skill whereas about 14% respond neutrally about it. As for the knowledge of professional ethics and standards, 78% believe it to be an important skill.

Figure 36. Instrumental skills according to instructors.

Similar to the views on instrumental skills, instructors mostly agree on the importance of systemic skills with a 100% agreement on the importance of willingness to learn new tools and software packages and to engage in professional development. 85% of the participants think that the ability to work in an interdisciplinary team, and to apply conceptual knowledge and to work autonomously are all important, whereas 14% of them believe that the first two skills are neither important nor unimportant while 7% believe that working autonomously is neither important nor unimportant and another 7% view it as unimportant.

112

Figure 37. Systemic skills according to instructors.

Based on the data, there are two translation skills that received 100% agreement in terms of importance among the respondents, linguistic creativity and the ability to use translation memory (TM) tools. 92% of the instructors view the ability to translate accurately and the ability to extract and manage terminology as important. When it comes to the ability to translate /localize materials in one or more highly specialized domains, 85% of the participants rate it as important. The ability to translate quickly was rated as important by 78% of the participants. Moreover, the ability to post-edit machine translation was viewed as important by 71% of the instructors while 28% of the respondents believe that it is neither important nor unimportant. On the other hand, the ability to translate into the translator’s second language was equally rated as important and as neither important nor unimportant by 42% of the participants while 14% believe that it is unimportant.

113

Figure 38. Translation skills according to instructors.

There is a wide variety of views about technological skills among instructors as shown in Figure 38. The skill that was 100% agreed upon as important was the ability to understand software/video game localization processes. There are four other skills that were judged as important by 92.86% of participants: the ability to understand and use markup languages (HTML, XML, etc.); the ability to troubleshoot tools problems; an understanding of project components; and the ability to process files and convert files to different formats. As far as the ability to localize multimedia content is concerned, 85.72% of participants view it as important whereas 14.29% believe it is neither important nor unimportant. When it comes to the ability to use machine translation systems, 78.57% of participants believe it is important whereas about a quarter of the respondents think that it is neither important nor unimportant. The ability to use desktop publishing tools is the one skill that over half of the participants view as important whereas

28.57% of them believe it is neither important nor unimportant and 14.29% think it is unimportant.

114

Figure 39. Technology skills according to instructors.

Views about project management skills were less diverse than views concerning technological skills.

Participating instructors unanimously believe that four of the skills presented to them are important: the ability to identify client requirements, the ability to produce quotes, the ability to identify required resources, and the ability to specify and/or apply quality control procedures. 92.85% of instructors view the ability to lead complex projects as important. The skill that received the least agreement in terms of importance is the ability to negotiate contracts with clients or suppliers, over two thirds of the participants ranked it as important while 21.43% of them think that the latter is neither important nor unimportant. Overall, instructors seem to mostly agree on the importance of the generic and specific skills pertaining to localization.

115

Figure 40. Management skills according to instructors.

iv. Instructors’ perspectives on localization training.

The last section of the questionnaire addresses instructors’ views on university training in localization. When asked about their expectations of what students will be able to do at the end of the training, opinions ranged from basic understanding of concepts, identification and description of processes (e.g., translation, internationalization, localization engineering, terminology management, localization project management, and industry specifications) to applying principles, and creating and managing a variety of project components through different stages (e.g., creating/maintaining termbases, translation memories, selecting and applying appropriate quality assurance and risk management procedures). The variety of opinions reflects the type of courses that the instructors are involved in and whether they are introductory, advanced, or theory- or practice-oriented courses. As for the modality of measuring course outcomes, the totality of instructors seem to use assessment methods such as attendance, class discussions, weekly assignments and (individual and group) projects/exams to evaluate the extent to which students are grasping the concepts and are able to apply them.

Regarding challenges related to localization courses, 84.62% of instructors report encountering a number of issues while teaching localization. The most prominent challenges are the disparity of students’

116

background and translation knowledge base, different skill levels, and limited computer literacy which impacts their readiness to learn about and use CAT tools. A few instructors mentioned challenges of having two modes of instructions in parallel, teaching localization face-to-face and online and addressing the needs of different student populations (and of different student expectations and cultural expectations) in addition to technical difficulties related to assisting students with software installations and troubleshooting. Instructors also mentioned the lack of teaching resources and the difficulty of accessing appropriate source data or project files to localize given proprietary content and non-disclosure agreements.

To overcome such challenges, instructors attempted to develop online learning modules or breakout sessions to address the needs of students with different skill levels and provide remedial instruction to help the students to get up to speed. As for the lack of familiarity with computer programs in general and CAT tools in particular, instructors believe that devoting more class time to CAT tools use or moving the CAT tools module to more advanced stages of the training could help. Regarding the technical difficulties inherent in using students’ personal computers, instructors rely on computer labs to mitigate time spent on follow-ups and troubleshooting. When it comes to the unavailability of resources for teaching purposes, instructors look into developing their own materials and establishing some collaborations with companies or institutions with the aim of localizing their products.

Instructors were then asked to identify three strengths of localization training programs. Their views can be organized in three main points: 1) the value of course and curricular structure with the academic rigor it provides in addition to the combination of a balanced conceptual knowledge and a practical hands-on learning experience, which helps familiarize students with the concepts and practices of the trade; 2) the flexibility of instruction and ability to receive individual feedback and responses to specific questions/requests; and 3) the confidence and experience (linguistic/technical) that students benefit from and which help them polish/hone their skills and further develop their talents. Other strengths shared by one instructor were the reputation of training programs and what it entails in terms of recognized credentials in the market, in addition to having access to an alumni network.

117

With regards to the weaknesses of localization training programs, instructors seem to agree that the number one weakness is curricular struggle to stay abreast of the industry and up to date with market expectations/needs. Moreover, instructors acknowledge the fact that localization training is limited and there is no defined profile of a localizer/localization professional. They mentioned the absence of industry standards, references/textbooks and links to the industry, besides the cost of software and limited access to specialized tools which may further hinder the development of training.

The last open-ended question is concerned with ways in which localization education could be improved. Instructors shared a number of valuable ideas ranging from providing more venues for localization training with comprehensive courses that simulate industry projects and the use of case studies. Another view is about seeking the support of the industry in form of collaborations (having professionals teach localization or provide resources) or funding, which would help validate the efforts and encourage programs. Last but not least, instructors stated that training for instructors and easier access to tools would also help improve training.

In summary, instructors’ input was sought in order to supplement the findings of the corpus analysis of programs and courses. The research found that over two thirds of the instructors hold a graduate or undergraduate degree or certificate in translation studies. Less than a quarter have a graduate degree in a field other than translation, and a quarter hold a Ph.D. degree either in translation or a related field. Most of the instructors have not obtained any professional certification. As for their background in localization, over half of the instructors reported receiving training through workshops, conferences, seminars or by pursuing graduate specialized courses on localization, whereas some of them have gone through corporate training. Along with their own teaching, over half of the instructors work for the industry mostly on website or software localization. Regarding the localization courses they teach, over half of the instructors are responsible for Master’s level courses and a little over a third teach undergraduate courses; another third are involved in certificates in localization. Over two thirds of the instructors describe their courses as being practice-oriented while a quarter of them report teaching theory-oriented courses. While instructors seem to use a variety of modes of instructions, most agree on

118

the importance of discussions, individual and group projects, case studies, lectures, simulation exercises and readings. They also assign different localization tasks, which tend to focus on website localization and the use of translation memory systems and terminology management tools. Over half of the instructors integrate testing and quality assurance activities, project evaluation and analysis tasks, or web editing into their courses.

With regard to skill sets, there was one instrumental skill that instructors unanimously identified as important, namely the ability to analyze and synthesize. There was also a consensus among the instructors about the importance of two systemic skills: the willingness to engage in professional development and the willingness to learn new tools. As to translation skills, two skills draw high agreement: linguistic creativity and the ability to use translation memory systems. Instructors unanimously agreed that a number of project management skills were important: the ability to identify client requirements; the ability to produce quotes; the ability to identify required resources; and the ability to specify and/or apply quality control procedures. Like the employers, the instructors did not demonstrate agreement about the importance of technology skills.

With reference to training, instructors appear to have different expectations regarding what their students will be able to do at the end of the training. Those expectations range from understanding and describing localization-related concepts and processes to handling project components through different production phases. Instructors mentioned using attendance, class discussions, weekly assignments and projects to assess their students. They also shared a number of challenges they encounter while teaching localization. Major challenges include the disparity of students’ levels and backgrounds, and the lack of students’ computer savviness. Moreover, instructors find themselves challenges by the lack of teaching resources. Overall, instructors think that training has a lot of merit as it provides a solid framework for instruction. Nevertheless, they do recognize that current training could benefit from the establishment of industry standards, the development of resources and more collaborations with the profession.

119

c. Stakeholder 3: Practitioners

Fifty-eight localization practitioners responded to this questionnaire. A selection of the data obtained is organized according to the order of appearance in the online version of the questionnaire.

i. Practitioner profiles.

Similar to the instructors’ questionnaire, the first section of the practitioners’ instrument is interested in the academic and professional profile of the participants. Localization practitioners who took part in the study present a wide range of credentials. Over a third of the participants have obtained a graduate degree in translation (39.66%) or in another subject matter area (36.21%). A third of the practitioners hold an undergraduate degree and a quarter of them have earned one in translation studies, whereas one fifth of the participants have a certificate in translation studies. Participants who reported having other types of degrees mentioned obtaining certificates or graduate diplomas in specialties other than translation.

Table 22. Academic Background of the Practitioners.

Degrees %

Certificate in Translation Studies 17.24%

Bachelor’s Degree in Translation Studies 24.14%

Master’s Degree in Translation Studies 39.66%

Ph.D. Degree in Translation Studies 1.72%

Bachelor’s Degree (Non-translation related) 32.76%

Master’s Degree (Non-translation related) 36.21%

Ph.D. Degree (Non-translation related) 3.45%

None 3.45%

Other (please specify) 8.62%

As for professional certifications, about half of the participants do not hold any certification, while 15% of them are ATA-certified (American Translators Association Certification) and 9.43% hold SDL Trados certificates. A quarter of the participants have other types of professional certifications (The Canadian

120

certification OTTIAQ,47 CTINB certification,48 court interpreting certification, or teaching license or certification from other national translation associations abroad).

Table 23. Professional Certifications of the Practitioners.

Certificates %

ATA (American Translators Association) 15.09%

SDL Trados 9.43%

Localization Institute 1.89%

TILP (The Institute of Localization Professionals) 0.00%

PMP (Project Management Professional Certification) 0.00%

CAMP (Certified Associate in Project Management) 1.89%

None 49.06%

Other professional certification (please specify) 24.53%

Total 100%

A little more than one-third of the participating practitioners (37%) reported receiving formal training in localization while over half of them have not had any localization-specific training. Participants with localization training were asked to specify the kinds of training they have pursued as shown in Table 24.

44.44% have taken university graduate specialized courses while 38.89% of them have attended localization workshops, conferences or seminars. About a quarter of the participants hold a graduate degree and 11% of them have earned a certificate in localization.

47 The Ordre des traducteurs, terminologues et interprètes agréés du Québec 48 The Corporation of Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters of New Brunswick

121

Table 24. Kinds of Localization Training Pursued by Practitioners.

Kinds of Localization Training % Types of Localization %

Certificate 11.11% Software localization 77.78%

Bachelor's degree 5.56% Website localization 66.67%

Master's degree 22.22% Games localization 0.00%

Ph.D. degree 5.56% Mobile localization 11.11%

University graduate specialized courses 44.44% Desktop publishing 16.67%

Workshops, conferences, seminars 38.89% Audiovisual translation 22.22%

Company’s internal training 5.56% Other (please specify) 5.56%

Other (please specify) 11.11%

The data about the kinds of localization training pursued were combined with the specific types of localization that practitioners were trained on. Over two thirds of the practitioners (77.78%) received training in software localization while more than half (66.67%) of them were trained in website localization. A little less than a quarter of the participants were trained on audiovisual translation (22.22%) whereas 16.67% were trained on desktop publishing and 11.11% have training background in mobile localization.

As far as their current employment status is concerned, 77% of the practitioners work as freelance translators while 16.98% are in-house translators. 15% of participants consider themselves freelance localization practitioners whereas 7.55% are in-house localization practitioners. On the other hand,

13.21% of participants selected “Other” as their status and indicated serving either as technical localization support, interpreters, instructors, or lecturers.

122

Table 25. Practitioners’ Employment Status.

Employment Status %

Freelance translator 77.36%

Freelance localization practitioner 15.09%

In-house translator 16.98%

In-house localization practitioner 7.55%

Other (please specify) 13.21%

Looking into the duration of practitioners’ professional localization experience one third of them has more than 9 years of experience while a quarter of the participants has been working between one year and 3 years. 19% of the practitioners have approximately 4 to 6 years of experience and 10% report having less than a year in the profession.

Table 26. Years of Professional Experience.

Years of Professional Work in % Localization Less than 1 year 10.64% 1—3 years 25.53% 4—6 years 19.15% 7—9 years 10.64% More than 9 years 34.04%

Practitioners were asked to identify the types of companies or clients for whom they provide localization work. More than half of the participants (60.38%) provide localization services to translation companies while about half of them (54.72%) work with direct clients. A third of the practitioners work for non- translation companies whereas 13.21% provide services to translation companies specialized in localization. Participants who selected “Other” mentioned working for non-profit organizations, software companies, and the government.

123

Table 27. Types of Clients for which Practitioners Provide Service.

Type of Client %

Translation company 60.38%

Translation company whose main activity is localization 13.21%

Non-translation company 30.19%

Direct customers 54.72%

Other (please specify) 9.43%

As far as clients’ geographical location is concerned, over two thirds of the practitioners reported that they had clients (74.51%) are based in North America while 41.18% reported their clients located in

Western Europe. Less than a fifth of the practitioners reported working with clients from South America, which might be suggestive of where demand for localization is located worldwide.

Table 28. Clients’ Geographical Locations.

Clients’ Geographical % Location

North America 74.51%

Central America 5.88%

South America 17.65%

Western Europe 41.18%

Eastern Europe 3.92%

Africa 0.00%

Middle East 1.96%

East Asia 1.96%

South Asia 0.00%

Southeast Asia 1.96%

Australia & South Pacific 3.92%

124

When surveying the types of localization work practitioners specialize in, 30% of the participants report working on website localization and 23% of them specialize in software localization while 18% provide audiovisual translation services and about 16% engage in desktop publishing. Less than 10% of the participants work on mobile or game localization.

Figure 41. Types of localization work.

In addition to the types of localization that they specialize in, practitioners were asked about the specific localization-related tasks they perform. 37% of participants report not engaging in any task other than localization whereas a quarter of the participants worked on both project evaluation/analysis and terminology management, 20% of practitioners did project management and another 20% worked on subtitling. 15% of practitioners performed testing and quality assessment while 11% did graphic editing.

Less than 10% of the participants worked on web editing, voice-over, or localization engineering.

125

Figure 42. Localization-related tasks.

Practitioners were also surveyed on the types of localization project components that they usually work on. Their responses matched the types of localization tasks that they mostly work on. Over half of the participants work with web pages while 40 to 45% of practitioners work with marketing collaterals, advertising, user/operator manuals and training materials. 38% of practitioners work with software documentation and a third of them work on software user interface. 7% of participants report working with databases and another 7% that indicated “Other” specified working on government projects.

Figure 43. Types of project components that practitioners work with.

126

Participants were asked if they engaged in professional translation activities other than localization. 91% of them report working on translation in addition to their localization work. Over two thirds of the participants provide editing and proofreading services and more than half of them work on commercial and technical translation. 40% of the practitioners work on medical and legal translation and a third of them provide services in scientific translation, whereas 20% of participants work on audiovisual translation. 17% of the practitioners report providing terminology management services while 10% work on literary translation and another 10% work on government projects and administrative translation.

Figure 44. Practitioners’ translation activities.

ii. Localization skill set.

Similar to the other stakeholders, practitioners were asked about their views regarding the skill set necessary for localization work. From a practitioner’s perspective, there is an overall agreement on the importance of instrumental skills as indicated in Figure 40, with 95% of the participants ranking research and documentation as important. 92% of the respondents believe that the ability to analyze and synthesize and the knowledge of professional ethics and standards are important. When it comes to information management, 90% of the participants view it as an important skill. As for advanced computing skills,

82% believe it to be an important skill while 15% rank it as neither important nor unimportant.

127

Knowledge of the language industry and its professions was ranked as important by 75% of the participants; about 10% of them viewed it as unimportant and 15% as neither important nor unimportant.

Figure 45. Instrumental skills according to practitioners.

Similar to the views on instrumental skills, respondents mostly agree on the importance of systemic skills with a 100% agreement on the importance of the ability to work autonomously. 95% of the participants think that the ability to apply conceptual knowledge is important. As for the willingness to engage in professional development and to learn new tools and software packages, 92% of respondents view it as important. 80% of participants think that the ability to work in an interdisciplinary team is important whereas 20% of them view it as neither important nor unimportant.

128

Figure 46. Systemic skills according to practitioners.

Based on the findings, there seems to be a diversity in practitioners’ views about translation skills in the context of localization. The ability to translate accurately was rated by 97% of the respondents as important. 90% of the practitioners view the ability to extract and manage terminology as important whereas 10% of them think it is neither important nor unimportant. When it comes to the ability to translate/localize materials in one or more highly specialized domains and to linguistic creativity, 85% of the practitioners rate these two skills as important. The ability to use translation memory (TM) tools was rated as important by 82% of the participants. Moreover, the ability to translate quickly was viewed as important by 72% of the practitioners while 22% of the respondents believe that it is neither important nor unimportant. Over half of the participants believe that the ability to translate into the translator's second language is important while 30% believe otherwise, and 12.50% think of it as neither important nor unimportant. Finally, the ability to post-edit machine translation was viewed as important by 40% of the practitioners while 35% believed otherwise and 25% ranked it as unimportant.

129

Figure 47. Translation skills according to practitioners.

There is a wide variety of views about technological skills among practitioners as shown in Figure 48.

The skill that was mostly agreed upon by 85% of the participants was the ability to troubleshoot tools problems with 7.5% who viewed it as neither important nor unimportant and as unimportant as well.

82.5% of the participants believe that the ability to process files and convert files to different formats is important, and 15% of them viewed this skill as neither important nor unimportant. 80% view the ability to localize multimedia content as important whereas 2.5% believe otherwise and 17.5% think it is neither important nor unimportant. Two thirds of practitioners believe that the ability to understand and use markup languages is important and 22% of them believe to be neither important nor unimportant. Over half of the participants believe that understanding project components and the ability to understand software/video game localization processes as well as the ability to use desktop publishing tools are important whereas a quarter of the respondents think that they are neither important nor unimportant. The ability to use machine translation systems is the one skill that about half of the participants view as important while over a quarter of them believe that it is neither important nor unimportant whereas another quarter of them believe it to be unimportant.

130

Figure 48. Technological skills according to practitioners.

Views about project management skills were less diverse than the technological skills. 95% of the participants believe that the ability to specify and/or apply quality control procedures and to identify required resources are both important while 5% of them believe they are neither important nor unimportant. 92% view the ability to identify client requirements as important whereas 85% think that the ability to produce quotes is important. 77% of the respondents rate the ability to negotiate contracts with clients or suppliers as important whereas 15% think it is neither important nor unimportant. Lastly, 72.5% of the practitioners believe that the ability to lead complex projects is important while 27.5% think that this skill is neither important nor unimportant.

131

Figure 49. Management skills according to practitioners.

iii. Practitioners’ perspectives on localization training.

Similar to the other stakeholders, practitioners were invited to share their opinions about university training on localization. Based on their own training experience, practitioners were asked about the focus of the localization training they had received. Views were split between two major focuses: technical- and conceptual-focused training. According to the participants, technical training was either geared towards the use of localization tools or focused on the understanding of processes involved in the different stages of a localization project and the technical considerations in terms of software, platforms, file formats, markup languages. Conceptual training looked into introducing the concept localization in terms of linguistic, cultural and technical matters.

Practitioners were asked to reflect on the importance of some training considerations. There was a general agreement on the importance of the facts presented. 97% of them agreed on the importance of training on practical aspects of the profession and what it entails in terms of know-what and know-how as well as the importance of having qualified training staff knowledgeable and experienced in the field. Over two thirds of the participants believe that the use of a variety of technological resource and training offerings in localization is important whereas over half of the practitioners view class size and the blended

132

training as important. More than a quarter of the participants believe that the latter two facts are neither important nor unimportant.

Figure 50. The importance of training considerations for practitioners.

Moving along with their views on training, practitioners shared their rating of attitudes toward the challenges that localization training faces. Half of the practitioners believe that the shortage of classroom activities simulating actual working conditions presents an extreme challenge for training. 44% of participants view the shortage of localization course offerings in general that meet market demand and the lack of qualified training staff as extreme challenges while a quarter of them believe them to be moderate to somewhat challenging. A third of the practitioners view the lack of appropriate technological resources, the limited number of training hours, the lack of feedback, and the gap between localization curricula and market demand as extremely challenging while over a third of them view them as moderately challenging.

Almost half of the participants believe the lack of appropriate technological resources and the gap between curricula versus the market as moderately challenging while 12% to 17% of them view them as somewhat challenging. Almost half of the practitioners think that the number of students per course is somewhat challenging while 20% believe it to be slightly challenging in the context of training.

133

Figure 51. Challenges of localization training according to practitioners.

Besides their views on training content, characteristics, and challenges, practitioners were asked what they considered the strengths and weaknesses of localization training. As far as the strengths are concerned, practitioners mentioned three main advantages: the learning structure and the conceptual understanding that training provides trainees with in terms of linguistic, cultural and technical knowledge

134

in addition to the hands-on opportunities to experiment with software applications and to hone their technical and organizational skills.

As to weaknesses, practitioners identified a number of limitations present in training. Many of them believe that standard forms of training (one size fits all) with mixed levels of participants is a major weakness since such training is not tailored to address the needs and to match the background of trainees.

Participants also think that training that focuses on one tool and a few language combinations is limiting.

Other weaknesses relate to the cursory and generic aspects of training with limited class time, limited hands-on activities or projects simulating industry work conditions and requirements, in addition to the lack of feedback. Furthermore, practitioners also identified lack of training materials, limited training time and unqualified trainers as shortcomings.

Following these reflections on training strengths and weaknesses, practitioners were invited to suggest ways in which localization training could be improved. Practitioners made general recommendations pertaining to the importance of establishing collaborations and partnerships between companies and training programs to help inform the content of training (comprehensive training; active curricula open to simulations and market-oriented projects) and provide internship opportunities to trainees. Practitioners emphasized specifically the importance of technical training and practice-oriented courses that target a wider range of technical skills with customized modules tailored to trainees’ needs and follow-ups with feedback on performance and progress.

In summary, the practitioners’ contribution provided another industry-oriented perspective on localization work and qualifications. The participating practitioners possess a wide range of credentials that are not limited to translation and localization. As a matter of fact, only 37% of them have received formal training in localization either through graduate coursework or professional development activities.

Their training was generally confined to software and website localization. Over two thirds of the practitioners considered themselves freelance translators when they participated in the study. As for experience, a third of the practitioners has over 9 years of professional experience while a quarter of them has been in the industry between one and 3 years, and 19% of them have 4 to 6 years of experience. Over

135

half of the practitioners report working for translation companies and direct customers, while a third work with non-translation companies. These clients appear to be geographically concentrated in North

American and Western Europe. Concerning the types of localization work in which the practitioners engage, one third of them work on website localization and about a quarter work on software localization, while 18% provide audiovisual translation services and 16% of them work on desktop publishing (DTP).

In addition to providing localization services, 91% of the practitioners reported working on translation activities in the form of editing/proofreading or specialized translation.

With respect to skills, practitioners expressed strong agreement (95%) about the importance of only one instrumental skill: research and documentation. Similarly, practitioners expressed strong agreement about the importance of only one translation skill: the ability to translate accurately.

Practitioners expressed strong agreement about the importance of two systemic skills: the ability to work autonomously and the ability to apply conceptual knowledge. Practitioners also expressed high level of agreement regarding the importance of two project management skills: the ability to identify required resources and to specify and the ability to apply quality control procedures. Much like the employers and instructors, the practitioners did not express high levels of agreement about the importance of any specific technology skill. As far training is concerned, practitioners reported that localization training tends to be technology-oriented with a focus on tools, or conceptual revolving around key linguistic, cultural and technical aspects of localization. They all seem to agree on the importance of training that focuses on practical aspects of the profession and on the availability of qualified training staff in addition to the variety of technological resources and training offerings. Practitioners identified three limitations as extremely challenging for localization training: the shortage of classroom activities that simulate actual working conditions, the shortage of localization courses related to market demand, and unqualified training staff. The gap between localization curricula and market demand, the lack of appropriate technological resources and the lack of feedback were rated as moderately challenging by half of the participants. Despite training challenges and limitations, practitioners believed that training still provided a structured context for learning and experimenting with technology.

136

3. Semi-structured Interview Analysis

This section presents the results of the semi-structured interviews carried out with seven participants from each population group (employers [EX]49, instructors [IX], and practitioners [PX]). The semi-structured interview forms used can be found in Appendices G, H and I. The interviews were conducted between the months of June 2016 and September 2016, and were planned to further discuss localization training from the perspectives of the three population groups. The information collected from the interviews was used to corroborate the quantitative data gathered in the previous section. Interviewees provided information about their educational and professional backgrounds and their own definitions of localization. Interviewees were invited to reflect on their positions and responsibilities as they relate to localization. They were also asked to share their thoughts about localization skills and training effectiveness, and whether there are gaps between training and the industry, possible causes of the gaps and how localization training could be enhanced. The data was organized according to the stakeholders, and filtered in view of the focus of the research when addressing each population group.

a. Interviewing employers.

Employers’ interviews addressed the screening criteria for localization practitioners, the top skills necessary for the profession and whether they distinguish between training-learned skills and on-the- job- learned skills. When defining localization, employers emphasized the concept of adaptation and customization of a message or a product to a specific target audience or locale. One of the employers (E2) mentioned that “localization is not just translation, it is the adaptation to the target market. It is a much bigger term than translation. It is a more in-depth process that encompasses culture and technical issues.” While another employer (E4) considered that “localization is a subset of translation where you translate with a specific market and locale in mind.” It was interesting to see how employers have

49 [EX]: The E stands for employer and the X for the employer ID number in the data set. [IX]: The I stands for instructor and the X for the instructor ID number in the data set. [PX]: The P stands for practitioner and the X for the practitioner ID number in the data set.

137

attempted to frame localization with regards to translation and how the emphasis on adaptation and the concept of locale have been consistent in all attempted definitions.

i. Recruiting localization practitioners.

Regarding the screening criteria that employers are using for hiring candidates, employers have shared a number of expectations they have of their potential hires. Those expectations comprised education

(training in translation or localization), and job specific soft and hard skills. Besides technical knowledge, project management experience, linguistic competence and understanding of the language industry, the six employers all stressed the importance of soft skills, such as the ability to be a team player, work under pressure, meet deadlines, adapt to change, and communicate effectively. The following excerpts illustrate some of the thoughts that two of the employers have articulated:

(E1) “I broke down the skill set into 6 levels depending on the job category. The skills at the junior level are being fluent in the language and almost native that is the primary requirement. I expect the ability to execute tasks on a daily manner. Someone with intellectual honesty who asks questions and who knows his/her limits and who concentrates, and commits to deadlines. Working in a team environment, sharing, working towards the benefit and interest of the team. I am looking for a person with interpersonal skills (asking questions, not shy, not isolated, someone who’s confident and can articulate ideas, someone who’s not aggressive or has too much self-esteem). I expect the person to be detail-oriented, follow instructions, comply with rules and standards, and have an ability to adapt to change and cope with change (change in project scope, not necessarily process change or tool change). At a junior position, a degree in localization is important because these junior employees are executing work. These are the skills I expect from a junior localization practitioner.” (E4) “It’s important to have an understanding of the language. When I am hiring localization project managers, I look for people with language background. I look more for the soft skills side of things because there are many project management skills that can be trained. I look for the right attitude, relationship management, intercultural communication abilities, team work. I look for people with project management experience. That experience could be training at the university level not necessarily that they worked at an LSP before. I want to see a demonstration that they have been exposed to what project management requires. Someone who has great adaptability and who is open to new technologies and can learn technology quickly . . . with keen interest and love for the kind of work that the person is doing . . . people with a good business head above their shoulders.”

Some of the employers touched upon the significance of training on localization and translation in general for localization-related work and how it is used as a criterion when screening new candidates. However, when employers were asked how important training is, their views were split. Four of the employers believed training to be key to the job as it helps with on-the-job training and candidates don’t struggle as

138

much to understand tasks and processes. The other two employers see training as an advantage without being a guarantee of quality work or service.

ii. Training skills vs. on-the-job skills.

Skills were a recurring topic throughout the interviews. Employers have shared many of the skills deemed necessary for localization as they were talking about screening criteria. They were then specifically asked to identify the top three skills required for professional localization practice. Once again, the trends that emerged across the answers revolved around two essential features. On one hand, technical skills, and cultural and linguistic knowledge of the target locale were identified as very important. On the other hand, soft skills were highlighted, more particularly, being a team player, detail- oriented, adaptable, a decision-maker and solution provider as well as being able to follow instructions and provide customer service. As a follow-up, employers were asked if there is a distinction between skills developed during training and those learned on the job. Their views underlined the fact that there is a limit to the skills that can be learned in a training environment and that most training-based skills relate to theoretical and in most cases technical background which helps candidates learn faster on the job. With that being said, the requirements of the profession go beyond conceptual knowledge; what is expected is adaptability to tasks and situations and to different work environments, communicating with clients and team members and so forth. The following is a selection of some of the statements shared by employers:

(E1)“I think 70 to 90% of the learning happens in the job. The theory learned at the university gives you some basic credibility with your stakeholders. They know what you are capable of, you have a label, it’s the key to open the door and you can try. How you deal with people, how you do the job is something you learn on the job, you cannot invent this. Academia is not a company; it will never mimic what companies do. I’d say that education is good because it gives you the entry level, the credibility you need to be listened to and to be considered as a good candidate. . . . when you are in the job, you feed yourself on an intentional basis and most of what you learn happens on the job. Academia could go beyond focusing on localization techniques and language expertise and tap into the professional world by teaching interpersonal skills. Those are things taught in engineering schools, for instance.” (E2) “Thinking on your feet is not something that you can learn easily. You are either cable of analyzing and thinking on the spot or you are not able to do that. Factual knowledge, learning technical skills and language ability is one thing. However, the ability to translate the conceptual knowledge into actions, the ability to multitask, and work under pressure are skills that are not possible to teach . . . these kinds of skills get introduced and developed during the job.” (E4) “You can teach people processes and different standards and best practices, you can easily train people on technology. Whether they absorb that or not is a different story. You can teach

139

project management to people and present them with different scenarios. What is very…very difficult to do is to recreate a real-life project experience artificially in a classroom or a training program. You can create a scenario, and set up different parameters to make it close to a real project. In an artificial scenario, there is nothing at stake, there is no real money that is lost, dealing with issues and clients, you can’t recreate that unless you are on the job. The technical skills needed to do the work can be taught but the actual process of juggling things around, working under pressure, making decisions on the spot when things go the wrong way, those have to be learned while you are at work . . . . I love that there are programs that help prepare you, but even when you learn what ‘best practices’ are, those practices do not necessarily work everywhere.” (E6) “Yes, lots of factors involved. First of all, it depends on the university/training. How attuned are they to market demands? Second of all, it depends on the student/trainee. Third of all, different companies/job places have different requirements and demands. An ideal situation would have been that skills learnt at the university/training do not differ from those demanded at work, but again, I don’t think it’s only the university/training fault, provided that we think that the university/training are lagging behind the market, market demands also do differ if we take different companies. I believe that a potential candidate with proper education and skill sets must also have strong interpersonal talent and strength and must develop a business mindset to be able to adapt to any situation and work environment.”

iii. Assessing localization training.

The discussion of skills and what can be learned during training compared to the work environment indirectly led participants to bring up the relationship between academia and the industry which presented a logical transition to evaluate where the relationship stands. Employers indeed have pointed out bringing the two stakeholder groups (i.e., industry, academia) together as they operate in different terms and change and advance at different paces. Some of the participants emphasized the critical role of academia in better preparing its graduates and equipping them with the tools and resources to meet market expectations:

(E2)“What I was lacking is advanced knowledge of technology. Technology changes fast and the curriculum is not updated on a regular basis. Programs should not stick to a single tool and to one way to teach. It is important to broaden the scope of teaching and provide the trainees with resources to keep themselves up to date, train them on how to become autonomous and learn how to resolve issues and be resourceful and develop troubleshooting abilities. Training should also guide students to understand the big picture and gain a good understanding of the industry in order for trainees to better place themselves in the market.”

Other participants seem to recognize and applaud the way education in this field has evolved and rather highlight the role of industry in supporting academia’s efforts by providing opportunities and getting actively involved with training:

140

(E4)“Academia is doing a much better job addressing what the industry needs. Academia is more and more bringing industry professionals onboard to share real life experiences which are what students really need and want. I think academia is doing its part, it has made strides. Programs are getting better. I think we need to do a better job at providing opportunities and help academia give us what we need. We need to provide academia with the resources and means for students to see firsthand what the industry requires rather than hearing about it in a classroom, one way is having more internship opportunities and present more support to academia.” (E1) “A better mix of different backgrounds and profiles for people who teach and who come from the industry. Industry professionals could bring fresher and clearer perspective to training. Increasing the ratio perhaps between theoretical teaching and hands-on teaching will be beneficial. However, companies do not see the benefit in training students for the future.”

b. Interviewing instructors

Instructors’ interviews revolved around the objectives of the courses they taught, any challenges they had encountered in their teaching, and the top skills they believe are necessary for the profession.

Instructors were also asked to define localization. Besides the notion of adaptation of content and materials to a specific market, instructors underlined the importance of reception. One of the instructors

(I1) mentioned that “localization is relevant to digital content and adapting content to locales, making sure people can relate to the content and that the reception is suitable to the ones who are receiving it.”

Some of the instructors point out the idea of adaptation that meets the usability requirement:

(I6) “There are many definitions for localization. Basically transitioning a product or a service from one culture into another so that it is understandable and usable. It can be anything, it could be something tangible like a piece of hardware or product, it can be software, it can be content. It's important to also consider culture and not look for language.” (I7) “Defining localization is a difficult question. The definition of localization is to ensure that a product meets the business and cultural requirements of customers in the target market. That the product is so native to them . . . that it does not seem foreign, and it seems that it could have been developed and made in their market. The job of a localization person is to be the champion of the international users. It's all about the user experience. If the user experience in a French version of a product isn't at least as good at that of the competitive products that are native to that market then localization has failed.”

Other instructors differentiated between two aspects of localization, internationalization of content and its translation. (I4) stated that “there are two aspects; one aspect is concerned with internationalization which deals with the ability to use an application in other languages. The other aspect is the actual translation of the UI and documentation, technical support information, training, the marketing side.”

Another instructor shared his dissatisfaction with the current definitions of localization:

141

(I5) “The optimization of languages and services for multilingual and multicultural markets. Over the past several years, it has become increasingly evident to me that localization as an industry is so broad by everything from classical literary translation, to subtitling, to multilingual apps and programming to the localization of codes. There seems to be a new piece of the localization industry emerging every 10 min. I am increasingly dissatisfied with that label. Increasingly, we are thinking about big data and the role that localization professionals play in upcoming big language data sets.”

The definitions provided by instructors do not attempt to describe localization with reference to translation but rather point out how the industry is constantly evolving and how the ultimate goal of localization is serving the needs and expectations of users in target markets.

i. Localization training challenges.

Instructors were asked about the challenges they have encountered while teaching localization.

Challenges ranged from the diversity of students’ profiles and the variety of what to include in training, on the one hand. On the other hand, more specifically, instructors drew attention to challenges relative to the language competence, the use of technology, as well as the lack of understanding of the profession and the business side of it:

(I2) “Part of it is a generation gap. There's this tension in the Language Industry. The fear of technology. Students have this negative bias against technology acquisition.” (I1) “The language competence represents a challenge when going into TL, a good understanding of cultural considerations and handling technical and terminology issues.” (I3) “Multiple language combinations, diverse backgrounds. Young students (who you would assume are tech-savvy which is not the case). I had to reorient the course and put together a short module on computer skills for translators.” (I5) “As any emerging area. How do you teach a very young field?” (I4) “Understanding of English as a second language (during training). You are expected to do a lot of hand-holding.” (I6) “Diversity of the students was challenging, plus teaching online and face-to-face.” (I7) “Lack of preparation for the academic rigor. Not taking it seriously. . . they [students] don't think abstractly, or they don’t think for themselves. They don't think business, they think language. There's a business-level disconnect. Students have certain expectations that the professor does everything for them. They have this sense of entitlement.”

In addition to course-level challenges, other instructors focused on the large scale challenges related to the content and structure of training and the lack of clarity when it comes to what to teach, the kind of content institutions are covering and the skill set to prioritize at different stages of training:

(I5) “Because the field is so broad, we are struggling with what to teach. The field is so wide we are paddling as quickly as we can to stay up with the breath of the field. The mission of a university is very different. We don't shy away from theory, we don't shy away from ethics, we

142

don’t shy away from philosophy. These are the big questions that are part of a university education. No LSP cares that my students do translation theory or the ethics of interpretation. It's not a huge issue for them. It is useful to see that they have got a good theoretical grounding. At a certain point the missions of a university are very different from the missions of industry. We have to recognize that and work with that. At a certain point, I want our profiles not to match, I as a university educator, there are certain things that we bring in to university education that I know will never have central importance in industry. They will always be important but they won't be at the top of the industry list. In many ways, that tells me that what I am doing as an educational institution is right. Just because there's a mismatch, I don't think we failed, I think what it tells us we have to search harder for common grounds in those academia-industry discussions and stay true to our various missions.” (I4) “Training has been somewhat problematic and limited in the localization industry probably for a big part because of it is not dealt with in an empirical fashion. From the buyer side, people who are hiring they don't have a good understanding of what they are looking for and what is necessary for a skill set.” (I6) “I think the problem is that it so diverse. There are different courses and it is not communicated or centralized somewhere. If you want to compare these things, it is challenging. There are so many things and nobody really has an overview of what is out there. It would be nice to have a standard in education. It is also a challenge to keep up to speed with the industry. That's why it is important to have guest speakers, experts, people who are working actively in the industry and teach on the side to maintain that interaction.”

ii. Training skills vs. industry-required skills.

Instructors’ take on skill sets targeted in training versus what the industry is seeking was a key component of the interviews. The skills mostly emphasized were either instrumental skills, translation

(CAT tools) or project management-related ones. The focus of some courses along with their core skills reflects the orientation of the program as a whole and also the background of the instructors:

(I2) “Because of the nature of the course, one of the things that I try to emphasize to students is thinking outside of just becoming a translator, there are other positions within the Language Industry that are also needed. Also, how they need to develop their management skills. Traditionally, project management has not been a focus of translation only education programs.” (I3) “Specific skills relate to the use of tools (terminology management), research. Essentially, it’s a tool-oriented course and how to make the most out of the tools.” (I4) “Project management focus on analytical skills (risk management and scheduling), communication skills (stakeholder management), technical skills (how MT and post-editing impact their work). The same as working in an agile environment where the content development is dominant in an agile way and how that impacts the translation.” (I5) “We focus on the foundations of translation, the operational, philosophical and ethical questions about translation, cultural awareness and cultural analysis.” (I7) “Critical thinking - I want them to look at a problem and think of it from a business perspective. How does your solution help you become more efficient in your day-to-day work. How to quickly understand what your client issues are without many iterations. What I see matters too is academic and professional integrity.” (I6) “Looking at a product from an international perspective, what does it take to transition this product from this language/locale to another one. Hands-on engineering (so people are not

143

scared of using command lines and the like). Solid foundation in project management (hand-off to hand-back).”

Upon specifying the skills deemed important in their training, instructors shared what they perceived as localization-related skills sought by the industry. They all agreed that, very often, skills are associated with the company, with particular positions and the responsibilities and expectations of that position. Even though tools and technology are seen as a must, instructors talked about the importance of understanding processes, management and communication skills from an industry perspective.

(I2) “For the industry: People who have any sort of credentials of project management skills that are translation-focused. Not being afraid of technology, being able to adapt to technology and being open to other technologies as the project requirements dictate. Feeling comfortable doing that (The fact that they haven't used TM before makes them intimidated). At least getting people comfortable with the basic of tools besides project management skills, how to be organized in your work especially for handling large web or software projects. Also, the knowledge of different file formats and how to manage them.” (I1) “Employers are looking for project management skills, technical writing/communication, negotiation skills and multitasking – if I can call the latter a skill.” (I6) “It depends on the companies. Microsoft is focused on engineering and looking for people with a technical background. Other companies are interested in project management. Project management is a big requirement in addition to leadership, expertise in machine translation and computational linguistics.” (I7) “Being familiar with tactical things (file types, CAT tools…) Having a good understanding of how different languages work. A big picture understanding of business requirements. Being curious about the technology, curious about the product and speak for the international user – The overarching skills: presentation skills, being able to explain what localization is, the basic problems of internationalization, the turnaround time, set the expectations.”

Given the diversity of job profiles that are out there, some instructors shared their frustration with industry requirements or the degree of specialization that makes it hard to shape a curriculum:

(I5) “Part of our problem is that industry is looking for too much. Every individual employer, with the possible exception of project managers, everybody across the board seems to be herding for project managers, firms are so specialized in their niche, with the exception of the big LSPs. I am going to take SDL, Sagent, Welocalize, Alpha CRC out of the process, they are so specialized. I got folks who want biomedical localization or legal materials, another firm that wants subtitling skills, a third looking for a wholly different set of skills. Outside of the top LSPs who are essentially looking for everything. Everyone else is looking for such specialized background. Honestly, academia can't supply that. Industry has done a very poor job of expressing its needs to academia and our field is so broad. Academia has done a poor job expressing to the industry that ‘I can't meet the needs across 50 different sub-domains’. Programs like MIIS and like ours, we teach a wide variety of things. It's sort of a scattershot because we are never quite sure what that interested industry partner really wants. The field is too broad and it's hard to find a target.”

144

iii. Assessing localization training.

Many instructors alluded at different stages of the interviews to the disconnect between training and the market. They also shared their frustration with a young industry that is constantly evolving and which is too demanding at times or unclear about its needs and expectations. A lot of the blame for the gap between academia and the industry falls on programs’ objectives that are not in line with the market, on lack of training for trainers and lack of communication between the two stakeholder groups.

(I1) “There is still a gap. LSPs are looking for different levels of proficiency. The industry is very demanding; they want students with very good language skills, with very good management skills, with very good CAT tools skills, and with very good interpersonal skills. We cannot develop all of these skills at once. We focus mainly on the language proficiency and technology skills. The industry is looking for profiles with multi-tasking abilities.” (I2) “From an industry point of view, I think the academic end of it is touching the industry in a very limited way. I think there will be more roles for academic institutions if they were to train more on project management, localization engineering, and these kinds of roles other than just translation which traditionally have always been the focus of translation program. Even within translation programs, sometimes they are not necessarily skill-oriented, often times they are more focused on translation theory or literary translation . . . . it’s not something people can consider for career options. In some ways, there is a disconnect between the language industry as opposed to academic translation approaches.” (I3) “I think there is always a gap. There are internal processes within translation agencies or multinational corporations that we don’t know about how they operate (it’s like a black box). There are things that are particular to companies and students won’t get to access them unless they are onboard. We don't have access to firsthand information from the industry to know if we are doing things the right or wrong way.” (I4) “Yes, in part that is because, my experience being that people in the academic side are focused on machine translation or more purist linguistics, typically without having exposure themselves to the localization industry. I would have wished that people in academia would do something with translation, have at least a number of years working for a localization vendor so they have a better understanding of what the real world thinks of localization. There is a lot interesting research going on in academia, but it usually takes it a lot time before making it to the commercial world.” (I6) “We don't have a standard curriculum of what is required. There are so many different titles (project manager, program manager, coordinator, etc.), and nothing is really defined. Different tools, different titles. Localization strategies are different. It's hard to keep up and prepare people for everything. The challenge is also how to get professionals into the courses. They only have so much time and not everybody is capable of presenting and teaching.” (I7) “Yes, I do. I think that academia is either too much on the tactical execution side, meaning training students on CAT tools and HTML, etc., or too much on the freelance translation side. There is not enough preparation for the day-to-day soft skills that graduates will be expected to have mastered on their first day at work.”

Instructors elaborated on potential reasons behind the gap:

(I2) “There are a lot of many complicated reasons. The modern language industry structure is so young. Realistically this model has only existed for the last 25–30 years. The academic side has

145

not necessarily changed things to fit or meet the needs of this industry. I also think this industry has grown up so quickly. Within the industry side of it, there is not a recognition that there could be an academic component to all this in terms of training or expertise so no one has been asking for it which I think is a gap that should be filled. Also, I think that academics focus more on the theoretical side rather than a practical industrial application of translation.” (I7) “Lack of understanding by academia what a real-world corporate localization team really does. Lack of academic rigor with regards to assessment, discussions, case studies – students do not seem to be challenged on the spot when it comes to dealing with potentially contentious situations with business people who do not understand localization.”

They were also invited to share their ideas on how the gap could be bridged:

(I3) “One way to reduce the gap is to have professionals teach these courses. Technology changes so fast and we need to keep up with it. The ideal scenario is to have professors who are practitioners themselves. More research to enlighten the way the teaching is being done and also inform the content of training.” (I1) “We work with companies in the region and we have some deals with CAT tool companies. With the number of internships that we place students in, we get feedback. We cannot prepare graduates for something that we think exists. We have to prepare them for what really exists out there. It's still a struggle to keep up with market or LSPs needs but at least keeping that connection helps some of our students know what awaits them.” (I6) “It's important to teach the right things. It would be nice to have better communication with the industry. We have to have a dialog with the industry, is this the correct stuff, is this outdated, are you looking for different qualifications? Encouraging this dialog through whatever means would be great.” (I7) “Bring in guest speakers for Q&A sessions, graded real-world simulations with lengthy de- briefs and Q&A afterwards, presentation skills training, conflict resolution classes, change management classes, program management (Leading without authority) vs project management.”

Finally, instructors presented some ideas on how localization training could be enhanced. Recognizing the potential that the industry has to offer, instructors emphasized the value of centralizing soft skills in training, diversifying and developing more advanced, specialized and comprehensive training.

(I2) “I think at some point, there needs to be a little more co-mingling of the industry and the academic end of it. Because the industry is growing and there is a large need for people in this sort of roles that require a certain amount of language knowledge and they are not necessarily translators’ roles. There are no recognized standards or approaches that have really become accepted across the board. It's a hand-in-hand evolution that needs to go on of the industry maturing to the point to recognize that there are certain approaches that could be taught as part of certifications or in education programs. Right now, too many companies are focused on ‘this is just our way of doing things’ and not recognizing where skill sets are shared across the industry.” (I4) “There's been a very little focus on internal training for localization. More focus is placed on the management systems used. The attitude of many companies is to hire more experienced people. There's not much available in terms of training opportunities. On the academic side, translator training programs need to get more exposed to what commercial translation involves in terms of workflow and technology. For project managers, they need to get more solid basis in stakeholder management, risk management, quality management, etc.”

146

(I5) “We are going to stand our ground on the theory. There is this area that I call professionalism: we can put skill sets out there for industry. There is a set of values that we in higher education need to be attuned to, all of the soft skills, communication, collaboration, responsibility, grit and determination, creativity, all those things that make more sense in higher education setting as topics we have to pay more attention to. Partly, when we prepare our students for the industry, we teach them CAT tools and machine translation, partly we are teaching how to work in a team or group, partly we are teaching communication skills. These all fall under the umbrella of professionalism and I think that would be the other area in which we can do much more. We have always said ‘we teach our students to collaborate, we teach our students to think critically, we teach our students to communicate well.’ But we never really have in ways that are overt, in ways that we can document, in ways that we can show that our students are ready to work in multinational teams. More high tech, much more round and broader composition of professionalism and how we prepare students to be professional.” (I6) “More homogeneous background in courses, in-depth engineering courses, customizing processes, troubleshooting. Project management could be going towards a different direction.” (I7) “I predict that students will become more interested in and aware of the need to understand the product lifecycle, and training in general (not only localization training) is going that direction to meet those needs.”

c. Interviewing practitioners.

Practitioners reflected on the concept of localization, the challenges they face in their practice of localization, and whether their training prepared them to the expectations and requirements of the market.

They also shared their opinions on the relationship between training and the industry. Practitioners’ definitions of localization underscored the notion of linguistic/cultural adaptation and usability of a product in other markets, in addition to the fact that localization is becoming a business imperative.

(P2) “A more comprehensive adaptation of a message produced in one linguistic/cultural code to be used in another culture.” (P4) “Localization is the process of making content produced for one region or locale usable by people in a different region or locale. This is broadly defined and not constrained to software strings.” (P5) “Companies have the need to sell their products and web help in other countries. It's not only translating content but making sure that it goes through an integrated and comprehensive process. Not only content, but the way content looks, the way it is processed and making it suitable to a given locale.” (P6) “There's a problem with the term localization. Translation and adaptation of digital content to a locale. But it's not only applied to digital content but to an array of content. Companies are asking for localization for things that are not digital like manuals... content that is related to digital.”

i. Localization practice challenges.

Practitioners were asked to share the challenges that they encounter in their daily practice. Their challenges were associated with the processes of localization.

147

(P1) “Internationalization is still a major issue.” (P2) “There is a marketing component that I didn’t account for . . . the business acumen and experience that one needs to have in order to engage in this kind of work. The importance to work in teams.” (P4) “Source language authoring without localization in mind is an issue. Not only the language or cultural background but also the coding. Separation of the content from its final environment. Technological challenges for vendors who don't know how things work.” (P6) “The challenge is when not knowing where the content will be disseminated. When there’s miscommunication or misassumptions. Everything needs to be clearly spelled out.”

Practitioners then shared their thoughts on whether academia adequately prepared them to meet market requirements. Their thoughts were split over two major views: some of the practitioners believed that their training was core to their readiness for industry work; others complained about the deficiency of training and how unprepared they were to work for the language industry. Other views underlined the value of training as a foundation that is strengthened by practice and experience.

(P1) “Yes, in terms of the two universities I have attended. You can't teach everything. So overall based on my own training yes, I believe I was well prepared to work for the industry. I didn't realize how well I was prepared until several months into the job.” (P7) “Yes, in terms of skills and research and the preparation. However, when it comes to specific industries, I don't think I had enough exposure to them. That comes with experience and not necessarily from training.” (P5) “Academia does prepare you. The training is perfectly fine to be a translator. But if you were to be on the other side of it, then it's hard for academia to train you on that. What I learned during training complements what I get to learn on the job.” (P3) “Academia gets you a lot of the skills and tools. It's up to the graduate to put them to proper use.” (P4) “Yes, it's useful. As for whether it's sufficient, I don't think so. My training was limited to certain types of localization that could be extrapolated to other kinds of work.” (P2) “Very little preparation. Presenting us with something is and not giving up much practice. Very deficient preparation for the moment.” (P6) “Training doesn't prepare you. However, I wasn't prepared myself and I am here. There's more training offered nowadays. There are generations of practitioners who are working now with no formal training. I am not sure what the best way is. Do we need to teach everything, shall we teach the core and enable students and empower them to get there by themselves, they extend that core, activate the other competences.”

ii. Training skills vs. on-the-job skills.

The topic of skills was widely covered by practitioners. Practitioners focused on the understanding of workflows and processes such as internationalization, localization and marketing as well as the understanding of the profession along with the business side of it. They also highlighted the importance of interpersonal skills.

148

(P1) “Programming skills, proper understanding of the localization process, proper understanding of internationalization, terminology management, process automation, on the one hand. On the other hand, interpersonal and people skills — whatever your client tells you, you have to put up with it.” (P2) “The ability to interact with the target culture on a very high level. That's why the marketing component is very important. In-depth knowledge of the localization market, and business management skills.” (P4) “Familiarity with languages. Usually it's the norm! Sometimes software developers branch out to do localization and they may not have a good understanding of how languages work. Tech- savviness, keeping up with tools development and best practices. Ability to come up with scenarios, to model for bad scenarios — predicting what might go wrong and troubleshoot it.” (P6) “Interpersonal skills, how to handle yourself and others in the job. How to work collaboratively and provide service professionally. Understanding of the profession and the structure of work and finally flexibility and adaptability.” (P5) “Understanding the medium of communication and the role of localization. The ability to foresee problems. Staying on task and following instructions.” (P7) “In-country experience and localization experience. Someone who created content in that particular locale – knowledge of how content is being used and how marketing is done in that specific market.”

Practitioners were then asked whether they find a distinction between skills developed during training as opposed to skills learned on the job. They all seem to agree on the fact that given the environment in which skills are being developed, the sets of skills developed in training and in the workplace differ to varying extents:

(P1) “In the workplace, you gain more hands-on skills.” (P2) “Yes, there is a difference. The classroom environment does not recreate reality. It's a big market with different requirements.” (P3) “Yes, going through academia and entering the market saves you time. It's very enriching. Both skills are complementary. They go hand in hand.” (P4) “Yes. Depending on the company. The goal of education is to provide an overview of the tasks of localization and how to respond to challenges. It's impossible to train students on all the software that are out there or on the processes that are going to be used in their workplace.” (P5) “The language training you get in school is valuable because you can't get it on the job. What is needed is more practical training on coding/programming.” (P6) “You can learn the soft skills at the university and then develop them more when you are on the job. Trainers have the responsibility to make students aware of what is awaiting them in the industry and what they need to develop when they are on the job. New generations that go to college are more dependent, not flexible and more passive towards knowledge, not responsive. Can you learn translation competence through passivity?”

iii. Assessing localization training.

In order to complete the picture of localization training assessment, practitioners shared their opinions on where the academia-industry relationship stands and how localization training could be improved upon. Some practitioners maintain that the gap exists due to the inflexibility of one of the

149

stakeholders and absence of readiness to encompass the other. Other practitioners indicated that training provides the foundation necessary and it’s the individual’s responsibility to take that knowledge further.

Overall, practitioners call for more interaction and an open dialog between academic institutions and industry professionals.

(P1) “There's a gap. From my experience, this gap is due to the fact that there are a few people in the industry with formal training and a good understanding of the processes. In terms of translation, there's a huge difference of understanding the notion of quality, for instance. In academia, there's this abstract notion of quality, while in the industry it's whatever the client wants or needs. Quality is never the same and it could depend on the audience, the text itself, the budget, the timeline. So many variables to quality. In the industry, it should be measured for each project separately. I don't find this understanding to be common in the industry in general.” (P2) “As much as academics like to be available to change things and to be at the cutting edge of things, academia is often set on its way and has a conditional structure. It's also a problem that potential students do not know about the market and about viable career paths. The lack of infrastructure for training, getting your hand on the tools, resources… Unfamiliarity with the market makes it hard to articulate what the market needs.” (P3) “There's a difference between education and the practice of something. I'd imagine it is the same thing in medicine. Does medical school prepare you enough. I would have liked to get more information, more classes, more training in localization than I did get. There are not a whole a lot of classes specifically on localization. There is a lot demand but not enough training.” (P4) “You can't jump into every new trend. You have to have some established models. It would be useful to have industry representatives not just come in to give a talk but help shape the curriculum, bring in case studies on the practical level not only conversations...” (P6) “More communication between academia and the industry. Teachers are not practitioners who come from the industry. The industry might be open to trainees, open to research (ethnographic studies) but nothing beyond that. Industry professionals don't take responsibility for the teaching or for informing universities or intervening in training. Industry needs to come to academia and not be passive about it. They need to specify the profiles needed.” (P7) “I think that the foundation is there. It's really up to the individual if that is something they want to specialize in or focus on. I think it's up to them to attain that responsibility. When it comes to formal education, there is not a gap.”

After stating their views on the relationship between the industry and academia, practitioners came up with suggestions that could help improve localization training. Their recommendations incorporate more specialized training on programming and internationalization, more training and internship opportunities and more simulations and case studies that would bring the market closer if not inside the classroom.

(P1) “Courses on internationalization, an understanding of programming, mark-up languages. Changing the way industry looks at graduates as pure linguists.” (P2) “I wish the different components of localization would have been broken down into an easy way to digest. Students need to get their hands over the processes. Internships will be incredibly useful. Offering the knowledge and the know-how in an area that is not developed academically and hiring instructors with experience in the field.”

150

(P3) “More course offerings on localization at the university level (both degree and certificate). More accessible training options. More hands-on approach with training on different software and how to solve problems.” (P4) “No amount of training is good forever. Internships are essential. Rudimentary coding skills. Programs should invest more in programming and not only the language skills.” (P6) “Localization needs to be integrated in academic programs. There should be more openness to studies that survey the needs of the market and review curricula accordingly. An openness to simulations. Unfortunately, there are not enough people who can move between industry and academia – people who can be responsible of training.” (P7) “I was satisfied with the introduction and use of tools which gave me a very good foundation. The examples/exercises were not very helpful. It'd have been beneficial to have real world examples. The benefit is that because of the training I had received, there wasn't a huge learning curve. It was very easy to pick up and learn the things that I was trained on at work.” This chapter reported the results of the study: the documentary analysis of job descriptions along with the profiles of academic programs; the three questionnaires targeting employers, instructors and practitioners; and the follow-up semi-structured interviews conducted with a number of participants from each stakeholder group. The data were presented in the order in which they appeared in each of the instruments. The quantitative data that were examined across the three groups (skill sets) underwent statistical analysis to check the differences among the views of the three stakeholders. A number of the results were consolidated for ease of presentation. The interpretation, contextualization and recapitulation of the results will be addressed in the discussion chapter.

151

Chapter 5: Discussion

The results reported in the previous chapter provide insights into the relationship between localization training and the industry and how training could move forward to better address and meet market expectations. The different data sets can be interpreted from a number of angles; however, the focus of this discussion will remain on the research questions that this research first set out to explore:

(1) What does the Language Industry need in terms of localization practice? (Do localization

stakeholders in the buyer and seller sides have similar needs?)

a. What professional profiles (skill sets) does the industry seek when selecting and

recruiting candidates to perform localization work?

(2) What kind of localization training do current translation and localization programs in the U.S.

offer?

a. What do trainers do to prepare new graduates for the localization market?

(3) What potential expectation gaps, if any, exist between training and professional work?

Each question will be addressed in turn and interpreted in the light of its corresponding data. The sub- questions will be elaborated to review some thought-provoking connections.

Localization services which enable communication and bring benefit to businesses, industries, governments, and customers constitute an enormous and growing market. Language industry revenues were estimated at USD $43 Billion in 2017 with Europe owning 49% of the market and North America second with a 41.74% market share (DePalma, Pielmeier, Lommel, and Stewart, 2017, p. 4). A report by the Centre for Next Generation Localization indicated that localization and translation is the 4th fastest-

152 growing industry in the United States, and Inc. Magazine listed the language industry as one of the top industries for starting a business (as cited in GALA, 2016). As discussed in chapter two, software and website localization lead to higher sales, to better global user experience, to positive attitudes towards products, and also serve as life saviors “in countries where people have limited or no access at all to life saving information in their native language” (Anastasiou & Schäler, 2009, p. 5).50 Such confident market expectations, driven by an exponential increase in language output that requires localization, mandates a review of the current state of the field from industry and training standpoints to examine the perspectives of different participants in the decision making process.

To frame the discussion of localization training in general, this dissertation adopts Kelly’s (2005) model of curricular design and translator training program planning. This model, as shown in Figure 52, adopts a systematic approach to design. It takes the social and institutional context as a point of departure so training remains true to the context in which it belongs. Training objectives and outcomes are informed by the needs of the market it is intended to serve, by the profiles of trainers and trainees, and by the academic discipline hosting it, as well as available resources. Further stages in the model look into content development of training and the design of learning and teaching activities to help demonstrate the achievement of learning outcomes. Final stages revolve around assessing the program, identifying areas of improvement, and incorporating changes deemed beneficial (Kelly, 2005).

50 For accounts on cases about the consequences of a lack of localization in the healthcare sector, see Anastasiou & Schäler (2009).

153

Figure 52. Kelly’s 2005 curricular design model.

While emphasizing the importance of formulating explicit and transparent learning outcomes, Kelly

(2005) specifies key factors that help inform curriculum planning’s decisions:

 Social needs

 Professional standards

 Industry needs and views

 Institutional policy

 Institutional constraints

 Disciplinary considerations

 Student/trainee profiles

Some of these sources of information might be more relevant than others depending on the context of training. Given that the socio-cultural and institutional context of this study is the U.S., factors of interest to the researcher in this study are industry needs and perspectives along with academic considerations.

The logical starting point is to identify what the practice of localization entails and what professional localization practitioners are required to have in terms of qualifications and skills to perform their work.

154

A quick search of traditional job portals, for example, shows that Monster ® and LinkedIn ® advertise more than 1,000 jobs associated with localization without necessarily using the term localization in their listings. What skills and qualifications are employers seeking through their job listings?

1. Industry Needs in Localization

a. Job descriptions’ perspective: What do the job descriptions say?

As reported in chapter four, a survey of professional profiles of localization practitioners was conducted through the analysis of a corpus of job descriptions (JDs). Results were developed through a linguistic analysis of JDs focusing on the most frequently used keywords. A linguistic imprecision on how job titles, skills and qualifications are called/labeled was noticeable from the onset of the corpus analysis. The fourteen most frequently recurring words—Localization (1115), experience (694), project

(568), team (532), management (376), skills (362), work (350), translation (307), ability (247), quality

(236), knowledge (231), software (229), tools (211), language (185)—all reflect specific job requirements such as the knowledge of languages and tools along with the possession of relevant skills and qualities.

The emphasis on experience highlights the importance of knowledge and understanding of the field.

Moreover, “experience” in this context suggests an expected readiness to work and the availability of a portfolio of transferable skills by the candidate. There is a visible overlap between some of the keywords

(skills and ability), and a collocate-relationship between other ones (as in localization experience; management experience; or tools knowledge). Given the centrality of “experience”, “skills”, “degree”, and “tools” in the corpus, those keywords were further analyzed using collocations in the sub-corpora.

A diversity of experience types, a total of 15, is required for localization.51 There is an inconsistency about how experiences are labeled across the JDs. For example, references to work experience were labeled as “industry experience”, “professional experience” or “work experience”. The

51 Management experience, Localization experience, Professional/Industry experience, Software, Engineering experience, Translation experience, International experience, Tools experience, Markup, Language experience, Internationalization experience, Programming experience, Web Publishing experience, Product Development experience, Team Management experience, Testing experience, Language experience.

155

three instances were consolidated and merged under “professional industry experience” after checking the context in which they appear in the JDs. Required experience ranges from managerial to technical, instrumental, (the use of tools) and language-related. The most prominent types of experience needed are management (93) and localization experience (90) which together constitute 50% of the total experiences sought. The two are followed by professional industry experience (8%), software engineering experience

(6%) and translation experience (5%). This pattern is suggestive of the increasing role of management in the language industry. According to Uwe Muegge, the former coordinator of the Master of Arts in

Translation and Localization Management Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at

Monterey, California, “project management is becoming the most important skill.” (2014). Such a skill, or more aptly defined as an evolving job profile, project managers (PMs), “under whom all projects and coordination of tasks were organized” (Folaron, 2012, p. 12) has become increasingly a key component in the few localization competence models52 developed to date. Folaron’s (2006) model presents management as the number one localization competence followed by technology and language-culture (p.

213-16). In line with the corpus findings, Muegge (2014) explains that:

The vast majority of students graduating from the Translation and Localization Program in the past few years work as project managers (PMs), both on the provider and the client side. While there are exceptions – mostly in smaller organizations – project managers typically don’t translate. Instead, PMs manage localization projects throughout the entire lifecycle from planning and preparation to production and quality assurance to delivery and post•mortem.

Apart from management, localization, and professional industry experiences, the less frequent types of experiences in the corpus involve technical, product development lifecycle, and translation knowledge, in addition to the soft skills inherent in team management. All required experiences could be mapped out to various localization tasks and, by extension, to the different professional profiles of a localization practitioner.

52 For details on localization competence models, see DiFranco (2003); Quirion (2003); Austermühl (2006); Folaron (2006) and Pym (2006).

156

With respect to skills, the corpus contains 12 types of skills judged essential to localization work.

A quick glance reveals they could be defined broadly as soft skills53 which refer to “interpersonal qualities, also known as people skills, and personal attributes that one possesses” (Robles, 2012, p. 453) and which are valued in the labor market as they enable people to navigate their work environments efficiently. None of the skills reflects technical requirements or expertise in any of the tasks specifically associated with localization (hard skills). It is noticeable that the desired skills were expressed in generic terms and almost never were spoken of with a specific purpose. Thus, it seems that the meaning of these skills is taken for granted as there is no linguistically visible attempt to contextualize them within the field of localization. The most emphasized/prominent skill is communication (written 25% and oral 17%) which relates to the ability to clearly articulate the point and to decipher verbal and nonverbal cues communicated by others. Klaus (2010) argues that “success is based on what one knows but also how one communicates it;” she highlighted in her research the fact that “companies are beginning to rate employees’ interpersonal skills as more important than analytical abilities” (2010). The second most frequent skills are organizational and problem-solving (11% each), followed by management skills, 9%, and English language skills, 7% which most likely targets candidates who are non-native English speakers. The remaining low frequency skills 54 reflect functional and social attributes.

The sharp focus on soft skills and their increasing importance in an information society and knowledge-based economy echoes a body of research devoted to cognition, psychology, education, employability, and labor economics (Klaus, 2010; Maes, Weldy, & Marjorie, 1997; Mitchell et al., 2010;

Nealy, 2005; Smith, 2007; Kautz, Heckman, Diris, ter Weel, & Borghans, 2014). Klaus’ (2010) study states that “75% of long-term job performance and success depends on soft skills while on the contrary

25% is dependent on hard skills.” Other research suggests that hard skills contribute only 15% to one’s

53 Also referred to in the literature as social skills, people skills, life skills, noncognitive skills, noncognitive abilities, and socioemotional skills. 54 Analytical skills, interpersonal skills, presentation skills, leadership skills, time management skills and critical thinking skills.

157

success, whereas 85% of success is due to soft skills (Watts & Watts, 2008). Along those lines, Robles

(2012) conducted a study to identify the top ten soft skills perceived most important by business executives; they were “integrity, communication, courtesy, responsibility, social skills, positive attitude, professionalism, flexibility, teamwork, and work ethic.” (p. 453) Robles’ findings reflect skills listed in the present study’s corpus. Clearly, implicit and intangible soft skills are critical to identify, develop and nurture because they constitute a major differentiator in the workplace. The language services market is no exception.

With regard to tools cited as required in the JDs, ten types are mentioned in the corpus. It is worth noting that tools labeled as translation or terminology tools were merged under CAT tools. A frequency check shows that CAT tools (44%) are the highest in terms of appearance in the corpus, followed by localization tools (29%) and project management tools (11%). The remaining types of tools55 with lower frequencies included software development and testing, social media, and productivity software. The prevalence of CAT tools over localization tools can suggest that “CAT tools” is used as an umbrella term to include a range of applications supporting the production of translation. Nowadays, the use of technologies and platforms tailored to processing of digitized content and adapted for collaborative multilingual localization projects constitute a “must” in order to ensure higher consistency, productivity, quality assurance and reuse; “one of the signature characteristics of successful LSPs is increasing automation in support of repeatable and scalable process.” (DePalma, Pielmeier, Lommel, & Stewart,

2017, p. 7) Many of the tools “integrate(d) certain programming and project management functionalities . . . associated with specific technical requirements: word counts; segment percentages; file filters to manage codes and tags; file preparation; batch processing; code modification; revision; quality control, etc.” (Folaron, 2002, p. 13) Given the nature and the requirements of digital content adaptation, translation and localization practitioners are expected to have a deeper understanding of content type, its

55 Social media, process automation, internationalization, Microsoft office suite, testing, software development, globalization, and sales tools.

158

underlying structure, the context in which it lives, and its development processes. They are expected to master

a complex set of tools, techniques and media, including word processing, desktop-publishing software, translation memory management systems, search engines, computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools, text aligners, website design tools, web editors, and many more […] Some areas, such as software, Web site and video games localization, require a whole range of advanced skills in language engineering, infographics, computing, management, marketing, product design and communication. (Gouadec, 2007, p. 91)

Linguistic analysis also looked into the education requirements specified in JDs. A significant preference is apparent for undergraduate degrees, specifically, Bachelors of Arts (62%) and Bachelors of Science

(22%). The Bachelor of Arts degrees are granted more often; typically, Bachelor of Science degrees are not associated with language degrees. Thus, the interest in a Bachelor of Arts degree over a Bachelor of

Science degree is not necessarily a preference but a matter of availability. On the other hand, the preference for undergraduate over graduate degrees may be a reflection of availability (pool of talents) or market forces. It could be more economical to hire candidates with undergraduate degrees. Moore (2018) shares that clients in the localization industry are looking for BAs, yet what matters to them the most is the experience; she explains that “for some positions, you may become a quality assurance tester, which has very minimal requirements. This is how you start in the industry and then move to a project management or localization engineering position.” (as cited in Melnikova, 2018, p.43)

Considering education majors targeted by JDs, degrees are sought in computer science (36%) followed by engineering (15%), and localization (10%). The remaining majors56 appeared once to four times. The interest in computer science highlights the heavily technical side of localization tasks and de- emphasizes the linguistic component which could be placed in the JDs as a skill or nice-to-have trait.

Likewise, such preference or expectation raises questions about the academic and educational context in which localization training needs to be offered or in which it is expected to be offered. Even though it appears rational to have localization and internationalization as components of computer science

56 Linguistics or foreign languages, technical fields, business, translation, English and creative writing, information technology, MBA, communication, life science and computational linguistics.

159

programs, the reality is different, as will be shown in the next section. It is interesting to point that there are no degrees in localization per se, especially at the undergraduate level. In the U.S. context, there is only one Master’s degree in localization project management but a number of certificates in localization.

Therefore, requesting a “wished-for” degree that is not in existence might imply that the JDs were not the result of thorough job and market analyses. It is also possible that the JDs did not use accurate descriptors to reflect their needs or to correspond to available training.

In order to contextualize the JDs findings, the researcher established connections between JDs requirements and the industries to which they belong, using the labeling57 that profiles the companies in job portals. Based on the wide-ranging labeling, as mentioned in the results chapter, almost half the JDs belong to the information technology industry (45%) while close to a quarter of them (21%) are from the business services sector with 8% representing manufacturing companies. The prevalence of IT and business services companies may justify some of the requirements outlined in the JDs, such as the type of majors or degrees needed e.g., computer science, engineering and localization. This could be indicative of the areas in industry where localization work is needed from both the seller and buyer sides.

Job titles constituted another interesting factor to examine. The corpus comprises 45 localization job titles. The variety of title labels reflects the existing business culture and internal structure of the company. Such variety could be explained by the constantly evolving scope and breadth of the localization industry. At the same time, the fact that half of the titles do not occur more than once could be indicative of the lack of industry standards and defined professional profiles. A project manager, for example, could have a title of localization program manager or translation project coordinator; a localization QA specialist could be named language QA tester or linguistic verification engineer. An analysis of the titles indicates that they can be categorized by an array of terms, including managerial positions, engineering, sales, marketing, quality assurance, or localization/translation-oriented positions.

57 Information technology; business services; media; manufacturing, retail, advertisement and publications; entertainment and recreation; biotech and pharmaceuticals; accounting and legal; telecommunications; education; and finance.

160

While adopting this tentative categorization, it appears that about half of the job titles refer to localization project management positions. About a fourth of the titles designate translation/localization-related positions and 19% of them relate to localization engineering positions. The predominance of managerial titles corroborates some of the JDs requirements, which were reported earlier, in terms of preferred qualifications. It also points out that the rising need for localization services emphasizes an increasing demand for management of the industry’s projects and services. The availability of prospective management candidates is driven by more than job titles. Candidates need to be accessible to the job market and potential employers need to have some degree of proximity to a pool of qualified candidates.

Ritzdorf (2018) explains how regionalization impacts companies’ decisions about hiring localization managers:

There are areas where localization is a thing, which means when you walk into a company, they actually know about localization […] Silicon Valley is a great example. People live and breathe localization. However, there is a totally different culture in other regions, which is very fragmented. There are tons of little companies in other parts of the US […] if I am a small LSP owner in Wisconsin or Ohio, what are my chances of finding someone with a degree or experience to fill a localization position for a project manager? Extremely low. This is why I may hire a candidate who has an undergraduate degree in French literature, for example — at least something. (as cited in Melnikova, 2018, p. 42).

Evidently, the variety of job titles and positions reflect the maturity level of companies with respect to localization and how they perceive localization hires. Moore (2018) argues that “mature companies have established processes; their departments know what to localize […] everything is very methodical and planned for, whereas startups are more in react mode than planning mode” (as cited in Melnikova, 2018, p.

44). This creates opportunities for consulting and education on localization best practices and how to design internationalized products that lend themselves to localization from day one.

b. Employers’ perspective: What do employers say?

After constructing a sample profile of what the industry is looking for in terms of in-house localization practitioners based on the analysis of JDs, the researcher will examine employers’ views on hiring criteria, desired qualifications, required skills, and assessed performance for in-house and freelance practitioners. More than two-thirds of employers who participated in the questionnaire represent

161

Language Service Providers (LSPs) that hire freelance localization vendors. One-third of them hire in- house localization practitioners. According to participants, websites drive demand for localization work, followed by software, desktop publishing and multimedia localization. This suggests that localization practitioners are hired most frequently for website and software-related localization tasks. With 3 billion internet users, Sargent and Ray explain that “customer acquisition and engagement become increasingly digitized; companies must reliably deliver content in dozens of languages and channels.” (2016). Meeting such goals implies reaching out to a global audience “to address even half the online opportunity, it already takes four languages . . . and 14 languages to get to 90% of the online opportunity. To capture

97% of the online audience – and 99% of the entire world online wallet – requires 58 languages” (Sargent

& Ray, 2016). These figures illustrate the pressuring economic incentives behind website localization as a major localization service.

As far as educational backgrounds are concerned, participating employers believe their vendors have academic credentials in the form of degrees or certificates in translation/localization. This suggests that a certain but undefined level of training in the field constitutes a minimal requirement for entry level positions. Johnson (2018) claims that “as with many industries, a degree gets you your first job. Maybe later no one will care about your localization degree, but it is important at the very beginning for you to be able to start in the industry” (as cited in Melnikova, 2018, p. 44). Conversely, Troyer (2018) believes that a degree is not necessary; what matters is passion for languages and technology, and networking (as cited in Melnikova, 2018, p. 44).

Regarding the required experience, data reveals a preference for an average of three years of professional experience. Moreover, when screening candidates for localization work, employers are interested principally in localization and translation experience, then in training in languages, and then in training in localization and translation. Employers have mentioned the importance of experience using

CAT tools, subject-matter expertise along with soft skills (i.e., accountability, and team spirit). These findings confirm the results of a report published by Nimdzi Insights, a market research company specializing in the language services industry, on the hiring criteria for localization project manager

162

positions from LSPs and clients sides. The report indicates that clients’ top criteria are previous localization experience, a college degree, followed by years of experience, and language proficiency in other languages than English. In contrast, LSPs look at reputation/referral by colleagues and then experience and proficiency in more than one language (as cited in Melnikova, 2018, p. 44). Densmer

(2014) challenges the significance of experience as a hiring criterion. She believes that professionals with experience in the field can be successful but that experience does not guarantee success, similar to the way that a degree does not guarantee quality work. Densmer (2014) looked into “factors beyond coursework and love of technology, affinity for language, and experience abroad [that] signify a good candidate for localization careers.” The 7 key capabilities that she suggested were soft skills: “ability to learn; customer service; detail orientation; analytical; strong collaboration and influence; ability to work quickly/flexibility; cross-cultural knowledge.”

With reference to skills deemed significant by employers and consistently described as “important”, those skills belonged to different categories established in the questionnaires: instrumental; translation; technological; systemic; and management skills. For ease of comparison, a synthesis of the highlighted qualities and skills that were subject to a consensus can be grouped under three headings:

 Soft skills o Analyzing and synthesizing o Working in an interdisciplinary team o Working autonomously o Leading complex projects  Management skills o Specifying and/or applying quality control procedures o Identifying client requirements o Information management o Applying conceptual knowledge  Translation/Technology skills o Translating accurately o Using translation memory (TM) tools o Advanced computing skills

163

o Learning new tools and software packages

It is interesting to see that the skills with 100% agreement among the participating employers are clustered around soft skills emphasizing autonomy, teamwork, and leadership. Management-related skills seem to underline organizational, project-oriented and conceptual skills, while translation skills are geared towards translation abilities and the use of tools. Nevertheless, the skills with the least agreement -- and sporadic opinions among the employers – are technology skills particular to localization. There is little or no agreement about the classification of these skills in terms of importance. The skills that drew minimal agreement are related to the use of markup languages, understanding the components of localization projects, and the ability to troubleshoot tools’ problems. Such divergence, variation in demand, or lack of importance of technological skills could be linked to the size and nature of the companies, and the types of localization work they perform. On the other hand, the predominance of soft skills again confirms their centrality, especially in managerial roles with less relevance or importance in more technical roles.

Klinger (2016), the managing director of a Globalization Staffing company, pointed out during the

Attracting and Developing Talents (ADT 2017)58 — a LocWorld initiative, that recruiters, localization vendors and employers look for the same things: M.I.C.E., motivation, intelligence, communication and enthusiasm along with H.A.C., humility, appearance and confidence combined with relevant or comparable experience. Lawless (2015), the president and founder of a localization and consulting company, is of the same view. He wrote about the talent trap in the industry due to the lack of relevant education. He argues that:

Our understanding of job eligibility needs to evolve in order for us to look beyond an expensive piece of paper. We can accomplish this by evaluating applicants not on their degree, but on the quality of their character. So, keep an eye out for the best learners and problem solvers. Look for good judgment and the ability to get the job done. Find people who are most willing to work hard. And equally important, identify the ones who are the most likable and pleasant in their interactions with others (2015, p. 23).

58 LocWorld ADT initiative organized a number of editions starting in 2014 with the aim of bringing together localization recruiters, clients, vendors and academicians to develop “solutions to the challenges of attracting and educating professionally trained staff in the localization industry to confront the talent shortage” (LocWorld, 2017).

164

Similarly, the prevalence of management skills echoes the increasing importance of project management and quality management in the translation/localization chain as well as the team-orientation feature of localization projects. Both require keeping tasks and different participating vendors involved in tandem, as Folaron (2012) explains:

The burgeoning number of tasks associated with producing multiple localized versions of source content […] entailed interfacing with various teams of expertise, in addition to interacting with the more conventional agent, the client. These professional experts included content programmers or designers, engineers, quality assurance (QA) testers, desktop and/or website publishers, graphics and media developers and artists, and translators, revisers, and proofreaders in each of the languages of localization (p. 13).

A significant number of the skills and qualities discussed thus far was confirmed by professional representatives who took part in the researcher’s semi-structured interviews. They stressed the value of training in translation and localization, recognizing that training alone does not translate into quality work.

They also valued having technical skills and keeping abreast of mainstream technological tools. The interviewees repeatedly emphasized the importance of soft skills as manifest in adaptability/flexibility, the ability to be a team player, work under pressure, multitask, and communicate effectively. The interviewees stressed particularly a number of points that were not specifically included in the questionnaire or did not surface in job descriptions. They said the importance of an understanding of the language industry and the role of a localization practitioner in the process is important, as is understanding the concept of customer service, because providers deliver a final product and service at the same time. Employers also shared how essential it is for candidates to have intercultural competence and a cultural and linguistic knowledge of the target locale.

The findings outlined thus far paint an interesting profile, if not profiles, of the localization practitioners the language industry in the U.S. context seeks. Three major categories are evident: linguist- oriented, technical, and business-oriented. A major takeaway is the lack of standardization with respect to job titles and profiles. Job descriptions demonstrate a great variation of localization positions along with a linguistic inconsistency in reference to skills and desired qualifications. Such variation could be due to the broadening scope of the industry, the diversified nature of projects/clients/operations/tasks, and the lack

165

of industry efforts to establish a framework that captures current and projected localization production paradigms. It could be due to the fact that companies and organizations on the client side are structurally different than the vendor side and have different needs or opt for different names for the same tasks. The patterns throughout the data consistently attest to the fact that localization project management (a business role) along with its key qualities and skills holds a central spot in the industry, given “the need for dedicated project management due to the geographical distribution of outsourced translation teams and to the increasing complexity of the technologies and processes of translation projects” (Dunne & Dunne,

2011, p. 3). In addition, Sikes (2011) argues that because corporations fail to understand the relationship and interdependence between and among localization, internationalization and globalization, localization project managers are perfectly situated to help overcome the challenges and to facilitate the successful implementation of such processes (p. 235). They are able to execute projects, identify translatable/localizable parts, organize external and internal resources, schedule and budget, track and troubleshoot issues, and assemble all the moving parts and deliver the localized product while coordinating communications among linguists, engineers and clients (Spacinsky, 2013, p. 28). Therefore, it is clear that the need for localization project managers has become a more industry imperative in the language services business. Other less prominent profiles that emerge from the corpus data are localization engineers who interact directly with the product prepping (decompiling), processing, and reintegrating (compiling) localized materials in given development systems or formats while collaborating with product development, QA, and localization teams. Linguists, to a lesser extent, are at the core of the industry and require interacting with textual content (languages) and interfacing with various technologies that support the translation process and workflow. These profile-related findings find an echo in a professionally-oriented initiative undertaken in Ireland towards the end of the 1990s, the

Certified Localization Professional program. The project was the result of large-scale cooperation between industry groups, training institutions and universities and operated under the coordination of the

Localization Research Center. It had a goal very similar goal to that of the present study. It looked into developing job profiles, identifying knowledge and skills, and outlining curricula and assessment of

166

programs. The program’s findings revolved around six priority job profiles: software localization engineers; project evaluation and analysis engineers; localization engineers; quality assurance engineers; localization project managers; and translators (Schäler, 2007). The present study’s findings in conjunction with the job profiles accounted for in the industry’s literature helped sketch Figure 53, which consolidates the large number of job titles revealed by the corpus analysis revealed.

Linguist Localization linguist/translator Profiles Localization linguistic tester Language Localization project manager Culture Operations manager Business Sales manager Localization Profiles Computing Vendor manager Business Procurement manager Technical Localization engineer Profiles Testing and QA engineer Internationalization engineer Solutions architect/ Localization strategist Technical manager

Figure 53. Localization job profiles.

c. Practitioners’ perspective: What do practitioners say?

As employers’ positions were important for establishing localization professional profiles, practitioners’ industry experience and opinions about market demand was equally essential. Practitioners have a wide range of credentials. More than two-thirds of the practitioners who took part in the study have degrees or certificates in translation studies and more than half have degrees in other areas of study.

Only half the practitioners had received a professional certificate. Williams (2010) explains that localization practitioners tend to have “a wide range of educational backgrounds: from language, literature and education to technology, management, marketing and sales. People have taken these educational backgrounds and combined them with their interest in the world at large” (p. 24). With regard to localization-specific training, only 37% of the practitioners received formal training, usually as part of graduate coursework or professional development opportunities. This could be explained by limited training opportunities which lead to on-the-job learning trends. It is not surprising, given the nature and evolution of the profession, as Folaron (2006) Observes:

167

[U]ntil now the backgrounds of localization professionals have run the gamut from comparative literature to software engineering to computational linguistics. Drawn into the field for a variety of reasons, they trained and learned on the job during the early formative years of the industry. (p. 203).

Nearly half the participants have more than 7 years of professional experience and the vast majority of them work as freelancers (translators or localization practitioners) providing localization services to translation companies or direct clients in the U.S. or Western Europe. A fourth holds in-house positions.

According to the practitioners, website localization constitutes a major share of their work, followed by software localization, audiovisual translation, and to a lesser extent desktop publishing, game, and mobile localization. These trends match what employers reported in terms of high need localization services.

More specifically, practitioners tend to engage in the localization of web-pages, training materials, advertising, user/operator manuals, marketing collaterals, and software documentation. Additionally, when not working on localization projects, 91% of the practitioners reported participating in professional translation activities, especially editing/proofreading. More than half do technical or commercial translation. These findings could suggest the industry relies on a pool of freelancers to provide localization in addition to in-house employees. This outsourcing model (Esselink, 2003, p. 26) has gained traction over the years and has become a standard practice as “the vast majority of companies outsource their localization work” (Combe, 2011, p. 333). In fact, given the extensive resources that localization projects involve, organizations increasingly rely on

outsourcing localization or testing to contractors or employees located in lower-cost areas such as India, Vietnam, Thailand, China, and Eastern European countries. Outsourcing specialized work to specialized resources independent of location, in particular translators, editors and desktop publishing specialists working remotely. (Stoeller, 2011, p. 293)

This business model offers a different working environment and experience and can result in different tasks, requirements, and skills expected of freelance localization providers in contrast to in-house practitioners. Looking at the practitioners’ assessment of the skills sets necessary for localization work, their views seem to differ widely but the one skill that drew 100% agreement was the ability to work autonomously. This might have to do with the fact that most of the respondents are freelancers who do not work under direct supervision. They need to understand, adapt to the operational setting, and possess

168

the ability to act independently. The six skills ranked most consistently as important by 95–97% of the practitioners are summarized as follows:

 Translation skills: o Translating accurately o Research and documentation  Management skills o Identifying client requirements o Specifying and/or applying quality control procedures  Soft skills o Working autonomously o Applying conceptual knowledge Practitioners’ opinions about skills revolve around providing quality translations and maintaining good customer relationships. Similar to the employers’ perspective, technological skills are not universally agreed upon. There is no consensus on which technological skills are deemed important for performing localization work. This could be explained by the absence of definite industry profiles and defined training pathways that could lead to careers in localization. The morphing nature of industry roles and the fact that translation jobs must embrace the dynamic requirements of localization and become increasingly technologically sophisticated make it difficult to draw the line between translation work and localization.

DiFranco (2003) wrote about localization skills for translators:

As a translator, you are the language- and subject-matter expert all rotted into one. Added to this, you may sometimes fill the shoes of the editor or proofreader. These skills will all come handy when applying them toward localization. Because the field of localization is quite complex, it is only possible to name a few key pieces of technical knowledge [HTML, XML, Character sets, Unicode, CAT tools], but these should help increase your marketability and skill level. (2002, p. 4)

One of the very few if not the only industry survey that aimed at defining skill sets required in the localization industry was initiated by LEIT (the LISA Education Initiative Taskforce) in 1998. The industry was facing a major shortage of qualified and trained professionals, and the survey results specified first and second level skills:

 Level one:

169

o Translation skills and methodologies;

o Awareness of cultural issues;

o Comprehensive word-processing capabilities;

o Basic terminology management and research;

o Proficiency in a number of languages;

o Basic internet and web skills (including HTML programming and authoring).

 Level two:

o Knowledge of basic principles of computational linguistics;

o Familiarity with culture-specific translatability problems;

o Advanced familiarity with translation technology tools (computer-assisted translation):

. system design and maintenance for terminology management activities;

. system design and maintenance of Translation Memory (TM) resources and other

translation support tools;

o Flexibility working in technical fields;

o Experience with team-oriented translation work (collaborative competence);

o Experience using rationalized authoring tools;

o Use of desktop publishing software;

o Stress management;

o Machine Translation;

o Ability to format check outside of preferred languages (as cited in Wright, 2004, p. 591).

LEIT identified skills tend to be generic and cover a wide spectrum from translation specific tasks to computer technology and language engineering with a primary emphasis on the use of tools, followed by the knowledge of language and culture. The survey highlights some soft skills which reflect the team- based work model in localization. However, none of the skills acknowledged then accounted for the management of localization projects or the business functions related to it. It is likely that such features gained more importance with the industry’s growth that fueled the initial fusion of language and

170

technology to a standing business model. Esselink (2006) wrote about how the evolution of the localization industry led to more appreciation of “core translation skills and domain expertise” and anticipated that such a situation “could bring together two worlds: software localization, with a strong focus on technical complexity for translators, and content localization, with a strong focus on technical simplicity for translators” (2003, p. 22). This was the case in the beginning. Due to the highly technological load, in-house translators and bilingual developers were trained on the job to perform localization. As the industry evolved, more distinct profiles emerged, such as management, QA, and engineering which are more localization than translation-driven.

Practitioners’ interviews revealed some new perspectives on the question of skills. They stressed the importance of understanding workflows and processes, along with the marketing and business side of the industry. They also expressed how interpersonal skills, an understanding of the medium of communication, and an in-depth knowledge of the languages and cultures involved were essential to working as localization professionals. In the light of these findings about localization industry and its diversified needs, two questions come to mind: Do the professional localization roles identified in this section find a home in training programs and academic curricula? To what extent do existing localization training programs address market requirements?

2. Assessment of Current Localization Training Opportunities

a. Analysis of localization training opportunities: What do localization programs have to

offer?

The evolution of the language industry has resulted in many new professional roles: “bilingual editors, multimedia designers, research and information specialists, cultural assessors, multicultural software designers, software localizers, terminologists, project managers” (Shreve, 2000, p. 228), and a wide range of activities and tasks that present opportunities and challenges for training. It was not until the 2000s that U.S. universities began to include localization topics, modules or courses as such in their translation degrees. This was in response to the rapid expansion of practices and services

171

(internationalization, localization, and globalization) needed by the market, coupled with the advent of new diversified skills required. O’Hagan (2006) believes that localization as an

industrial process was developed more or less independently of traditional translation and directly in response to market needs. As such, its practice developed before its theory. This may be part of the reason why localization was not included in Translation Studies until recently. (p. 40)

As reported in the previous chapter, a survey of educational resources in localization available in the U.S. shows the existence of 7 graduate degrees and 10 certificate programs (8 graduate and 2 undergraduate) with localization in the curricula. All graduate degrees are Master’s level programs in Translation Studies and are hosted within language departments, with the exception of two MAs59 that belong to two different academic entities (Institute of International Studies and Office of Extended Studies). Among these programs, only one MA in Translation and Localization Management is specialized in a localization degree. Coincidentally, it is also the only MA to use the term “localization” in its title; the other MA programs use translation or translation studies as labels. With regard to the 10 current certificates, three main patterns prevail. Some certificates are provided by language departments; some are offered within units of professional and continuing education; and some are conducted by independent, industry-oriented institutes specializing in localization. In terms of visibility, 8 out of the 10 certificates use “localization” in their titles.

Based on information provided in the websites of these programs, localization appears to be appended to either translator training or to professional and continuing education programs. This situation is not exceptional because even though approaches to tackling localization academically vary, localization courses and programs “are often set up in accordance with local and internal market needs. Many are separate certificate programs housed within Continuing Education divisions; most are attached to translation programs” (Folaron, 2006, p. 212). It is interesting that when localization integrated into academia it was “naturally” incorporated in language departments and translation programs. The

59 The MA in Translation and Localization Management at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and the Master of Professional Studies in Translation which belongs to the Professional Graduate Program within the Office of Extended Studies

172

introduction was due most likely to the focus on the linguistic, cultural communication, terminology and content management considerations that constitute major parts in its process and which are practiced within such departments and academic majors. Altanero (2006) believes that this tendency is pushing for new roles and expectations for translators:

Translation departments, centers and institutes are clearly a popular venue for localization initiatives. The emergence of these organizations is also an interesting phenomenon, as it may indicate the future of localization itself, perhaps signifying increased reliance on translators to provide traditional engineering services such as program compilation, data structure and character encoding. (p. 33).

Nevertheless, these units do not necessarily address the internationalization and localization processes holistically to take into account the technical and business sides. Within translation programs, localization does not appear to have enough visibility (course titles) or weight with respect to the orientation of the program and curricular content. It is usually available as a 3-credit course in a 36-credit graduate program.

The only exception is the specialized MA degree in localization at Monterey, where the curriculum involves 7 (2-credit) courses and is the most comprehensive localization (academic) program in the U.S.

One explanation of the program’s singularity is its location (West Coast) and proximity to Silicon Valley, the center of high-tech corporations, innovative technology, social media and research parks. Along with the concentration of IT companies, localization services companies are headquartered in Oregon,

Washington, and Utah. These geographical and economic circumstances could have helped the program establish a rationale for a localization-driven curriculum, given the strong potential employment prospects in the geographic area. The rest of the programs do not benefit from similar opportunities and thus cannot make a case for full-fledged localization curricula. The other interesting point is the fact that localization is integrated primarily at graduate level programs with the exception of the two undergraduate certificates offered by the same institution60. This trend may be derivative to localization being considered as a specialized subject-area that does not fit easily in the general undergraduate training but can be better

60 The Department of Modern Languages at the University of Texas Arlington offers an undergraduate Certificate in Localization and Translation and a Certificate in Localization and Translation Dual Option.

173

positioned at the graduate level where students have acquired knowledge and skills sufficient to handle more in-depth and complex tasks. As Kelly (2005) points out, “the problem faced by most undergraduate training courses is that it is practically impossible to offer training in a specialized field and in translation at the same time and within the time confines of standard degree” (p. 76). One more consideration relates to proficiency in foreign languages in the U.S., a greatly debated and controversial topic. Usually, foreign language education is introduced later in the K-12 sequence or in college. According to the Modern

Language Association report on foreign language enrollments at American colleges (2015), “only 7 percent of college students in America are enrolled in a language course” and “less than 1 percent of

American adults today are proficient in a foreign language that they studied in a U.S. classroom”

(Friedman, 2015). This is also a point that a participant in the study raised:

“To be fair, much of the issues are rooted in the failure of the US educational system that does not produce people who have professional language proficiency, and are little more than faithful users of technology. This is why professional associations are trying to step up and fill the gap, both by offering one-off workshops, all the way to initiatives like GALA's.”(Anonymous practitioner).

Consequently, “the pool of quality language students coming out of high schools, and even out of universities, is dismally low” (Shreve, 2000, p. 230). Hence, this situation impacts the way subject components within translation and localization curricula are being structured and prioritized.

The corpus of localization programs shows a total of 28 courses across all degree and certificate programs. A closer look at the course offerings in terms of titles and descriptions indicates the presence of introductory courses on localization, localization marketing, translation technology, and localization project management in several programs. Single instance courses focus on one type of localization practice, either software localization; website localization; games localization; multilingual desktop publishing; or the business (financial) side of localization. Austermühl (2006) explains that:

[T]he question of what elements of localization should be included in a curriculum for translator training and how they should be taught will be guided by the question of feasibility, i.e., what kind of solutions are possible given existing curricular, administrative and institutional constraints. (p.71).

174

Thus, the variation in course offerings can be due to curricular decisions that reflect the segment of the market that given institutions decide to better serve. It could also suggest staffing considerations and the availability of instructors who are knowledgeable or comfortable enough to develop content and teach localization-specific courses.

The examination of course descriptions beyond their titles revealed that the courses of the 7 MA programs focus primarily on technological skills followed by translation skills, then instrumental skills including research, and promoting an understanding of the profession. The least emphasized skills relate to project management. On the certificates’ side, similar trends were observed; major emphasis is placed on enhancing technological skills, followed by instrumental skills, then translation-related skills and finally project management. Training opportunities consistently prioritize the technological factor probably because it is considered a major defining feature of localization. Jiménez-Crespo argues that building training models for localization “industry approaches often highlight the technological component […] as a result; training normally focuses on knowledge of tools, technological processes and workflow management, giving procedural technological knowledge preference over other considerations”

(2013, p. 162). Even though the scope of localization as a professional practice crosses several disciplines and goes beyond the technology factor, the absence of specific criteria and clear market needs and expectations are problematic because it leads to an unconditional endorsement of different levels of technology know-how (from superficial exposure to advanced mastery of tools) dependent upon the resources available to training institutions without expanding the range of skills targeted in order to match the professional scope of the practice.

In addition to course descriptions, a scan of language combinations the programs catered to was conducted illuminates the variety of approaches to handling languages within localization training. Some of the continuing education certificates do not offer any languages other than English as a language of instruction, suggesting that the linguistic component is not included in their training. Some other certificates do not specify any foreign working language and are open to any language going into English, while other programs choose to specialize in a single language combination such as English-Spanish.

175

Overall, programs that opted for multilingual training portray a mix of mostly European languages

(Spanish, French, German, Russian, Portuguese, and Italian), a few Middle Eastern languages (Arabic and

Persian), and Asian languages (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) with programs offering specific languages only on demand. The inclusion of languages may have to do with the geographical location of the program, and the student population that it is planning to serve. It may also relate to market forces in terms of the languages in high demand.

b. Instructors’ assessment of training: What do instructors say?

After constructing a picture of localization training from programs data available online, the researcher examined instructors’ input about the training they are involved with, their own educational and professional experience, and their views on teaching and the skills around which training revolves.

Over two thirds of the instructors hold graduate (Master’s), undergraduate (Bachelor’s) degrees or certificates in Translation Studies. Less than a quarter have a graduate degree in fields other than translation, and a quarter of them have Ph.D. degrees either in translation or related fields. As for professional certifications, most of the instructors hold none. A minimum of 10% has either TILP (The

Institute of Localization Professionals), SDL Trados, PMP (Project Management Professional

Certification) or OTTIAQ (Ordre des Traducteurs, Terminologues et Interprètes Agréés du Québec). For the most part, participating instructors appear to have an educational background in translation studies or related areas. However, regarding their localization-specific background, a little over half the instructors

(54.55%) reported receiving a formal education or training in localization through attending localization workshops, conferences, seminars or pursuing graduate specialized courses on the subject. Some have been through corporate internal training in localization. With their training and teaching duties, more than half the instructors engage in industry work, usually website or software localization. Regarding their teaching, instructors report fairly substantial teaching experience. The vast majority have been teaching for more than 7 years, predominantly courses on software, website localization, and CAT tools. Some of them are responsible for introductory localization courses, terminology management, or Machine

Translation.

176

What is noticeable when describing instructors’ profiles is they all have prior knowledge of translation or related fields (linguistics/foreign languages) but only half were trained formally in localization. This suggests the other half most likely was self-taught or relied on professional development opportunities, the typical learning path, Altanero (2006) says that “localization academics still seem to start as non-localization professionals and gradually make their move as the field gains more acceptance by (and becomes more crucial to) educational programs in localization” (p. 35). It also could be that their professional experience as translators and localization practitioners was a key requisite for their teaching in the absence of formal education as Kiraly (1995) pointed out when talking about professional translation experiences for translator trainers, “it cannot be expected that language instructors without professional translation experience will have a professional self-concept themselves or that they will be able to help their translation students develop one” (p. 3). Formal training combined with up-to- date experience that reflects industry practice would be an ideal scenario to bring to the assumption that

“those who know, know how to teach” (Kelly, 2008, p. 101). Such an assumption opens the door for debates about training trainers, translator trainer competence61 and about who is best suited to teach localization – industry professionals who can integrate academe or linguistics/translation scholars who are trained on localization. This dilemma is clearly beyond the scope of this study.

A quick look at the profile of training programs shows a wide range of program levels and styles.

Almost two-thirds of the instructors report offering localization courses at the graduate level, while a third of the participants teach it at the undergraduate level. There are localization courses within translation certificate and localization-specific certificate programs. Generally, the vast majority of courses are offered face-to-face. A third of the instructors report having blended/hybrid localization courses involving face-to-face and synchronous/asynchronous instruction components. Half of the instructors indicates that localization courses are mandatory in their curricula and another half states that such courses stand as electives. As to their focus, two thirds of the instructors describe their courses as practice-oriented and a

61 For further debate on this, see Kearns (2006a) and Kelly (2008)

177

quarter of them indicate how their courses are more theoretical. Educational credit-wise, localization courses count for 2–3 credits for the most part or in a few cases for more than 5 credits. This variety of offerings both structurally and content-wise could accommodate different students’/populations needs and levels’ of interest.

Instructors were invited to share their views about the types of instruction potentially used for localization courses. They unanimously agree on the importance of discussions. Other teaching/tuition types that draw major agreement in terms of importance are individual or group projects, case studies, and lectures followed by simulation exercises and readings. Even though participants did not specify how often these forms of instruction are used in their classroom environments, ranking their importance may provide an indication of the type of teaching emphasized in localization training. Relying on discussions, project workshops, and simulation exercises resonate well with the socio-constructivist approach62 to teaching, which calls for promoting collaboration, reflection, self-reliance, and self-confidence (Kiraly,

2003). Johnson explains that “it is typically through class discussions, collaborative activities, detailed written feedback, process modeling, and one-on-one conversations” (2003, p. 101) that one could help increase students’ awareness and reflection over processes and develop sound practices that translate into quality work/output. She recommends that instructors introduce “collaborative work, peer editing, real projects for real clients, reflective self-assessment statements, and student-selected specialization projects” (2003, p. 101).

Kiraly (2003), a fervent advocate of the socio-constructivist nature of translator education, maintains that “a collaborative learning environment, where students work together with peers, more advanced students, and teacher-facilitators to resolve complex, authentic problems, would seem to offer an ideal setting” (2003, p.16). It would serve to develop students’ cognitive flexibility and self-concept

“as they move into the circle of the professional translators community” (2003, p. 389). Through

62 For further discussion of the socio-constructivist approach, see Kiraly (1995).

178

emphasizing the power of collaboration and setting up a supportive framework63 that gradually dissolves as students become more independent, students will be better prepared to engage in professional work as they are “capable of the flexibility, teamwork and problem-solving that are essential for success in the contemporary language industry, not to mention the creativity and independent thinking that have always been the hallmark of the finest translators” (Baer & Koby, 2003, p. viii).

Moving from the types of instructions to tasks used in training, the majority of instructors focus largely on the localization of webpages and the activities related to translation memory construction and termbase creation and maintenance. The predominance of web localization could be explained by market demand. The increase of web content volume represents one of the fastest growing and significant types of content to be localized (Pereira, 2018, p. 36). It could be that websites in general are relatively less technologically challenging and demanding compared to software. The use of translation memories and termbases always has been core to translator training and more particularly to localization. Kosaka &

Itagaki (2003) maintain “memory and terminology management tools are a vital part of documentation localization” (p. 235). Muegge (2014) explains that it is essential to have “students develop a deep understanding of the benefits of translation tools and the processes associated with these tools.” He further argues that

the most important tool that I teach, and which I insist students use for all localization projects, is the translation memory (TM) […] I want my students to look at translation memory systems as quality assurance tools first and productivity tools second. I believe that every localization project belongs in a translation memory system, regardless of whether or not there will be translation memory matches.

Besides an understanding and familiarity with the tools, technologies and their advantages in a localization setting, the ability to analyze and evaluate projects (evaluation of source content, assessing the tools, processes, and resources required to handle the content) along with applying quality assurance measures are common tasks in courses according to the participants. Lastly, the localization of software components and web editing was reported by half of the instructors as activities carried out in their

63 With reference to the “scaffolding” approach (Fisher, 1994, as cited in Kiraly, 2003).

179

courses. The non-prevalence of these modules in localization courses may be due to the complexity of software products (several layers: application, online help, documentation) and the risk of running into products that have not been properly internationalized which makes localization efforts even more complicated.

Based on the findings about training and for the sake of recapitulating the variety of instructors’ approaches and decisions, the instructors indicated what they anticipate their students to be able to do upon finishing training. Their expectations outlined two paths: 1) localization project management (being able to apply sound project management principles, manage stakeholders’ expectations, understand localization metrics, select appropriate quality management methods based on quality needs identified, and apply risk management as needed.) 2) localization linguist (being able to define key processes that drive and shape the language industry and its practices, using corpora, CAT tools and localization tools to efficiently produce localized versions of software and websites).

The skill sets identified as important to the instructors’ consensus can be grouped under four main headings:

 Management skills o Specifying and/or applying quality control procedures o Identifying client requirements o Identifying required resources o Producing quotes o Information management  Translation skills o Linguistic creativity o Translating accurately o Managing terminology  Soft skills o Analyzing and synthesizing o Engaging in professional development o Leading complex projects o Understanding of the industry and its professions

180

 Technology skills o Using translation memory (TM) tools o Advanced computing skills o Learning new tools and software packages The instructors’ assessment of the skills generates a new perspective as they agree unanimously son the importance of management skills related to vendor-customer relationship (establishing estimates, identifying needs and resources), and the management of the quality of the work produced. Given that most of the training in localization is housed in translator training programs, translation and terminology management skills were highlighted equally. Instructors did not miss the importance of soft skills.

However, the type of soft skills they agreed upon generally are more instrumental and do not involve interpersonal communication attributes. Generic translation technology skills also were underlined.

Nonetheless, and similar to the employers’ assessment, technology skills specific to localization did not generate clear agreement. The skill which marked a relative agreement with regards to its importance was the ability to understand software and video game localization processes. This is linked conceptually to declarative knowledge (understanding of localization concepts) rather than how those concepts are applied. The emphasis on project management skills reflects not only the instructors’ awareness of how translation and localization practice extend to incorporate business and management roles, the orientation of the program as a whole, and the instructors’ backgrounds. It points out how many of these skills are integral to the localization project manager’s evolving profile.

As curricula, teaching approaches, and skills were identified from a training standpoint, the instructors also shared their thoughts on the challenges they encounter while teaching localization and how they attempt to overcome them. Challenges ranged from those related to students’ profiles, to technology and to available resources. The disparity of students’ backgrounds, skill levels, and prior knowledge make it difficult to address their needs and remediate gaps especially with regard to computer literacy. This is related to program admission criteria and how students’ profiles are assessed. In most cases, requirements focus on language knowledge and proficiency and discount or ignore areas such as technology and computer skills which impact students’ readiness to use CAT tools. Instructors tried to

181

develop introductory modules or workshops to better prepare students for more advanced technology courses, devote more class time to aspects of technology more complex and demanding, or postpone an introduction to tools until later in the program. The technology challenges related to the use of tools, assisting students with software installation, troubleshooting issues, and having access to new programs and features released on a regular basis. To overcome such technical difficulties, instructors are using computer labs equipped with necessary tools (i.e., educational packages of software licenses) and monitored by departments’ IT support units. Another challenge mentioned is the lack of teaching resources, with no access to project source files to localize proprietary content and NDAs. Instructors work on developing their own materials or seek to establish partnerships with companies willing to share materials or permit some of their content to be localized by students in training. Finding teaching resources, particularly for emerging specialized academic fields is difficult as Schäler (2007) points out:

A crucial element for education and training in the field of localization is that of access to suitable teaching resources […] such as sample files, case studies, tests and examination guidelines to support teaching. However a number of providers still see such materials as their ‘competitive advantage’, rather than a resource that should be shared and made accessible free-of-charge. (p. 127–128).

This is one of the reasons the European Union has funded a number of multilingual e-learning projects.

The goal is to facilitate the sharing of resources and training materials for localization, such as the eColoRe (eContent Localization Resources for Translator Training) initiative conducted between 2002 and 2005 “to support localization of eContent and computer assisted translation (CAT) training”

(Drázdilová et al., 2010, p. 212). An extension of this project was launched by the EU as MeLLange

(Multilingual e-learning in LANGuage Engineering) between 2005 and 2007 to collaboratively produce training resources tailored to the needs of the translation market “using academic and industry groups from eight language countries” (Drázdilová et al., 2010, p. 212). MeLLange was intended to encompass the changes and address the evolving skills of the profession and better serve the needs of language

182

professionals. These initiatives i.e., eCoLoRe, eCoLoMedia and eCoLoTrain64 mentioned in the literature review, were recently revived by Translation Commons, a nonprofit U.S. public charity operating on a volunteer base. The idea of establishing collaborations with the industry presents an ideal approach to inform curricular decisions and regularly develop relevant training content. This curricular concern was expressed by instructors during the interviews, especially with the complexity of processes and emergence of new roles and requirements.

The global theme indicates that the pathway to training localization practitioners is through training in translation, defined as a “typically vocational activity which is often based in, and in other ways contingent on, academic settings” (Kearns, 2008, p. 185). Based on the description and contextualization of training settings mentioned earlier in this section, training seems to be serving the most profiles in localization linguists and project managers with advanced technology knowledge.

According to the instructors, training tends to capitalize on the foundation of translation and localization and the use of tools and integration of processes. There are no documented curricular or pedagogical models for localization these findings could be verified against. Although extensive research has been done on translator training, empirical research into localization training and skills set is almost nonexistent. Such research might address abstractly what are assumed to be practices as extrapolated from the work of localization practitioners or provide individual narratives of how instructors are teaching a localization module or course somewhere in the world65.

3. Divergence and Convergence: Is There a Gap?

a. How does the industry perceive localization training?

As the volume and significance of multilingual content increased over the last two decades, the demand for localization was amplified. Changes in the translation industry ecosystem (Shreve, 2000)

64 These EU initiatives targeting the compilation of sharable resources for translation training and translation technology are now available via Translation Commons. 65 For case studies on localization teaching, see Austermühl (2006); Mileto & Muzii (2010); Shuttleworth (2010); De la Paix & Tarquini (2012); Olvedo-Lobo & Gutiérrez-Artacho (2017).

183

impacted the nature of projects, tasks, the skills necessary to carry out localization assignments, and career prospects. These ongoing changes presented training with a number of opportunities and challenges to which it had to be constantly responsive, as Washbourne (2012) noted, “translation schools and programs are catching up with these new realities and demands” (p. 5624). One of the main objectives of this study is to bring together on a small scale the discourses of industry and academic communities. Therefore, a good portion of the data for this study addressed different stakeholders’ attitudes toward and perceptions of training. More than two- thirds of the employers believe that localization training is important for localization practice with respect to the overall understanding of concepts (i.e., translation, internationalization, and localization), project components, and processes. They also believe training is key to refining research and documentation skills, in addition to knowledge and familiarity with tools, testing and troubleshooting. Participants also mentioned several types of relevant management skills that training helps introduce, such as terminology management and project management. One of the employers pointed out what training could help in preparing vendors to engage in localization-related work:

“We're mostly handling the localization heavy-lifting in-house, so by the time our translators come into play, it's mostly just a "translation job." However, what really helps is if vendors can follow detailed instructions (a super Skopos, if you will), which is the reality of the industry, not the exception. Sadly, very, very few vendors can handle complex instructions, are able to deal with and negotiate ambiguity, and extremely few are able to 'think outside the box' beyond what the instructions explicitly state and to do what is implied. This happens more so for Asian and African languages, but even for ubiquitous languages such as Arabic we often run into issues with instructions because vendors just don't know English well enough (which is rather scary). I think it also helps if vendors are comfortable with software, old and new, and take risks while exploring new features. A tremendous plus is if vendors can avoid donkey work, a term we're using for laborious, low-skill activities that have to be done but that don't require much skill.” (Anonymous employer).

Employers shared their thoughts on the strengths and limitations of practitioners who pursued training. In terms of training advantages, participants highlighted technical skills and the ability to process different file types and use a number of CAT tools as using technology has become an imperative given “the increasingly pervasive use of translation memory tools, machine-aided translation systems, speech processing software, multilingual document management applications and website localization” (Rico

184

Pérez, 2010, p. 99). Moreover, employers believe trained localization practitioners tend to be more organized, detail-oriented, willing to learn new processes and tools, and capable of working independently to solve problems as these two employers expressed:

“1. Agile work practices -- being able to adapt to project changes while still being able to deliver quality deliverables to the client's expectations 2. Organization - good documentation skills to record project changes and file transfers 3. Communication with team members to ensure that everyone understands the final goal and the steps needed to get there.”(Anonymous employer). “The two or three people I can think of that I just happen to know have some form of localization training are either former employees or long-term translators for us, all German natives, who just rock at complex instructions and making sound decisions based on parameters I'm providing in (always incomplete) instructions. They also never require babysitting, by which I mean that they volunteer just the right amount of information and anticipate the questions I'll ask, whereas other vendors have a tendency to play catch with me across several days and emails until I finally find out what these other exceptional vendors provide voluntarily in their first email to me.” (Anonymous employer).

Considering the limitations of trained localization practitioners, employers believe candidates lack an understanding of the business world and the concept of customer service. They lack an understanding of

“the big picture.” They also demonstrate very limited interpersonal, communication, business, and negotiation skills in addition to the inability to follow directions and meet deadlines:

“1. File prep and file post-processing. 2. Implementing technology for QA-ing translations. 3. Scoping, planning and streamlining long-term complex multilingual projects.” (Anonymous employer). “I think generally it's a problem if I have to babysit someone, and by that I don't mean regarding a skill that they don't have or a piece of technology they don't yet know. It's more about independent decision-making…” (Anonymous employer).

Very similar to the findings discussed in section 5.1, employers’ views on the value of training reiterate the importance of soft skills, business acumen, and how such skills tend to be missing across the board in localization practitioners. Lawless explains that “employers in localization need to recognize that a college degree shouldn’t be the chief entry-level qualification for new hires […] Companies such as

Southwest Airlines demonstrate that hiring for attitude and training for skills is the right way” (2015, p.

23). Looking forward, employers say training will need to be more in tune with what is happening in the industry or even be ahead of it as more technological change and complex business practices emerge:

“Instructions will get more and more complex, so if universities can contribute to teaching practitioners how to parse and apply complex instructions that would be a great help. I also think that a certain awareness of cultural differences comes in handy, especially when working in a

185

team. Other than that I think it helps tremendously if practitioners understand that they play just a tiny, tiny role in a much larger process. If they know why things happen the way they do, the can learn how to either provide feedback to improve processes or learn to cope with, for instance, lack of context and other, nowadays ubiquitous localization issues.” (Anonymous employer). “Fast pace of technology, working with content management systems and content extraction. MT is getting better and due to the fact that companies need to put out large amounts of information quickly; MT is going to be an option that will be used more.” (Anonymous employer).

Discussing training advantages and limitations from a practitioners’ standpoint yields similar emphasis to that of employers. Practitioners stressed that training helps familiarize candidates with CAT tools and localization tools and introduces a conceptual understanding of the linguistic and cultural aspects of localization:

“Provide a structure to the topic to further learn on one's own. Help develop a project management framework. It can also be a door-opener for less computer-savvy practitioners.” (Anonymous practitioner). “1) Raising an awareness of the target language/locale linguistic diversity. 2) The need and importance to understand the target market. 3) The use of CAT tools.” (Anonymous practitioner).

However, practitioners, on their end, did not touch upon any management or soft skills that employers believe enhance training. On the other hand, practitioners’ view training limitations as the lack of training opportunities, and the absence of a variety of offerings, which has been the case for years. As Singh

(2008) argues “both from the academic and the business point of view, there is a deficit in knowledge and course offerings teaching how to successfully design international websites, localize applications, and develop a website globalization strategy.” According to them, the few programs available tend to be cursory or follow a “one-size-fits-all” approach which hinders learning, especially when there are candidates with diverse backgrounds, needs and expectations.

“1) Not enough qualified/knowledgeable staff to handle localization. 2) Not enough time to cover the versatility of localization. 3) Dearth of training material available for localization professionals.” (Anonymous practitioner). “Difficulty to abstract localization market needs into a curriculum. Possible constraints to relevant feedback delivery by instructors (number of students, time constraints). Dearth of emphasis on the fact that, in many cases, the localization practitioner is also an entrepreneur.” (Anonymous practitioner). “Often too specific (this language; this software) Trying to "upgrade" various students to the same level forgetting people with engineering/computer science backgrounds need to be better trained on translation/localization issues, while those with a translation background need to be better trained on technical skills.” (Anonymous practitioner).

186

Industry assessment of localization training juxtaposes two visions which, by extension, have different expectations of training. The hiring force sees training a leveler which provides the technical preparation and understanding of the subject field, its concepts, and creates the readiness to be trainable. Yet, employers still believe that training is deprived of opportunities to foster soft skills or to lay the foundation for an ample understanding of business, sales, and management processes. In this respect,

Muzii (2013) presents a counter argument, promoting the idea of focusing on trainable candidates and the benefits of ongoing internal training and professional development opportunities:

Rather than simply complaining about the lack of qualified resources and blame translation schools, employers must reconsider their notion of the perfect candidate. Instead, they should look for individuals who can grow into model employees for their companies, including current staff, and integrate the education of new translators with post-graduate courses, workshops, conferences and webinars for free or at discounted charges. (p. 24).

Other practitioners (labor force), perceive training as a door opener to the industry which offers the possibility to become familiar with tools and perhaps gain a solid technology background and a clearer idea of what the industry involves.

b. How does academia perceive localization training?

In the light of industry views on training, instructors shared their insights. For them, training offers a structured framework to inform, orient, and train graduates and future practitioners about standardized industry practices, particularly in an emerging field for which there is not enough information or resources available. According to them, training offers a fair balance by combining academic rigor, practical and theoretical activities, and skill sets necessary for the profession:

“For students with good language skills and good soft skills, our program can give them a leg up in breaking into the localization industry. For localization programs in general, the top three strengths would probably be that (1) they give students an opportunity to try out some of the tools of the trade, (2) that they familiarize students with the concepts and practices of the trade, and (3) that they give students the confidence and basic experience needed to continue their studies or otherwise develop their talents further” (Anonymous instructor).

Instructors also believe the path to achieving training goals is not as easy or as challenge-free as desired.

They made reference to the lack of localization standards and to the fact there is no clear definition for the profile of a “localizer” or “localizer/translator,” the roles and duties related to the profile, and what such

187

profiles are supposed to be or expected to perform. The cost and availability of software is another concern given how crucial the use of tools is in practice. Additional limitations the instructors mentioned are the lack of resources, textbooks, instructional materials, paired with the broad scope of localization, which translates into broad projects and activities. These deficiencies compound the difficulty of capturing such breadth within one course:

“There is not enough access to tools of the trade. Our students often do not have coding / programming knowledge and may or may not be fluent in their second language” (Anonymous instructor). “In rapidly expanding and developing profession, curriculum struggles to stay abreast of industry. There is a lack of coordination and sharing of information; best-practices not universal; and a lack of progressive emphasis, usually introductions to topic only” (Anonymous instructor).

Instructors’ concerns about the challenges of localization training reflect the absence of a defined infrastructure, supported by research that could inform the placement of localization in the curriculum as well as the “what” and “how” to address it as a subject field. This lack of a tentatively standard curriculum or formalized training (a blend of technological, engineering, management, and language training) catered to localization professionals echoes a disconnect within the industry and the absence of a dialogue between hiring and training institutions. This is a matter that Drouin (2006) called attention to over a decade ago: “without proper interaction between the industry and the training institutions, we will end up with training programs that do not reflect the needs of the industry, and industry expectations that differ significantly from the training offered” (p. 52). Wright (2004) explains that approaches to the teaching of localization have been “ad hoc as opposed to being grounded in sound pedagogical theory” (p.

593) and what is needed evidently is empirical research that helps in setting up “ideal training approaches, with an emphasis on testing how people learn and use tools” (p. 594). For Pym, the role of training institutions is not answering the immediate needs of the industry and filling labor gaps, but rather to “be able to train people for long, adventurous and multi-faceted careers, for the long-term well-being of both the graduate and the industry itself” (Pym, 2014, p. 49). He considers that “university-level training courses have become one of the main ways in which academic research might hope to speak to the

188

translation professions, perhaps helping to inform their future” (2009) though that hoped-for impact appears to be working the other way around where industry practice is influencing academia (Pym, 2009).

4. Moving forward (How to Improve on Training)

a. Industry talk.

Upon establishing a picture of current localization training strengths and limitations in the light of industry needs, hopes, and expectations, it will be useful to examine what the three stakeholders envision about the future of training and the ways it could be improved. The recommendation provided most frequently by participating employers was the necessity for closer collaboration between training programs and industry professionals to benefit from employers’ feedback and to stay up-to-date with the market. Employers stressed the importance of training components that directly target specific requirements of localization practice:

“Localization education must incorporate the needs of the market, so training must be practical, not just theoretical. Students must be provided training that has real-world applications. University training therefore must be provided in partnership with industry and also create new types of partnerships with organizations that may not have the slots and budget to hire interns.” (Anonymous employer).

Collaborations can take different shapes and forms. There may be collaborations at the level of curriculum design where a professional advisory board could be consulted about the content of training programs to mitigate knowledge gaps. Collaboration also can mean inviting industry professionals to deliver or facilitate seminars or workshops periodically. In this respect, Wright (2004) suggests another level of collaboration in which academic programs could act as testing labs that provide feedback to industry on usage and performance of technologies. Such feedback could enhance tool design and implementation and “can eventually provide consistent ‘pay back’ for industry investment in educational programs” (p. 594). Other recommendations addressed the need for in-depth training on technology and hands-on experience via practicums or internships. The interaction between market and academia is crucial to facilitate graduates’ work placement and integration into the industry:

“Providing students with tools and resources for continuous professional development, as well as internship opportunities with LSPs. Focusing on developing students' technical and trouble-

189

shooting skills, training students to test the end product linguistically and functionally in its final environment.” (Anonymous employer).

The focus on technology was de-emphasized by some participants, who find more value by centering training around soft skills because technology training could be part of on-the-job training:

“Especially in emerging markets, and by that I mean anything from the Arabic-speaking world to China and Africa, we need much better training infrastructure that goes beyond just teaching how to translate but that includes critical thinking, team work, learning about cultural differences, autonomy, communication, etc. In my context you learn the tools and processes on the job. That's not so much the problem, unless of course our vendors have never seen a computer. So, the real challenge is when people cannot communicate, don't volunteer necessary information or ask questions, in short, don't think critically. That's when things start to go wrong and unfortunately these aspects are difficult to bring across to someone by the time they've entered the industry.” (Anonymous employer)

Clearly, training is expected to balance out the technical aptitude and subject matter expertise with communication skills and social skills that ensure a high comfort level in working with different professionals (i.e., linguists, engineers, clients, managers, etc.). As Moore (2018) explains, “you need hard skills because the industry has become a lot more technical as far as software, tools and automation are concerned. You need soft skills to deal with external and internal stakeholders” (as cited in Melnikova,

2018, p. 43). In addition to stressing the need for collaboration between companies and training programs, practitioners were particularly interested in the set up and content of training, given their dual experience with training before joining the industry:

“Including more aspects of localization to the curriculum (e.g. language engineering, terminology management, machine translation, etc.); providing detailed feedback on projects; having a well-balanced curriculum that includes both comprehensive lectures and hands-on projects.” (Anonymous practitioner). “It would be a good way to increase the hours of exposure to actual tasks followed by through feedback. Class sizes could be reduced; courses could be extended to cover a broader range and targeted specifically to learners' skill levels.” (Anonymous practitioner). “I think a variety of situations should be addressed, different tools should be used, and more importantly more time needs to be allotted for localization training. It is very important to have translation training in order to understand the challenges of localization. However, I also think that it is extremely important to dedicate more time to localization, and the use and understanding of new tools and technologies, in order to prepare good localization professionals.” (Anonymous practitioner).

Practitioners emphasize the value of well-rounded curricula that enable them to be market-ready. They aspire for training opportunities that fully address the components and processes of a localization project

190

from content authoring, internationalization, understanding of programming and markup languages to business and marketing (from start to finish). They also noted the importance of receiving feedback about their learning and performance which ideally should be task-oriented, target the process followed, the output achieved, and areas for improvement. Practitioners stress the need for thorough feedback because training is usually the only setting in which their performance is being assessed formally. Practitioners did not fail to comment on the logistics of training and how training could benefit from smaller class sizes and more exposure to technologies.

To recapitulate from a global perspective, localization industry professionals recognize the significance of training and realize how their contribution to training can impact training content and improve job prospects for graduates. Based on the questionnaires and interview data, these employers and practitioners tend to agree on training objectives:

 Inclusion of soft skills in localization training, given the different levels and layers of interactions

and the team-based working model that localization projects entail.

 Professionalization modules that address localization as a service and as a profession and raise

ethical awareness among practitioners and newcomers.

 An understanding of the industry “ecosystem” (Shreve, 2000) and localization roles and profiles

on the seller and buyer sides.

 An understanding of business processes and the issues that arise during localization projects.

 An integration of localization technologies, engineering, internationalization, test automation

(scripting), systems integration, and computational linguistics for machine translation (MT).

 An interdisciplinary approach to training which brings together the linguistic, business,

engineering and technological considerations/ points of view.

 Establishing solid collaborations in which industry can become increasingly involved with

training by investing in technology and infrastructure, providing consultation/feedback with

regards to curricula and resources to maintain course content up-to-date.

191

 Diversified training opportunities that are specialized (localization specific), accessible (covering

different levels and modalities, i.e., degree, certificate programs, distance learning and face-to-

face), adaptive and responsive to learners’ needs and to current and future industry trends.

It could be critical to integrate these recommendations into one program. Yet, it is possible to establish dual degrees in conjunction with interdepartmental partnerships or to identify a selection of electives across disciplines to help meet different facets of a full-fledged localization training model. As long as a wide range of strategic localization knowledge and skill areas is being targeted with an emphasis on interpersonal skills and professionalization, a hybrid and comprehensive training is possible.

b. Academia talk

As far as instructors are concerned, their opinions echo some industry thoughts, especially regarding collaboration with companies and with their academic colleagues. The major need for training resources, and for access to authentic projects, resonates with the European initiatives launched in the

2000s, such as eCoLoRe and MeLLange to tailor training outcomes to industry requirements and expectations. Similar initiatives will need to be initiated in North America in order to coordinate efforts and share information. Another way to facilitate access to materials would be to partner with the open- source initiative and work with the community of open source software developers and contributors.

More collaboration with companies; more access to resources (maybe creating a poll of resources such as the one eCoLoRe created, but more updated) (Anonymous instructor) Having the industry recognize and support professional training and certification in this area would help validate efforts and encourage programs. (Anonymous instructor).

Instructors argued that industry should establish standards for the profession and define profiles and career paths which could inform training. They also support the idea of creating venues where industry professionals and academicians can discuss their respective views, needs, and expectations, find common ground, and identify action items for follow-up. This was summarized by one instructor, who identified three needs as essential:

1) More support from the industry; 2) access to better tools; 3) better training of instructors. (Anonymous instructor).

192

According to instructors, industry support is essential due to the rapidly expanding and evolving profession. Such support could provide access to technology (tools, publishers or funding for labs) and force revisions of curricula. Curriculum responsiveness remains a central challenge in localization training, i.e., the time lag between identifying curricular needs from analyses of market context, designing a pedagogical solution and implementing the solution, and then bringing in another round of analysis.

Troyer (2018), the coordinator of the localization program at MIIS, explains how their MA program has evolved to accommodate industry needs:

The program was first started in 2004, and it started small. We were first giving CAT tools, localization project management and software localization courses […] there are currently four or five courses focusing on translation technology. Recent additions to the curriculum include advanced JavaScript classes, advanced project management and program management. Natural language processing and computational linguistics will be added down the road. (p. 44).

Certainly a curriculum cannot respond to every single change or anticipate all future market requirements.

Ideally, curriculum designers would select major trends and design curricula valid for reasonable lengths of time. Kelly (2010) states that:

Universities should cater in their curricular design not only for the present, but for the future social and market needs. This clearly requires profound knowledge of the present and future trends, close contact with the market, and forward-looking staff responsible for the design process. (p. 89).

In view of the industry’s evolution and curricular challenges, Shreve (2000) believes that one way to solve the dilemma is to agree on skill set models that are not subject to change and are viable for the industry. Models that combine “plain critical thinking, management skills, and basic understanding of the core processes of the industry” (p. 230) with tools- and process-related skills, can be “parts of the curricula that must address the fast-changing skills [that] must be configured so they can be re-evaluated and renewed every few years” (Shreve, 2000, p. 230).

With the movement the industry is leading, instructors asserted that localization training will need to keep abreast of changes and it must incorporate training for trainers. Questions about curriculum structure and updating must address concerns about who is charge of delivering the curriculum content.

The question of who is most suitable to teach localization has not been addressed and it is common

193

knowledge that instructors come from different walks of life and have different backgrounds and approaches to training. No matter how much the professional and academic dimensions of training are essential for localization, very little attention was paid to training the trainers. The few research attempts thus far in translation studies have not looked into trainers in localization. Shreve (2000) argues that one way to counter training challenges posed by exponential growth of the industry is “to find ways for our faculty to mentor in the provider segment and, conversely, to bring localizers, project managers and language industry executives into our classrooms for both short and long term sharing of expertise” (p.

230). This solution advances another level of collaboration for stakeholders and confirms what Gouadec

(2007) calls for. He recommends that academics should know what the professional world is about and how professionals must familiarize themselves with the theories, methodologies and models (p. 350).

Orlando (2016) takes it a step further, identifying parties responsible for such matters:

I believe it is the responsibility of universities to promote research on professional practice, models and protocols so that their teaching staff members are shown how research can gain from practice, how practice can gain from research, and how these gains can be turned into effective pedagogical tools to be implemented in the curriculum. (p. 38).

Academia has been pressured to articulate the link between its curricula and the market its graduates will be serving. It has also faced challenges regarding the “pedagogical practice, curriculum design and the possible contributions of research” (Pym, 2009). Because current training programs supply a portion of labor force for the localization industry, the assumption is that the more industry and academia interact the better both parties can respond to each other’s needs. In the light of this study, instructors believe that the future of localization training lies in:

 Identifying localization-related knowledge, skills and attitudes required by the industry and

formulating outcomes associated with them.

 Promoting the visibility of training programs so that employers are aware of their existence.

 Initiating coursework that is built on partnerships between instructors and industry

professionals that involve case studies and simulations with de-briefings and post-mortems.

 Focusing on standard/established and new technologies (neural networks, machine learning).

194

 Diversified and more in-depth course offerings that address different skills, levels and aspects

of the professions (technical, entrepreneurial etc.).

 Compiling sharable training resources and materials that help authenticate training.

 Inclusion of translation and localization industry standards to raise awareness about industry

best practices (ASTM F257566; ISO 1710067; ISO 900168; SAE J245069; EN 1503870).

 Creating professional development venues for instructors as part of industry-academia

collaborations (i.e., scheduling/planning workshops or sessions targeting instructors during

industry conferences).

 Establishing guided internships and experiential learning opportunities as part of the core

curriculum.

 Keeping a record of graduates work placements to identify the types of career paths and

industries they qualified to work for.

 Research that examines and documents industry practices and explores pedagogical

implications of localization in the context of training.

To implement these recommendations, different levels and degrees of collaborations will need to occur.

The first level of collaboration needs to be within academia, involving inter- or cross- departmental partnerships to create eclectic degree programs that allow for flexible concentrations (i.e., language, translation, computer science, business, communication, digital science, etc.) to synergize and account for the many localization requisites. The second level of collaboration needs to be among companies, professional associations, and representatives of translation and localization employers within the industry to standardize working profiles, requirements for entry into the profession, and to formalize and centralize internship opportunities. The third level of collaboration will can bring together the two major

66 Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation 67 Requirements for Translation Services 68 Quality Management 69 Translation Quality Metric 70 European Standard for Translation Services

195

stakeholders: academic and industry institutions to share and exchange expertise and “develop benchmarks and recognizable labels to ensure that the right and necessary aptitudes and skills are taught in the course of studies” (Orlando, 2016, p. 26) and to differentiate between the expected outcomes of the different training models available for localization (i.e., graduate, undergraduate degrees, certificates).

Advances in translation studies training, pedagogy and research have attempted to capture the realities of the professional world and to account for the economic and technological changes that heavily impacted the practice. Unfortunately, strides made in the discipline, in both teaching and research, have not taken into account localization. It often was perceived as a technological skill added to the list of technological competencies that today’s translators needed to develop. The dearth of research in this area, and the lack of properly trained specialized professionals or trainers reflect the lack of visibility and recognition of localization as a discipline situated at the crossroads of many other disciplines. It also shows that even though localization is at the forefront of the language industry and is one of the key tools of globalization; its training is affected by geographical location, economic factors, societal contexts, and academic constraints. These variables, along with the absence of professional standards, make it challenging to outline a single and universal training model.

This chapter provided an interpretation of the results and information obtained from the corpus, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The discussion aggregated the data in view of the stakeholders involved and highlighted their perspectives on training in addition to their views on skills required for professional practice. The discussion, organized around the research questions underlining the study, looked carefully at the convergences and divergences in the views and expectations of industry and academia. Recommendations were offered by both parties for moving forward with localization training to stay abreast of market growth and the growth in demand for trained practitioners. Chapter 6 will offer a summary of the study and will address the implications and limitations of these findings and future research directions.

196

Chapter 6: Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to provide a framework for examining the alleged divide between localization training and practice and to suggest how this divide might be bridged. A dual focus sought to see how professional practice and market research can inform the education and training of future localization practitioners and generate a requirement-gathering model of localization roles and skills specifications. Olohan (2007) maintains that “the analyses of the market, of employment trends, of translator profiles and of developments in standards for translation services are highly relevant for translator training because they can provide input for the translator training curriculum and syllabus” (p.

54). Accordingly, this research approach utilized a tri-dimensional comparison of input and views elicited from three active stakeholders: employers, practitioners and instructors as indicated in Figure 54. While the views of the three stakeholder groups converge and diverge, the commonalities that emerged from their practical observations provide new insights into enhancing localization training. Previous chapters have presented the multi-faceted realities of the burgeoning language services industry. Current data and projected growth estimates demonstrate the services market’s unprecedented development over the last two decades and suggest that this growth will continue over the medium term. The increasing economic importance of localization, combined with advances that characterize translation technology and processes (most notably semi-automation via CAT tools, and more recently, full automation via process workflows and machine translation), have opened the door to different job opportunities that transcend borders. Globalization and continuing technological innovations, both strong market drivers, have led to higher demands for multilingual communication, i.e., a greater need for translation and localization. This

197

evolution has substantially impacted the nature, tasks, working methods, and profiles of localization practitioners, and shifted the traditional roles and duties of language mediators. This, in turn, has presented new challenges to practitioners and training institutions, requiring higher levels of adaptability to market changes in order to meet market demands.

Figure 54. Relationship between academic and industry stakeholders in light of the services that the market requires.

1. Summary of the Study

The findings of this study are manifold. As the research endeavored to identify localization profiles, skill sets and market requirements, two pressing question emerged: (1) What is localization? and

(2) What does “localization” mean to its different stakeholders? One of the primary conclusions to be drawn from this study is the necessity for the industry and the discipline to define its terms and

198

standardize its concepts. Much of the linguistic imprecision that characterizes the JDs corpus reflects a lack of consensus about localization job titles, profiles, roles and expectations. The absence of standards is due partly to the variety of ways and settings in which localization is practiced and to the various levels of capability maturity of companies that provide localization services.

Three major categories of localization job profiles emerge from the analysis of the job descriptions. The most prominent category, as evidenced by the data, encompassed the business functions of the industry, i.e., project management, sales, marketing, and vendor management. The second category consists of technical roles related to the adaptation and transformation of digital content and products across different platforms. These roles encompass localization and internationalization engineering, testing and quality assurance. The third and least prominent category includes such linguistic roles as translation, editing, proofreading and linguistic testing services. It is worth observing here that the job descriptions are part of advertisements for full-time in-house positions. The relatively low frequency of linguistic roles in the job descriptions that comprised the corpus in this study thus suggests that translation, editing and linguistic testing are generally outsourced. With respect to the hiring criteria for localization practitioners, the job descriptions emphasized management experience, followed by localization experience. Professional industry experience was third. These findings highlight the increasingly prominent role of management in the language industry. According to Beninatto and Johnson (2017)

“project management is the most crucial function of the LSP. Project management has the potential to most powerfully impact an LSP’s ability to add value to the language services value chain.” (as cited in

Melnikova, 2018, p. 41)

In terms of skill sets, the corpus revealed a strong interest in soft skills, as opposed to the technical skills inherently related to localization tasks. The focus on communication, organization, and problem-solving skills is consistent with research findings conducted in other fields, such as psychology, cognition, business, employability and labor economics. Soft skills, social skills and other people skills present a major differentiator in the workplace, according to the research. Speaking about the skills most needed in the future of the language industry at the fall 2017 Localization World conference in Silicon

199

Valley, Erica Orange (2017), Executive Vice-President and COO of the futurist consulting firm The

Future Hunters, argues that:

The skills that humans need to acquire are skills that cannot be replaced by robots. Creativity will be a cornerstone! We need to develop soft values like empathy, social skills, cultural nuances, ethical stand points and so on. When recruiting, we will have to look for “mindkind” rather than mankind.

In addition to required experience and skills, the industry seeks individuals with an advanced knowledge of software applications and a focus on CAT tools and localization tools. Major technologies supporting the localization process and workflow are essential: “Without automation, this industry would not be able to meet the ballooning language needs of its customers . . . . Automation helps language service providers deliver jobs more efficiently, consistently, and cost-effectively” (DePalma, Pielmeier, Lommel, and

Stewart, 2017, p. 29). Educational requirements for future hires indicate a significant preference for undergraduate over graduate degrees, due most likely to market forces and the availability of suitable hires (or lack thereof). It is also possible that hiring candidates with undergraduate degrees and the necessary experience and desired skill sets is more economical. In terms of specialties, the linguistic analysis of the JDs indicates a preference for computer science degrees, followed by engineering and localization degrees. The preference for these educational backgrounds is not mirrored in localization training offering in the U.S., where localization courses are hosted in translation studies departments, foreign language departments or continuing education units. Localization education and training is not currently housed in, or offered by, computer science or engineering departments. This discrepancy between the preferred educational backgrounds identified in the JDs and the reality of current localization education and training offerings may reflect the fact that the companies who created the JDs seek candidates with eclectic backgrounds that do not necessarily match the outcomes of local or national training options; that the companies’ selection parameters are not the result of thorough market analysis; or that the companies fail to use descriptors that correspond to available training.

Along with the JD findings, participating employers shared their hiring criteria regarding freelance localization vendors. They report that academic credentials in the form of degrees or certificates

200

in translation/localization are required in addition to an average of three years of experience. Given the outsourced nature of the jobs and tasks employers want to subcontract, employers appear to be interested more in localization and translation experience than in language training. They also place importance on experience with CAT tools and subject matter expertise. Management experience was of no concern to the employers because the assignments are sub-contracted. Employers also concurred on the importance of soft skills, followed by management skills and translation technology skills. In general, industry views elicited from the JDs analysis, along with the questionnaire and interviews targeting employers, underscore the perceived value of hiring candidates trained in the field and who have industry experience in areas key to localization industry, i.e., management, localization, and mainstream translation technologies. Employers’ views also highlighted the centrality of soft skills and the importance of an understanding of industry processes, stakeholders, roles, and services.

Input about industry requirements was sought not only from employers, but also from practitioners, most of whom work as freelancers. Their experience suggests that website localization drives the demand for localization services, followed by software localization and to a lesser extent the localization of other types of digital content, such as games, mobile content and multimedia. As principal participants in the outsourcing production process in this industry, freelancers are expected to perform different tasks, to meet different requirements and to possess different skills than in-house practitioners.

The skills identified as required by practitioners differ widely from those specified by employers. The number one skill valued by all freelance practitioners was the ability to work autonomously, given the fact that they perform their work independently and without direct supervision. These practitioners underlined the importance of translation skills and of possessing a thorough and comprehensive understanding of languages and cultures. They also stressed the advantages of establishing and maintaining good customer relationships and of having a good understanding of marketing and business processes.

Interestingly, there was less consensus concerning technology-related skills; opinions about which skills matter most or are of greater importance were disjointed both within and between the

201

employer and practitioner groups. This could be due to a lack of clear specification of roles and duties and the technical knowledge and aptitude called for by these roles and duties, or it could be related to the types of provided by the localization service companies

Although the first localization training efforts and curricular discussions took place in Europe in the late 1990s, the U.S. did not see its first localization concepts incorporated into training until the 2000s.

The Limerick Graduate Diploma/MSc in Software Localization, founded in 1997, and the LETRAC initiative, launched in 1998, were designed to develop a modular, market-oriented curriculum combining

IT, engineering and translation. Early U.S. efforts, devoted to modules or courses within translation degrees, have been followed by seven Master’s degree programs and 10 certificate programs (8 graduate and 2 undergraduate) offered by 13 U.S. institutions that have a course or two in their curricula. The predominance of localization course offerings at the graduate level underscores the degree of specialization required by localization, which is difficult to integrate into undergraduate programs, where students are still developing language proficiency and translation skills.

Unlike the Limerick program, which is housed in the department of Computer Science &

Information Systems, most current localization courses or programs are hosted within language departments, translation studies or continuing education units. This structure likely stems from the fact that translation is “an integral and central part of localization” (Austermühl, 2006, p. 69). Indeed, the emergence of localization as a practice distinct from translation occurred precisely when software publishers attempted to “translate” their software in preparation for release in other markets. The digital revolution and the advent of the Internet subsequently increased the demand for translators capable of performing localization tasks. Another possible reason why localization courses and programs tend to be housed in language departments, translation studies or continuing education units is that it is easier to make a case for including localization courses in established and accredited academic programs than to create full-fledged localization training programs from scratch. The corpus under study looked at all instances where localization was part of a translator training curriculum. With the exception of one MA degree specialized in translation and localization management involving seven 2-credit-hour courses, the

202

balance of the programs offer curricula comprised on 3-credit-hour courses. An overview of the 28 localization courses in the corpus indicates some patterns. Certain courses, such as introduction to localization, localization marketing, translation technology and localization project management, are offered by multiple programs. The offering of certain courses across multiple programs suggests the contours of an emerging consensus about the types of courses that should be offered. Conversely, single- instance courses seem to specialize in one type of localization (e.g., software, website, games or multilingual desktop publishing). The variety of reflects curricular decisions related to the location, industry support, the market segment targeted, and staffing considerations. The training programs and courses surveyed appear to place heavy emphasis on technology skills, reflecting the role played by technology as a driving force in the birth and evolution of the industry. Technology is often seen as the defining feature of localization, particularly because the content being processed necessitates the use of specialized technology. However, although professional localization practice does indeed rely heavily on technology, it also crosses into other functional areas and requires a set of skills that are not technology- bound. In the absence of market needs analyses, clear industry expectations, and defined tasks and roles, training is left with technology as a selling point without addressing the range of important skills within the scope of professional practice. Training programs demonstrate different approaches towards language.

Some certificate programs do not offer any other languages other than English and others are open to any foreign language. Some programs choose to specialize in a single language combination (English plus one foreign language) while several other programs opt for a multilingual training that includes mostly

European languages, and a few Middle Eastern and Asian languages. Current offerings do not take into account languages of lesser diffusion.

Aside from the analysis of academic programs offered, the results of the questionnaire targeting localization instructors corroborated many findings and allowed an in-depth view of the content and styles of instruction. Localization courses are offered both as core courses and electives; most are offered in a face-to-face modality. Some of the courses are practice-oriented and others are more theoretical.

Instructors considered discussions, individual and group projects, case studies, and lectures as important

203

modes of instruction, followed by simulation exercises and readings. Most of these methods are in line with the socio-constructivist approach that promotes collaboration, and which subscribes to the concept that knowledge and meaning are constructed through social, interpersonal interactions and cognitive thinking processes (Kiraly, 2000). This model, along with its teaching techniques, helps create a sense of community and develops a critically needed group dynamic in localization practice, in which the disaggregation of work and international outsourcing have led to increased reliance on the use of cross- functional and global virtual project teams. In terms of the most prevalent tasks assigned in localization courses, instructors reported a great focus on the localization of webpages and the use of translation memory and terminology management. The localization of software, in contrast, was less salient as only half the instructors addressed it in their syllabi. In addition to gaining familiarity with tools and with the advantages and limitations of tools, instructors expressed a desire to help students develop the ability to assess projects and decide on the processes and resources necessary to handle different types of content while applying quality assurance measures.

Instructors unanimously agreed on the importance of management skills as reflected in vendor- customer relationships, information management, and quality management. This emphasis on project management skills captures the instructors’ awareness and willingness to incorporate the expanding business roles and functions coming to the industry’s fore. They also highlighted the importance of translation skills, followed by soft skills. The types of soft skills deemed essential by the instructors are primarily instrumental and do not involve interpersonal or communication skills. On the other hand, as was the case with the employers and practitioners, the category of technology skills in the questionnaire failed to generate agreement among the instructors. This again suggests a lack of consensus: the technical profile of a localization practitioner remains an undefined area that none of the three stakeholders has embraced.

As instructors talked about the focus and characteristics of localization training, they were invited to reflect on the challenges they encounter and on potential solutions. Their challenges concerned three areas; students’ profiles, technology (tools), and the dearth of instructional materials and resources. The

204

disparity of students’ levels, skills, and backgrounds results in an expectation gap and places pressure on the instructors who seek to level the training. Computer literacy was a major point of incongruence.

Computer literacy (or rather lack thereof) tends to be a given and does not appear to be addressed as an admission criterion (neither required nor recommended) nor to be placed on an equal footing with language knowledge and proficiency. To remediate that the lack of computer literacy among students, instructors try to develop introductory modules or workshops that address different aspects of technology to help students be better prepared for advanced translation and localization technology courses.

Challenges regarding tools seem to be primarily mechanical in nature (e.g., software installation, troubleshooting and maintenance), such challenges could be largely overcome with the use of fully monitored and equipped computer labs. The last challenge is external to the training setting, but arguably has the greatest impact on learning: the lack of instructional materials and resources due to proprietary content and non-disclosure agreements that limit students’ exposure to real-world projects and case studies. To address this challenge, instructors develop their own materials and seek collaborations with companies willing to share materials or to provide projects to be localized by students in training.

Overall, localization training appears to be well situated primarily within translator training programs in the U.S. This academic context directs the focus, objectives, and outcomes of the training and imposes its own requirements and constraints, such as the availability of budget, staffing, curriculum revisions and renewals, and expertise. Based on instructors’ reports, the profiles of graduates from such training are concentrated in two areas: localization project managers and localization linguists who have advanced technology knowledge and skills.

In an effort to engage the localization industry and academia in a dialog about market expectations of practitioners and training institutions, the study attempted to keep a record of the different stakeholders’ opinions and perceptions of training. In addition to stressing the lack of adequate and diversified training opportunities, industry participants espouse different views about training. Employers believe training provides the technical preparation and understanding of the subject matter, leading to candidates who are ready for further training. By the same token, current training fails to deliver a

205

comprehensive grounding in soft skills and a solid understanding of business functions and processes.

Practitioners, by contrast, assume that even if the few training opportunities tend to be cursory, training remains a door opener. It equips them with a solid technology background and a better idea of what the language services market is about and is similar to a series of orientation sessions that help them navigate the industry. Similarly, instructors perceive the principal advantage of training as structure. According to the instructors, training in localization offers a framework that informs, guides, and trains future practitioners on industry practices while combining academic rigor, theoretical reflections and practical input. Furthermore, they think training could benefit from establishing industry standards and the identification of the duties, roles and professional profiles in conjunction with academic research that helps inform the conceptual infrastructure and curricular content of training.

To move forward with training, participants recognize that strategic and systematic collaborations between training programs and industry professionals are essential. These collaborations can take different forms and occur at different levels, taking into account both parties’ needs, hopes and expectations. Multi-level and multi-purpose collaborations can set goals to fulfill the requirements for a more visible and balanced training that combines technical aptitude, subject matter expertise, management knowledge, and soft skills. Ultimately, the results can be market-guided course offerings that more fully address localization processes, tools, and workflows, and increase chances of employability.

These collaborations can then move further to establish a standard framework that addresses such issues as defining professional standards, creating internship opportunities for students, offering professional development venues for instructors, developing a repository of sharable authentic instructional resources, and allocating investments in technology and research.

2. Implications of the Study

The current and projected growth of the localization industry suggests increasing work opportunities for localization practitioners and an ongoing need for their expertise. However, the lack of clear job profiles, statuses and roles, and the scarcity of research and data on current localization

206

practitioners’ qualifications, backgrounds, and career paths is an obstacle. It is difficult to aggregate appropriate market requirements and formulate relevant learning outcomes for localization training components. The data gathered from the three major stakeholders (employers, practitioners, and instructors) have a number of implications with respect to training, industry responsibility, and employability.

a. Curricular and pedagogical implications.

Training programs should align their curricular decisions and teaching with empirical research that helps map requisite skills and industry job profiles with learning outcomes. The analysis of job descriptions as a point of departure offered a number of revelations. Various localization job titles translate into a variety of job profiles. Training must take these disparities into account because there is not a single localization practitioner occupation per se. The broad categorization of profiles identified via the analysis of the job descriptions could serve as a starting point for identifying the requirements and skill sets for each of the jobs that appear under the linguist, business and technical profiles. Moreover, the prevalence of business roles in the form of project management following the new outsourcing working models that the industry has adopted suggest that such business roles deserve to be addressed in training, following the example of technology, which was recognized as an imperative and integrated into the curriculum of translator training programs. Understanding and differentiating between and among the existing profiles may lead to more focused course offerings that would better serve future graduates and help meet market demand.

Job description and questionnaire data suggest that professional experience is crucial to recruiting and hiring. This requirement can be met through collaborations between training institutions and industry corporations to facilitate the placement of candidates in internships. This approach needs to be carefully planned and focused on the development of specific skills to provide a market-comparable and productive experience for students. Both work supervisors and interns need to share the objectives and expected outcomes of the internship and allow the candidates to receive constructive feedback and the maximum benefits of such training. From a curriculum standpoint, experience could be achieved in training through

207

the combination of coursework and practica that promote experiential learning opportunities outside the traditional training environment. In practice, these goals could be achieved by implementing authentic localization-related activities in the classroom and by integrating real-world and realistic materials and situations that require the participation of industry representatives interested in supporting and promoting the profession. Kelly (2005) explains that professionalization in the context of training can be accomplished through simulation of professional practice; by contextualizing the assignments in a way they explicitly reflect professional environment; via role-plays; and through field visits to providers performing their job in situ (p. 75) with the aim of letting students gain insight into the localization marketplace.

Along with required experience and ways to develop it via training, the results of the research highlight the criticality of soft skills, especially given that localization involves the provision of both a target product and a service. Soft skills are important for customer service and for assessing client satisfaction, and for working internally and collaborating with multilingual, cross-cultural and cross- functional teams. Soft skills can be strengthened both through experiential learning and in learning environments geared toward promoting them. In recognition of the emphasis that the stakeholder groups place on soft skills, training likely will need to introduce and reinforce “team work and collective responsibility” (Kelly, 2005, p. 76) within its constituent components. The ability to work actively in groups for specific learning purposes contributes effectively to the creation of opportunities for communication and socialization, and to the “development of high-level cognitive skills such as problem- solving, reasoning or justifying proposals and decisions” (Kelly, 2005, p. 102). Olvera-Lobo & Gutiérrez-

Artacho (2017) emphasize the necessity for the teaching-learning environment to mirror market realities.

With the goal of bringing training closer to the profession, they suggest a Professional Approach to

Translator Training (PATT) with assessment goals that focus on the process to better reflect the acquisition of skills (p. 5461).

Educational credentials are part of the industry’s requirements although they do not appear to have an equal footing with professional experience and skills. The analysis of job descriptions revealed

208

that employers prefer that candidates have an educational background in computer science or engineering.

However, the survey of localization course offerings indicates that localization training takes place or is incorporated into translator training programs. This mismatch between market requirements and training could be mediated by establishing departmental partnerships and dual-degree programs to benefit from the expertise of interdisciplinary teams of instructors. They could provide students with a plethora of elective courses, or sub-specializations, to help them meet the requirements of the specialization or professional profile of most interest to them.

Many of the views and comments of the participants recognize the need to incorporate professional aspects of localization into training programs. As much as experience and skills are important, participants stressed that the knowledge and understanding of tasks, processes, and procedures, i.e., internationalization, localization, project management, quality control and assurance on both the client and vendor sides, in combination with a grasp of the big business picture, is essential. The push for the professionalization of training and its grounding in the use of authentic materials and real-world simulations drives the idea that responsibility for the preparation of future practitioners falls to academic institutions. Indeed, Olohan (2007) states that “the responsibility for preparing people for the industry is thus allocated primarily and explicitly to universities, many of whom endeavour, increasingly, to tailor their programs to industry needs” (p. 59). This may not be the most viable or sustainable strategy to improve localization training. Educators should not have sole responsibility, or be held solely responsible, for for the preparation of future practitioners because the input of this dynamically changing industry is crucial to continuously develop and update training content, and explore innovative ways to present and challenge future practitioners’ learning. With constantly changing workflows, thanks to automation, evolving communication channels and software applications, emerging market niches and an increasingly decentralized “virtual” workplace, industry involvement becomes an imperative rather than an option.

While the benefits of cooperation have always been acknowledged, Schäffner (2012) rightly argues that:

Such close and regular links with translation companies thus also give credibility to statements about job-readiness in the learning outcomes of programs. By actively contributing to program

209

delivery, the translation industry can also influence educational aims and at the same time get a better understanding of – and insights into – the requirements of Higher Education. (p. 43).

Schäffner’s observation highlights a major recommendation of this study, that in the absence of standardized localization training curricula and of a consensus about what matters in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes, there is a pressing need for the development of specialized and flexible innovative localization training models. Such models must be the result of mutual input from industry and academic stakeholders and must aim to meet the needs of those who seek full-fledged degrees and professional development opportunities.

b. Industry implications.

The study suggests that the industry needs to be more transparent and more involved in training.

The industry also needs to work on standardizing its professional profiles, job entry requirements and the specific skill sets and tasks mandated for different career paths. The industry has worked on enhancing processes that help systematize internal workflows, reduce workload and optimize products’ quality.

Moreover, it has developed and invested in a number of standards “related to content creation, to translation and localization, to terminology, to ontologies, and to locale specification, as well as basic standards, such as those that govern language and character codes” (Wright, 2006, p. 241) that shape best practices, productivity and quality metrics, and that promote interoperability and interchangeability of products and services. A next logical step would be to examine and specify job titles, profiles, qualifications, and to delineate roles, duties and expectations.

One of the main implications for the industry lies in the fact that the talent gap stated in the interviews and repeatedly mentioned throughout the industry literature is not only the result of the relative scarcity of training opportunities but also the lack of visibility of current programs and of the industry as a whole. Even though the industry has matured and become well established over the last two decades, it is still largely unknown to outsiders and laypeople. According to Johnson (2018), the language industry is like cyber-security: no one thinks about it until something goes wrong. Translation and localization by design are not meant to be noticed. If everything goes right with translation, no one talks about it” (as

210

cited in Melnikova, 2018, p. 45). One way to counter this lack of visibility is to organize effective interactions between companies and training institutions. Moreover, an increase in community outreach initiatives can help transcend the regionalization that characterizes many localization job opportunities in the United States. Professional associations can get on board; in addition to offering venues to invite industry professionals, academicians and representatives of technology companies to discuss the talent shortage and how to bridge the gap, they could organize conference tracks devoted to training where trainers and professionals can meet to reflect on their work and to exchange expertise. Localization industry associations can attempt to be more student-friendly by lowering conference registration rates for student attendees and by creating a space to discuss and negotiate internships and job opportunities similar to the conference resume exchange sessions and mentorship programs organized as part of the

American Translators Association (ATA) annual conference.

3. Limitations of the Study

This study has a number of limitations that constrain the generalizability of its findings and that offer opportunities for future research. These limitations are inherent to the choices made regarding the research scope, methodology, and instruments used. This study is confined to the localization industry and training in the U.S. and did not explore the situation of language industry nor localization training offerings in other locales. The purpose of study was not to generalize the findings to the entire localization community, but to focus particularly on the U.S. as a case study. Even though localization involves translation activity and localization courses were mostly framed within translator training, the study excluded translation course offerings. Furthermore, the study did not look into training that occurs in non-academic settings in the form of workshops, seminars, or courses led by professional associations or conducted within corporate entities.

Another limitation is inherent in the instruments used for data collection. The study relied on self- reporting through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Even though such mechanisms are practical and help cover multiple aspects of the topic, self-reporting instruments are known to be

211

subjective. They can carry risks of inaccurate information, arbitrary selection of responses, lack of honest and conscientious answers, and biases. Some participants could experience fatigue due to the length of the questionnaire. The interview data, in contrast, is limited to the participants who volunteered to be interviewed upon completing the questionnaires. It cannot be generalized to the entire populations of localization employers, practitioners and instructors. Worth noting also is that participation in the study was based on self-selection and was not subject to any remuneration; those who decided to take part in the study have done so out of interest in the subject and their willingness to support research in this field.

The model of requirements gathering that was suggested in the study (constructed on a sequential mixed method approach) has not been applied previously in localization-related research, according to a thorough survey of the literature. The model was constructed in three stages as shown in Figure 55 to provide a comprehensive view of the localization practice from industry and training perspectives. The sequencing and processing of the first data set informed the construction and content of the instruments in the subsequent stages. This structuring, by itself, could present a limitation, because with the intent of having complete and robust findings, the interpretation of some of the data may have been guided by the patterns observed at the prior stage or stages rather than having each instrument or data set act independently of the others.

Figure 55. Sequence of data collection.

Another limitation is the level of representativeness of the study samples, which may not lead to an accurate reflection of the entire population groups targeted. This also relates to the inherent fragmentation of the industry and the differences that exist in work procedures and expectations in client-side versus vendor-side organizations. The study did not attempt to control for the side of the industry in which the participants work (i.e., client or vendor organization) when addressing employers or practitioners. The

212

findings are also limited to current industry trends. The emphasis placed on certain job profiles, skill sets and training expectations by industry representatives may be bound to the specific demands of the market and to the economic, technological and societal forces that are driving it.

A final limitation lies in the fact that after processing the data, identifying patterns and generating some action items, the study broadly discussed curricular considerations and did not delve into curriculum design or the specifics of classroom activities and teaching methods (the “what” and “how” to teach or train in localization). The recommendations outlined are mostly high-level reflections that were the result of the professional, social and institutional contexts examined.

4. Future Research Directions

This study presents a number of avenues of future research that could begin to address the limitations mentioned above and further explore some of the findings. One of the main objectives of this study is to enhance the visibility of localization as a business practice and as a discipline, raise awareness about the social role of localization practitioners and invite different participants in the industry and academe to reflect and coordinate efforts in order to attract, better train and retain future talent. A medium-term goal that has emerged from this project is the development and implementation of an interactive map of localization training programs in North America that will make it more convenient for employers, researchers, academicians, and students to locate institutions and access fact sheets based on the data compiled on academic programs.

In the same vein, it is hoped that with more visibility, localization can begin to establish itself as a discipline by promoting training and providing support to faculty members and instructors and by creating opportunities for training trainers with the assistance of language industry professionals (private companies and LSPs), and professional associations (GALA, the Localization World conference series, the Association of Language Companies, etc.). Research that concerns itself with localization is limited mostly to business practices, market trends, and technology. Content and language standards tend to ignore the localization process and product from a cognitive, pedagogical or curricular standpoint.

213

Industry-oriented research has been restricted to market analysis, descriptions of emerging occupations, and ways to optimize working processes. Neither academic nor industry research has demonstrated an interest in evaluating the relevance of existing training offerings or in exploring the teaching and learning methodologies used to date.

The study could be replicated with larger samples or conducted in other geographical contexts to assess how the localization industry is structured and how linguistic, social, economic, and political characteristics of a specific locale influence the expectations and requirements affecting its practitioners.

It would be equally interesting to see how localization training programs are designed in other areas of the world and how they seek to address industry needs. Initiating a similar study across economies and education systems would generate comparative data that could help to inform the future of training, which is an important consideration in a globalized language industry and higher education market.

Localization skill and job profiles could be analyzed further to map specific profiles within a specific industry context and the specific skill sets associated with the profiles. The identification of current and emerging skill sets and of the qualifications employers seek during recruiting could help to generate a measurable localization skills model around which training modules could be constructed

(skill-based training). The determination of skill sets could also benefit from the identification of the types of localization work or tasks that are subcontracted, as opposed to those performed in-house, to better reflect the outsourcing model prevalent in the industry. Many of these ideas could benefit immensely from research in localization training which, by extension, can help the wider community in the field of localization by sharing expertise and disseminating best practices that lead to the implementation of professionally-oriented localization training as Folaron (2006) has argued:

Like so many other disciplines, localization needs theory and practice to create a mutually beneficial dialogue and working relationship between professional work and academic discourse. This implies an intellectual and professional ethical responsibility to understand the diverse realities of localization in practice. (p. 211).

214

Appendices

Appendix A: IRB Documentation

215

216

217

Appendix B: Recruiting Message (Questionnaire)

Research participants invited!

Hello! My name is Loubna Bilali. I am a doctoral candidate at Kent State University. I am conducting a study that will help me collect data for my dissertation. The aim of my dissertation is to describe, analyze, and evaluate the localization training offered in North American universities from a curriculum and market points of view. Overall, the study presents a three-pronged needs assessment framework for localization. It covers three groups of stakeholders in the localization industry: market, training, and practitioners’ perspectives to ensure the development of a well-informed and systematic methodology for gathering requirements in order to improve on localization training.

As a participant, you will be asked to respond to an online questionnaire. I need responses from translators, localization practitioners, localization instructors, project managers, vendor managers, LSP managers, and LSP human resources managers. If you are one of these professionals, I would really appreciate 20 minutes of your time. Please click on the following link ---- (or cut and paste it onto your internet browser) to have access to the study. Participation in this study will contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the fields of translation studies and localization training.

Your participation is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate or you may discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You will be informed of any new, relevant information that may affect your health, welfare, or willingness to continue your study participation.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you very much in advance,

Best regards,

Loubna Bilali [email protected] Doctoral candidate, Translation Studies Institute for Applied Linguistics Kent State University

218

Appendix C: Questionnaire for Employers

Which of the statements below best describes you?

 I am a translation and localization manager (e.g. Company manager, LSP manager, project manager, vendor manager)  I am a translation and localization practitioner (e.g. translator, localizer)  I am a translation and localization instructor

Q2 What type of company is your organization?

 Language Services Provider (LSP) (1)  Private or public company (other than LSP) (2)  Other (please specify) (3) ______

Q3 What are the main fields of activity or business in your organization (by volume or turnover)? (Check all that apply)

 Translation (1)  Localization (2)  CAT/MT tool development (3)  Technical writing and documentation management (4)  Language consultancy (5)  Software development (6)  Other (please specify) (7) ______

Q42 What is the total number of staff employed in-house?

 Less than 5 (1)  5-10 (2)  11-20 (3)  21-30 (4)  More than 30 (5)

Q4 Please name the most commonly requested source and target language combinations provided by your organization:

 1 (1)  2 (2)  3 (3)  4 (4)  5 (5)

219

Q6 What is your job title? (Check all that apply)

 Project Manager (1)  CEO/Managing Director (2)  Owner/President (3)  Operations Director/Marketing Director (4)  Translation Manager (5)  Human Resources Manager (6)  Vendor Manager (7)  Localization PM (8)  VP of Localization (9)  Other (please specify) (10) ______

Q7 How long have you been in your current position?

 Less than 1 year (1)  1–3 years (2)  4–6 years (3)  7–9 years (4)  More than 9 years (5)

Q8 Are you involved in the process of hiring staff whose duties encompass localization?

 Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To In total, how many years have you bee...

Display This Question: If Are you involved in the process of hiring staff whose duties encompass localization? Yes Is Selected Q9 In total, how many years have you been hiring candidates for localization-related work?  Less than 1 year (1)  1–3 years (2)  4–6 years (3)  7–9 years (4)  More than 9 years (5)

Q11 Does your company hire in-house candidates for localization-related work?

 Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does your company hire freelance loca...

Display This Question: If Does your company hire in-house candidates for localization-related work? Yes Is Selected Q12 If yes, how many in-house localization practitioners does your company currently employ?

220

Q14 Does your company hire freelance localization practitioners?

 Yes (1)  No (2)

Display This Question: If Does your company hire freelance localization practitioners? Yes Is Selected Q15 If yes, how many localization practitioners are there in your freelance pool approximately?

Display This Question: If Does your company hire freelance localization practitioners? Yes Is Selected Q17 What kind of localization work do you hire for?

 Software localization (1)  Website localization (2)  Game localization (6)  Mobile localization (7)  Desktop-publishing (3)  Multimedia localization (4)  Other (please specify) (5) ______

If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

Q19 Do newly hired localization practitioners hold a translation/localization certificate?

 All do (1)  Most do (2)  Some do (3)  Few do (5)  None do (4)

Q20 Do newly hired localization practitioners hold a translation/localization degree?

 All do (1)  Most do (3)  Some do (4)  Few do (5)  None do (2)

Q21 How many years of professional experience does your company require of new localization hires at a minimum?

221

Q23 How important are the following processes in hiring localization practitioners?

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very important unimportant (2) important nor (5) (1) unimportant (3) Evaluation of      resume (1) Personal      interview (2) Profile on professional      online networks (3) Test translation or sample      project (4)

Q24 With specific reference to the organization you currently work for, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about hiring localization practitioners?

Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly agree disagree (1) disagree (2) nor disagree agree (4) (5) (3) Localization certification and/or degrees make it easier      to identify applicants’ subject-matter knowledge (1) Localization certification and/or degrees make the      recruitment process easier/ more efficient (2)

222

Q25 Which of the following do you look for when screening applicants for localization-related work? (Check all that apply)

 Training in translation (1)  Training in localization (2)  Experience in translation (3)  Experience in localization (4)  Training in languages (5)  Institution from which the degree was earned (6)  All of the above (7)  None of the above (8)  Other (please specify) (9) ______

Q26 From your experience, how important are the following items in terms of successfully performing localization-related work?

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very important Unimportant (2) important nor (5) (1) unimportant (3) Training in      translation (1) Training in      localization (2) Experience in      translation (3) Experience in      localization (4) Training in      languages (5) The institution from which the      degree was earned (6)

Q27 Does your company provide training opportunities to its localization staff or vendors?

 Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does your company offer internships i...

223

Display This Question: If Does your company provide training opportunities to its localization staff or vendors? Yes Is Selected Q28 If yes, how often?

 Yearly (1)  Quarterly (2)  Other (please specify) (3) ______

Q29 What kind of training does your company offer?

Q30 Does your company offer internships in localization?

 Yes (1)  No (2)

Q47 Which one of these systems/tools do you use in your company? (Check all that apply)

 Across (4)  Alchemy Catalyst (5)  Déja Vu DVX/DVX2 (6)  Lingobit Localizer (7)  MemoQ (8)  MetaTexis (9)  Microsoft Translator (10)  MultiTrans (11)  OmegaT (12)  SDL Trados 2007 (13)  SDL MultiTerm (14)  SDL Passolo (15)  SDL Trados Studio 2009/2011/2014/2015 (16)  Similis (17)  Star Transit (18)  Systran (19)  Termstar (20)  Trados (older versions) (21)  Visual Localize (22)  Wordfast Anywhere (23)  Wordfast Classic (24)  Wordfast Pro (25)  XTM (26)  Other (please specify) (27) ______

224

Q33 Rate the importance of the following instrumental skills when working as a localization practitioner

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very important unimportant (2) important nor (5) (1) unimportant (3) Research and documentation      (1) Ability to analyze and      synthesize (2) Advanced computing      skills (3) Information management      (4) Knowledge of the language      industry and its professions (5) Knowledge of professional      ethics and standards (6)

225

Q43 Rate the importance of the following translation skills when working as a localization practitioner

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very unimportant (2) important nor important (5) (1) unimportant (3) Ability to translate quickly      (1) Ability to translate      accurately (2) Ability to translate into the translator's      second language (3) Ability to translate/localize materials in one      or more highly specialized domains (4) Linguistic      creativity (5) Ability to use translation      memory (TM) tools (6) Ability to extract and      manage terminology (7) Ability to post- edit machine      translation (8)

226

Q44 Rate the importance of the following technological skills when working as a localization practitioner

Very Unimportant Neither important Important Very unimportant (2) nor unimportant (3) (4) important (1) (5) Ability to process files and convert      files to different formats (1) Ability to understand and use markup languages      (HTML, XML, etc.) (2) Understanding project components (compiled software resources files, satellite DLL,      static/dynamic website, relational databases, scripts, etc.) (3) Ability to understand software/video game      localization processes (4) Ability to localize multimedia content      (5) Ability to use desktop publishing      tools (6) Ability to use machine translation      systems (7) Ability to troubleshoot tools      problems (8)

227

Q46 Rate the importance of the following systemic skills when working as a localization practitioner

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very unimportant (2) important nor important (5) (1) unimportant (3) Willingness to learn new tools      and software packages (1) Ability to work in an      interdisciplinary team (2) Ability to apply conceptual      knowledge (3) Ability to work autonomously      (4) Willingness to engage in professional      development (5)

228

Q45 Rate the importance of the following project management skills when working as a localization practitioner

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very important unimportant (2) important nor (5) (1) unimportant (3) Ability to identify client      requirements (1) Ability to produce quotes      (2) Ability to identify      required resources (3) Ability to lead complex      projects (4) Ability to specify and/or apply quality      control procedures (5) Ability to negotiate contracts with      clients or suppliers (6)

Q34 Based on your work experience, what are the top three strengths you have identified in the work of localization practitioners trained in localization?

Q35 What are the top three weaknesses you have observed in the work of localization practitioners trained in localization?

Q36 What is your company’s reaction to those weaknesses? (Check all that apply)

 Offering training (1)  Providing feedback (2)  Removing the localization vendor from the recruitment pool (3)  Other (please specify) (4) ______

229

Q37 What new or future potential challenges do you believe current localization training should address?

Q38 How do you think those challenges can be best addressed? (Check all that apply)

 More training opportunities in localization to fit market demand (1)  Acquisition of appropriate technological resources (2)  Initiating more partnerships between universities and the industry (3)  Other (please specify) (4) ______

Q48 In what ways do you think localization training and education can be improved?

Q31 Do you consider university training in localization important for localization practice?

 Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Block

Display This Question: If Do you consider university training in localization important for localization practice? Yes Is Selected Q32 If yes, what aspects of localization practice do you think training is essential for?

Q39 Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?

Q40 Would you be willing to be interviewed by us at a later stage in our research?

 Yes (1)  No (2)

230

Appendix D: Questionnaire for Practitioners

Which of the statements below best describes you?

Q3 Do you have any of the following degrees? (Check all that apply)

 Certificate in Translation Studies (1)  Bachelor’s Degree in Translation Studies (2)  Master’s Degree in Translation Studies (3)  Ph.D. Degree in Translation Studies (4)  Bachelor’s Degree (Non-translation related) (5)  Master’s Degree (Non-translation related) (6)  Ph.D. Degree (Non-translation related) (7)  None (8)  Other (please specify) (9) ______

Q5 Do you have any professional certification? (Check all that apply)

 ATA (American Translators Association) (1)  SDL Trados (2)  Localization Institute (3)  TILP (The Institute of Localization Professionals) (4)  PMP (Project Management Professional Certification) (5)  CAMP (Certified Associate in Project Management) (6)  None (7)  Other professional certification (please specify) (8) ______

Q6 Have you received any formal education or training in localization?

 Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Block

Q7 If yes, what kind of education or training have you received?

 Certificate (1)  Bachelor's degree (2)  Master's degree (3)  Ph.D. degree (4)  University graduate specialized courses (5)  Workshops, conferences, seminars (6)  Company’s internal training (7)  Other (please specify) (8) ______

231

Q8 In what type of localization have you been trained?

 Software localization (1)  Website localization (2)  Game localization (3)  Mobile localization (4)  Desktop publishing (7)  Audiovisual translation (5)  Other (please specify) (6) ______

Q9 When did you complete your education or training in localization?

 Less than a year ago (1)  1 to 3 years ago (2)  4 to 6 years ago (3)  7 to 9 years ago (4)  More than 9 years ago (5)

Q10 Were you required to complete an internship as part of your education/training?

 Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Block

Q11 What type of company hosted the internship?

 Translation company (1)  Translation company whose principal activity is localization (2)  Government agency (3)  Non-translation company (4)  Other (please specify) (5) ______

Q12 How long did the internship last?

 Less than a month (1)  1 to 3 months (2)  4 to 6 months (3)  More than 6 months (4)  Comments (5) ______

Q14 What is your current employment status? (Check all that apply)

 Freelance translator (1)  Freelance localization practitioner (2)  In-house translator (3)  In-house localization practitioner (4)  Other (please specify) (5) ______

232

Q15 For what type of company or clients do you perform localization work?

 Translation company (1)  Translation company whose main activity is localization (2)  Non-translation company (3)  Direct customers (4)  Other (please specify) (5) ______

Q16 Where are most of your clients based?

 North America (1)  Central America (2)  South America (3)  Western Europe (4)  Eastern Europe (5)  Africa (6)  Middle East (7)  East Asia (8)  South Asia (9)  Southeast Asia (10)  Australia & South Pacific (11)

Q17 In what mode/genre of localization do you work? (Check all that apply)

 Software localization (1)  Website localization (2)  Games localization (3)  Mobile localization (4)  Desktop publishing (5)  Audiovisual translation (6)

In what mode/genre of localization do you work? Q43 Of the the genre you have selected, rank them according to the amount of work you provide (1 being the most amount of work) ______Software localization (1) ______Website localization (2) ______Games localization (3) ______Mobile localization (4) ______Desktop publishing (5) ______Audiovisual translation (6)

233

Q18 What is your primary language combination?

 Spanish English (1)  French English (2)  German English (3)  Russian English (4)  Japanese English (5)  Chinese English (6)  Arabic English (7)  English only (8)  Other (please specify) (9) ______

Q19 For how long have you been working professionally as a localization practitioner?

 Less than 1 year (1)  1–3 years (2)  4–6 years (3)  7–9 years (4)  More than 9 years (5)

Q20 If you work on translation tasks in addition to localization, what proportion of your work is devoted to localization (in terms of volume)? ______Proportion of Localization work (1)

Q21 Besides localization, do you engage in other professional translation activities?  Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Do you use any specific Computer Assi...

Display This Question: If Besides localization, do you engage in other professional translation activities? Yes Is Selected Q23 What professional translation activities do you do? (Check all that apply)

 Literary translation (1)  Scientific translation (2)  Technical translation (3)  Medical translation (4)  Legal translation (5)  Commercial translation (6)  Audiovisual translation (7)  Editing and proofreading (8)  Terminology management (9)  Other (please specify) (10) ______

Q24 Do you use any specific Computer Assisted Translation (CAT) Tools?

 Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Why do you not use any localization s...

234

Q25 If yes, what kind of tools? (Check all that apply)

 Translation memory (1)  Localization software (2)  Terminology management tools (3)  Term extraction tools (4)  Corpus analysis tools (5)  Other (please specify) (6) ______

Q26 Which ones of these systems/tools do you use? (Check all that apply)

 Across (1)  Alchemy Catalyst (2)  Déja Vu DVX/DVX2 (3)  Lingobit Localizer (4)  MemoQ (5)  MetaTexis (6)  Microsoft Translator (7)  MultiTrans (8)  OmegaT (9)  SDL Trados 2007 (10)  SDL MultiTerm (11)  SDL Passolo (12)  SDL Trados Studio 2009/2011/2014/2015 (13)  Similis (14)  Star Transit (15)  Systran (16)  Termstar (17)  Trados (older versions) (18)  Visual Localize (19)  Wordfast Anywhere (20)  Wordfast Classic (21)  Wordfast Pro (22)  XTM (23)  Other (please specify) (24) ______

Q27 Why did you decide to use those software programs in particular? (Check all that apply)

 Imposed by the company/client (1)  Easy to get (2)  Ease of use (3)  Familiarity with the program from work as a localization practitioner (4)  Familiarity with the tool from university training (5)  High quality (6)  Convenient pricing (7)  Adequate for the type of files I handle (8)  Other (please specify) (9) ______

235

Display This Question: If Do you use any specific Computer Assisted Translation (CAT) Tools and localization software? No Is Selected Q28 Why do you not use any localization software program? (Check all that apply)

 Lack of adequate software for localization (1)  The tools are not essential for the types of work that I do (2)  Very expensive (3)  Low quality (4)  Lack of training in the use of localization software (5)  Other (please specify) (6) ______

Q29 Besides translation activities, what other localization-related tasks do you perform? (Check all that apply)

 Localization engineering (1)  Project evaluation and analysis (2)  Terminology management (11)  Graphics editing (3)  Web editing (4)  Subtitling (5)  Voice-over (6)  Localization project management (7)  Localization testing and quality assessment (8)  None (9)  Other (please specify) (10) ______

Q31 What types of localization materials do you usually work on? (Check all that apply)

 Software documentation (1)  User/operator manuals (2)  Marketing collateral (3)  Advertising (9)  Training materials (4)  Software User Interface (5)  Web pages (6)  Databases (7)  Other (please specify) (8) ______

236

Q48 What type of project files do you usually work with? (Check all that apply)  MS Office file formats (4)   HTML (5)  XML (6)  RTF (7)  LPU (8)  XLIFF (9)  CSV (10)  TMX (11)  TBX (12)  DITA (13)  EXE (14)  DLL (15)  CHM (16)  WebHelp (17)  Eclipse Help (18)  Java Help (19)  .NET Help (20)  RESX (21)  PO (22)  Java bundles (23)  Other (please specify) (3) ______

237

Q32 Rate the importance of the following instrumental skills when working as a localization practitioner

238

Q44 Rate the importance of the following translation skills when working as a localization practitioner

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very unimportant (2) important nor important (5) (1) unimportant (3) Ability to translate quickly      (1) Ability to translate      accurately (2) Ability to translate into the translator’s      second language (3) Ability to translate/localize materials in one      or more highly specialized domains (4) Linguistic      creativity (5) Ability to use translation      memory (TM) tools (6) Ability to extract and      manage terminology (7) Ability to post- edit machine      translation (8)

239

Q45 Rate the importance of the following technological skills when working as a localization practitioner

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very important unimportant (2) important nor (5) (1) unimportant (3) Ability to process files and convert      files to different formats (1) Ability to understand and use markup      languages (HTML, XML, etc.) (2) Understanding project components (compiled software resources files, satellite DLL,      static/dynamic website, relational databases, scripts, etc.) (3) Ability to understand software/video      game localization processes (4) Ability to localize      multimedia content (5) Ability to use desktop      publishing tools (6) Ability to use machine      translation

240

systems (7) Ability to troubleshoot      tools problems (8)

Q46 Rate the importance of the following systemic skills when working as a localization practitioner

241

Q47 Rate the importance of the following project management skills when working as a localization practitioner

242

Q33 Based on your education/training experience, how effective are the following training offerings?

Not effective Somewhat Moderately Effective (4) Very effective (1) effective (2) effective (3) (5) On-site      training (1) Online training      (2) Recorded      webinars (3) Self-paced      workshops (4) Instructor-led      workshops (5)

Q34 Based on your experience, what topics are covered in localization training?

Q36 Based on your work experience as a localization practitioner, what do you think are the top three strengths of localization training programs?

243

Q37 How important do you think are the following facts to localization training?

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very important unimportant (2) important nor (5) (1) unimportant (3) Variety of training      offerings in localization (1) Variety of technological      resources (2) Qualified training staff      (3) Class size (4)      Training on practical      aspects of the profession (5) Possibility of      internships (6) Possibility of blended training (a mix of face-to-face      and computer mediated learning) (7)

Q38 What do you think are the top three weaknesses of localization training programs?

244

Q39 How challenging are the following facts to localization training?

Not at all Slightly Somewhat Moderately Extremely challenging (1) challenging (2) challenging (3) challenging (4) challenging (5) Shortage of localization courses related      to market demand (1) Gaps between localization curricula and      market demands (2) Lack of appropriate      technological resources (3) High number of students per      course (4) Unqualified training staff      (5) Limited number of      classroom hours (6) Shortage of classroom activities that      simulate actual working conditions (7) Lack of      feedback (8)

Q41 In what ways do you think localization training and education can be improved?

Q42 Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?

Q43 Would you be willing to be interviewed by us at a later stage in our research?

Yes (1) No (2)

245

Appendix E: Questionnaire for Instructors

Which of the statements below best describes you?

Q2 Do you have any of the following degrees? (Check all that apply)

Q4 Do you have any professional certification? (Check all that apply)

Q5 Have you received any formal education or training in localization?

 Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Which localization courses do you usu...

Display This Question: If Have you received any formal education or training on localization? Yes Is Selected Q6 If yes, what kind of localization education or training have you received? (Check all that apply)

 Certificate (1)  Undergraduate degree (2)  University graduate specialized courses (3)  Graduate degree (4)  Workshops, conferences, seminars (5)  Companies internal training (6)  Other (please specify) (7) ______

246

Q7 In what type of localization have you been trained? (Check all that apply)

 Software localization (1)  Website localization (2)  Games localization (3)  Mobile localization (4)  Audiovisual translation (5)  Desktop publishing (6)  Other (please specify) (7) ______

Q10 Which localization courses do you usually teach? (Check all that apply)

 Software localization (1)  Website localization (2)  Games localization (3)  Mobile localization (4)  Computer-Assisted Translation tools (CAT) (5)  Terminology management (6)  Machine translation (7)  Audiovisual translation (8)  Other (please specify) (9) ______

Q11 For how long have you been teaching university-level courses on localization?

 Less than 1 year (1)  1–3 years (2)  4–6 years (3)  7–9 years (4)  More than 9 years (5)

Q12 Do you work on professional localization projects?

 Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Block

Display This Question: If Do you work on professional localization projects for the industry? Yes Is Selected Q13 What kind of localization projects do you work on? (Check all that apply)

247

Q19 When did your institution start offering localization courses?

Q21 How many courses are dedicated specifically to localization? (Numeric data only)

Q15 Which type of localization courses are available in your institution? (Check all that apply)

 Software localization (1)  Website localization (2)  Games localization (3)  Mobile localization (4)  Computer-Assisted Translation tools (CAT) (7)  Terminology management (8)  Machine translation (9)  Audiovisual translation (5)  Other (please specify) (6) ______

Q14 At which level are localization courses offered in your institution? (Check all that apply)

 Bachelor's level (1)  Master’s level (2)  Ph.D. level (3)  Certificates in translation (4)  Certificates in localization (5)  Other (please specify) (6) ______

Q20 What is the status of the localization course(s) in the curriculum?

 Required (mandatory) (1)  Elective (optional) (2)  Comments (3) ______

Q22 What is the number of credits assigned for the localization course in your institution?

 1 credit (1)  2–3 credits (2)  4–5 credits (3)  More than 5 credits (4)

Q54 What course or courses are prerequisites for the localization course?

 CAT Tools (1)  Terminology management (2)  Desktop publishing (3)  Project management (4)  Machine translation (5)  None (6)  Other (please specify) (7) ______

248

Q17 Are localization courses taught in combination with one of these courses? (Check all that apply)

 Terminology management (1)  CAT Tools (2)  Machine translation (3)  Pre- and Post-editing machine translation (4)  Web editing (5)  Desktop publishing (6)  Translation project management (7)  Other (please specify) (8) ______

Q18 What are the language combinations supported in the localization courses?

 Spanish English (1)  French English (2)  German English (3)  Russian English (4)  Japanese English (5)  Chinese English (6)  Korean English (7)  Arabic English (8)  English only (9)  Other (please specify) (10) ______

Q23 What is the maximum section size for the localization course(s)?

 Fewer than 10 students (1)  Between 10 and 20 students (2)  Between 21 and 30 students (3)  Between 31 and 40 students (4)  More than 40 students (5)  Comments (6) ______

Q24 In what modalities are the courses offered?

 On-site (1)  Online (2)  Blended/hybrid (3)  Other (please specify) (4) ______

Q27 What is the focus of the localization course(s)?

 Practice-oriented (1)  Theory-oriented (2)  Research-oriented (3)  Comments (4) ______

249

Q28 Does your institution have a lab or labs equipped with Computer-Assisted Translation tools (CAT) in which students can complete course assignments and projects?

 Yes (1)  No (2)  Comments (3) ______

Q30 Are there specific Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) tools used for the localization course(s)?

 Yes (1)  No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To If no, why are Computer-Assisted Tran...

Display This Question: If Are there specific Computer Assisted Translation (CAT) tools used for the localization course(s)? Yes Is Selected Q31 If yes, which one of these systems/tools do you use in your program? (Check all that apply)

250

Q32 What was the rationale behind your decision to use these tools? (Check all that apply)

 Easy to acquire (1)  Ease of use (2)  Familiarity with the tool (3)  High performance (4)  Convenient pricing (5)  Appropriate for the type of projects assigned (6)  Other (please specify) (7) ______

Display This Question: If Are there specific Computer Assisted Translation (CAT) tools used for the localization course(s)? No Is Selected Q33 If no, why are Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) tools not used? (Select all that apply)

 Lack of hands-on experience (1)  Lack of training opportunities for instructors (2)  Complexity or learning curve of CAT tools (3)  The tools are not essential to achieve the objectives of the course (4)  The tools are expensive (5)  The tools are of low quality (6)  Lack of dedicated computer-equipped classrooms or labs (7)  Lack of IT support for the deployment and administration of specialized software (8)  Other (please specify) (9) ______

251

Q35 How important are these types of instruction in localization courses?

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very important Unimportant (2) important nor (5) (1) unimportant (3) Lectures (1)      Case studies      (2) Online forums      (3) Individual or group projects      (4) Simulation      exercises (5) Project logs (6)      Project post-      mortems (7) Reports (8)      Readings (9)      Discussions      (10)

Q36 What kinds of localization tasks do you use in your courses? (Check all that apply)

 Termbases creation and maintenance (1)  Project evaluation and analysis (2)  Translation memory construction (alignment and/or import) and use (3)  Use of machine translation engines (4)  Multilingual desktop publishing (5)  Web editing (6)  Graphics editing (7)  Testing and quality assurance (8)  Localization of different software components (UI, Help, Documentation) (9)  Localization of web pages (10)  Localization of mobile applications (11)  Other (please specify) (12) ______

252

Q37 What type of project files do you use in your localization courses? (Check all that apply)

 MS Office file formats (1)  HTML (2)  XML (3)  RTF (4)  LPU (5)  XLIFF (6)  CSV (7)  TMX (8)  TBX (9)  DITA (10)  EXE (11)  DLL (12)  CHM (13)  WebHelp (14)  Eclipse Help (15)  Java Help (16)  .NET Help (17)  RESX (18)  PO (19)  Java bundles (20)  Other (please specify) (21) ______

253

Q40 Rate the importance of the following instrumental skills when working as a localization practitioner.

254

Q55 Rate the importance of the following translation skills when working as a localization practitioner.

Very Unimportant Neither Important (4) Very unimportant (2) important nor important (5) (1) unimportant (3) Ability to translate quickly      (1) Ability to translate      accurately (2) Ability to translate into the translator’s      second language (3) Ability to translate/localize materials in one      or more highly specialized domains (4) Linguistic      creativity (5) Ability to use translation      memory (TM) tools (6) Ability to extract and      manage terminology (7) Ability to post- edit machine      translation (8)

255

Q56 Rate the importance of the following technological skills when working as a localization practitioner.

256

systems (7) Ability to troubleshoot      tools problems (8)

Q57 Rate the importance of the following systemic skills when working as a localization practitioner.

257

Q58 Rate the importance of the following project management skills when working as a localization practitioner.

Q39 What should students know or be able to do at the end of the localization course?

Q42 How are outcomes measured in your localization course(s)?

Q45 Have you encountered any challenges while teaching localization courses?

Yes (1) No (2) If No Is Selected, Then Skip To How do you think we can enhance and i...

Display This Question: If Have you encountered any challenges while teaching localization courses? Yes Is Selected Q46 If yes, what challenges did you encounter?

258

Q47 What solutions did you subsequently adopt to overcome those challenges?

Q59 What do you think are the top three strengths of localization training programs?

Q60 What do you think are the top three weaknesses of localization training programs?

Q51 In what ways do you think localization training and education can be improved?

Q52 Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Would you like to add any comments or suggestions?

Q53 Would you be willing to be interviewed by us at a later stage in our research?

Yes (1) No (2)

259

Appendix F: Recruiting Message (Semi-structured Interviews)

Follow-up: Participation in an Interview on Localization Training

Dear ______,

Thank you so much for your participation in my study on “Needs Assessment on Localization, between Market Demand and Training.” I do appreciate your time and the response you provided for the questionnaire.

Upon your submission of the questionnaire, you kindly mentioned that you were available for a follow-up interview. I am emailing you to check on your availability and schedule an appointment with you. I will be conducting the interviews between June 1st and September 1st. You will find attached the consent form and more details about the interview process.

Would you please let me know what day and time would work best for you. Thank you so much for your willingness to be part of this study.

Best Regards,

Loubna Bilali [email protected] Doctoral candidate, Translation Studies Institute for Applied Linguistics Kent State University

260

261

Appendix G: Semi-structured Interview Questions for Employers

Consultation of Industry Employers

- Interviewee (s): - Date & Time: - Mode of the interview (i.e. telephone, Skype): - Length of the interview:

Topic Sub-Topics Potential Questions

1. LSP’s profile: Localization - Can you briefly share your experience in the Localization practitioners translation/localization market? market & working conditions - How do you define localization? training (Translation digitization?) Selection criteria - What is driving work in translation and for localizers localization nowadays? - What are the current trends in localization Relation with projects? academia - What do you look for when screening candidates for localization-related work? - Does your company offer training for freelance localization practitioners? - Do you consider university training in localization to be important to practice localization? How important is it? 2. Skills Specific skills for - What are the top three skills required for L10N professional localization practice? - Are people able to learn on the job? Are there opportunities for them to learn on the job? - Can we distinguish between skills learned during training and those learned on the job? 3. Assessment of Training evaluation - Do you think there’s a gap between the training academia and the industry when it comes to Challenges for the localization? profession - If yes, what are the causes of this gap and in your opinion, how can it be bridged or Proposal for eliminated? improving the - Changes in the technological landscape are training leading to many changes in the market; do you think this will affect the work and status of the localization practitioner? (Examples!) - How do you think we can improve localization training?

262

Appendix H: Semi-structured Interview Questions for Practitioners

Consultation of Localization Practitioners

- Interviewee (s): - Date & Time: - Mode of the interview (i.e. telephone, Skype): - Length of the interview:

Topic Sub-Topics Potential Questions

1. Localization Background in - What is your educational background? practitioner’s L10N - Have you received any kind of training in Profile: localization? Education Occupation and - Was the training you received combined with employment status internships? - What is your current employment status? - Could you share with us your work experience in the field of localization? 2. Localization Working - How do you define localization? (Translation practitioner: conditions digitization?) Localization - What are the current trends in localization projects? training Problems in the - Have you attended in-house training in profession localization? - What are the challenges of working as a Solutions localization practitioner? (Instrumental, technological, conceptual, logistical, etc.) - Did the training you received have any added value or advantage on the job market? 3. Skills Specific skills for - What are the top three skills required for L10N professional localization practice? - Why do you rate those three as the most important? - Do you distinguish between skills developed during training as opposed to skills learned on the job? 4. Assessment of Training - What do you think of the training opportunities in the quality of evaluation localization? training - Do you think academia adequately prepares its Challenges for the graduates to meet market requirements? profession - Do you think there’s a gap between academia and the industry when it comes to localization? Proposal for - If yes, what are the causes and how can we bridge improving the or eliminate the gap? training - Changes in the technological landscape are leading to many changes in the market; do you think this will affect the work and status of the localization practitioners? (Examples!) - How do you think we can enhance and improve on localization training?

263

Appendix I: Semi-structured Interview Questions for Instructors

Consultation of Localization Instructors

- Interviewee (s): - Date & Time: - Mode of the interview (i.e. telephone, Skype): - Length of the interview:

Topic Sub-Topics Potential Questions

1. Instructor Education - What is your educational background? Profile: - Could you briefly describe your industry experience? Education Specialized - Have you done any research on localization? Studies in L10N

Training in L10N

Training in pedagogy

2. Instructor: Occupation - How do you define localization? (Translation Localization digitization?) training Description of - Which localization courses do you usually teach? For the how long have you been teaching this course (or these training/course courses)? offered (context, - Could you tell us more about the course (modality, resource, level, content etc.) methodology and - What is your teaching philosophy with regards to evaluation) localization courses? - What teaching methodologies are used in localization

courses? - What are the course objectives/outcomes? - How are these outcomes assessed? - For what career path(s) is the course and is your program designed to prepare students? (Are they geared towards localization for localization practitioners or localization for translators)? - Do you work on documenting the outcomes of your program? - If yes, how are the objectives and outcomes documented? - Any thoughts or ideas on the 6-month–12-month placement rates of your graduates? 3. Skills General and - What are the top three skills that you seek to develop? specific skills for Why do you focus on these five skills in particular? L10N - In your opinion, what are the top five skills sought by industry (or: by employers)? - What are the top three skills required for professional localization practice?

264

4. Assessment Problems in the - What kind of problems have you encountered while of the training teaching localization courses? quality of - Any solutions to overcome them? training Solutions for the - What do you think are the main problems of training localization training in US universities? - Have you been involved in any curricular revisions Improving the concerning localization courses? training - If yes, what factors let to those revisions? Challenges for - Can you describe the process of those curricular the profession revisions? - Do you think there’s a gap between academia and the Suggestions for industry when it comes to localization? improving the - If yes, what are the causes and how can we bridge or training eliminate the gap? - Changes in the technological landscape is leading many changes in the market, do you think this will affect the training in any way? (Examples!) - How will training needs change in the next 6-8 years? - How do you think we can enhance and improve on localization training?

265

Appendix J: List of Job Titles and Industries

Job Company Name Industry Label Job Title ID Indeed I1 Welocalize Information Technology Localization Project Manager

I2 ChatGame Internet Localization Producer

I3 PDSTech Business Services Localization Project Manager

Globalization Lead- Translation I4 ADP Business Services Management Services

I5 PI Worldwide Business Services Localization Project Manager

I6 Moravia Business Services Senior Localization Solutions Architect Localization Lead w/ software I7 Leapforce Business Services experience

I8 Expedia, Inc. Information Technology Localization Project Manager

Project Manager - I9 SDL Information Technology Localization/Translation

I10 Salesforce Information Technology Localization Program Manager

Content Localization Specialist, I11 Netflix Information Technology Content Operations

I12 Facebook Information Technology Localization Product Management

Localization/Translations Recruitment I13 Geotext Translations Accounting & Legal Coordinator Capital Staffing I14 Solutions Business Services Localization Project Manager

Localization/Translation Weekend I15 Geotext Translations Business Services Project Manager

266

I16 Indeed Advertisement, Publication Localization Associate (Entry Level)

I17 CareFusion Manufacturing Localization Project Manager

I18 Bluebeam Information Technology Content Localization Specialist

I19 Crunchyroll Information Technology Localization Project Manager

I20 Gengo Business Services Localization Project Manager Project Manager, Global Localization I21 Gap Inc. Retail & Translation

I22 Apple Information Technology Localization Project Manager

I23 Square Information Technology Localization Lead

I24 Akvelon Information Technology Program Manager - Localization Amazon Corporate Software Development Engineer - Test I25 LLC Retail - Localization Platform LOCALIZATION COPY EDITOR I26 Nexon America Media (MOBILE) Localization Client Development I27 Beyont LLC Business Services Manager

I28 Intuit Information Technology Senior Localization Program Manager

I29 Akraya Business Services Localization Project Manager

I30 Nexon America Media LOCALIZATION COORDINATOR Career Builder

Associate Project Manager cd1 Terumo BCT Biotech & Pharmaceuticals Localization *Temporary Nintendo of America Bilingual (Japanese/English)Technical cd2 Inc. Manufacturing Localization Specialist cd3 TEKsystems, Inc Business Services Localization Engineer Senior Program Manager, Localization cd4 Amazon Retail & Translation

267

cd5 Ask.com Media Localization Specialist Cook Systems cd6 International, Inc. Information Technology Localization Engineer Nintendo of America cd7 Inc. Manufacturing Localization Writer / Editor cd8 Moravia Business Services Music & Localization Specialist Business Services cd9 TEKsystems (Staffing, Recruitment) Localization Engineer cd1 0 Nextech Solutions Manufacturing Software Localization Engineer cd1 Randstad Business Services 1 Professionals (Staffing, Recruitment) Marketing Localization Specialist US Jobs Online Store Localization Project us1 Apple Information Technology Manager Systems Technology us2 Group Retail Localization Process Analyst us3 FileMaker Information Technology Localization Project Manager Sony Network Entertainment International LLC us4 (SNEI) Media Project Manager, Localization us5 Apple (iTunes) Information Technology Localization Producer us6 EMC Information Technology Localization Program/Project Manager us7 Siemens Manufacturing Localization Engineer Associate Program Manager, Localization us8 Google Information Technology Solutions us9 adaQuest Business Services French Localization Specialist us10 amazon Retail Senior Localization Program Manager us11 facebook Information Technology Language Manager, Japanese us12 adaQuest Business Services Danish Localizer Monster M1 G11N Inc Business Services Senior Localization Sales Manager M2 ClassPath Information Technology Localization Engineer FrontRange M3 Solutions Information Technology Sr. Localization QA Engineer M4 Trip Advisor Information Technology Senior Localization Program Manager Glassdoor

268

Jonckers Translation G1 & Engineering Information Technology Localization Project Manager G2 Salesforce Information Technology Localization Program Manager G3 Quardev, Inc. Information Technology Localization Specialist G4 adaQuest Business Services Localization Specialist G5 Hilton Worldwide Travel & Tourism Manager of Localization Services G6 Red 5 Studios Business Services French Localization KOREAN LOCALIZATION G7 Trion Worlds Information Technology TRANSLATOR Arts, Entertainment & G8 Bungie Recreation Localization Coordinator G9 OSIsoft Information Technology Localization Engineer G10 Apple Information Technology Localization Producer G11 Trasperfect Business Services Localization Engineer G12 Twitter Information Technology Manager of Localization G13 MindSource, Inc. Information Technology Web Localization QA Analyst G14 Beyondsoft Business Services Production Manager, Localization G15 NCSOFT Media Localization Analyst Agilent G16 Technologies, Inc. Manufacturing Localization Project Manager Lionbridge G17 Technologies, Inc. Information Technology Localization Engineer G18 Facebook Information Technology Localization Program Manager G19 Hilton Worldwide Information Technology Manager, Localization Services Technical Program Manager - G20 Amazon.com Information Technology Localization Morningside G21 Translations Business Services Localization Project Manager

Project Manager - G22 SDL Information Technology Localization/Translation G23 Esri Information Technology Localization Engineer

G24 PTC Information Technology Localization Project Manager

Operations Manager - G25 SDL Information Technology Localization/Translation

G26 Uber Information Technology Engineering Manager - Localization

Amazon Corporate Sr. Technical Program Manager - G27 LLC Retail Localization Machine Translation

269

G28 Indeed Advertisement, Publication Associate Localization Manager Lionbridge G29 Technologies, Inc. Information Technology Localization Project Manager ClientMindRecruitin G30 g Information Technology Senior Localization Project Manager

G31 Opera Mediaworks Information Technology Localization Project Manager

G32 BizTek People, Inc. Information Technology Localization Project Manager G33 Moravia Worldwide Information Technology Localization Account Manager

G34 Apple Information Technology Localization Project Manager G35 Google Information Technology Localization Vendor Manager G36 Facebook Information Technology Project Manager (Localization) G37 Transmosis Information Technology Production Manager, Localization

G38 TransPerfect Information Technology Senior Localization Account Manager

G39 TalentBurst Inc Information Technology Localization Project Manager Paradigm Software Localization Project Manager G40 Information Services Information Technology at HPE Content Operations Manager - G41 Netflix Information Technology Localization QC

Localization Team Manager, Customer G42 Amazon.com Retail Service

Senior Global Marcom Manager G43 Microsoft Information Technology (Localization) G44 Red Hat Information Technology Localization Programs Manager

Localization Program Manager, Brand / G45 GoPro Manufacturing Creative Services Localization Client Development G46 Acclaro Business Services Manager G47 RR Donnelley Business Services Localization Engineer

G48 Translations.com Business Services Junior Localization Engineer G49 HubSpot Information Technology Spanish Localization Specialist G50 Netflix Information Technology Content Localization Specialist

270

Application Developer/Localization G51 Intel Information Technology Engineer - Hybrid (Full Time)

G52 Snail Games USA Media Chinese Localization Specialist Contract Spanish Localization G53 Big Fish Games, Inc. Information Technology Specialist G54 Workday Information Technology Localization Engineer Assistant Manager of Localization - Fox Filmed Entertainment and Media Industry G55 Entertainment Media Opportunity Mindlink Resources, Spanish(Mexico) Localization Speciali G56 LLC Information Technology st Software Localization Engineer, G57 amazon Lab126 Information Technology Amazon Digital Marketing G58 Uber Information Technology Program Manager, Localization G59 Belcan Corporation Business Services Localization Engineer MEDIALOCATE G60 INC. Business Services Localization Engineer Lexmark G61 International Information Technology Localization Engineer G62 PHT Corporation Biotech & Pharmaceuticals Localization Coordinator, Engineering

G63 Transmosis Business Services Localization Test Engineer

G64 Zynga Media Software Engineer, Localization G65 Comcast Telecommunications Localization Release Engineer

G66 IXL Learning Education Software Engineer - Localization

Senior Software Engineer - Internationalization and Localization - Entertainment and Media Industry G67 Twitter Information Technology Opportunity Park Computer G68 Systems Business Services Localization project manager Associate Localization Project Blizzard Manager, Thai - Entertainment and G69 Entertainment Media Media Industry Opportunity

G70 Art.com Retail Localization Coordinator, Marketing G71 Masimo Manufacturing Localization Coordinator

271

Localization Quality Assurance Tester G72 Machine Zone Media - Chinese G73 Indeed Advertisement, Publication Localization Associate G74 GoPro Manufacturing Director of Localization G75 Red 5 Studios Business Services Russian Localization G76 Nexob Media Localization Coordinator G77 San Diego Studios Media Localization Testing Specialist Blueprint Consulting G78 Services Information Technology Japanese Localization Consultant G79 Resource Well Business Services Vice President of Localization Arts, Entertainment & Japanese Localization Analyst G80 Kabam Recreation (Contractor) G81 Nintendo of America Manufacturing Localization Writer/Editor G82 Stripes Group Finance Localization Coordinator, Marketing G83 PTIGlobal Business Services French Localization QA Tester G84 Nexon Media Localization Copy Editor G85 Hilton Worldwide Travel & Tourism Senior Localization Analyst

G86 Viz Media Media Associate Producer (Localization) G87 Amazon.com Retail French Localization Editor Bilingual Indonesian Customer Support G88 Facebook Information Technology and Localization Localization and Release Support G89 Riot Games Media Analyst G90 Sony Playstation Manufacturing Localization Testing Specialist G91 Moravia Worldwide Business Services Localization Program Director QA Localization Tester - Bilingual G92 2K Games Media Italian/English

272

References

ADT, LocWorld. (2015). Attracting and Developing Talent: LocWorld Initiative. Retrieved from LocWorld: https://bit.ly/2LMhbVW

Altanero, T. (2006). The localization job market in academe. In A. Pym, A. Perekrestenko, & B. Starink , Translation Technology and its Teaching (pp. 31-38). Tarragona: Servei de Publicacions.

Alves, F. (1995). Zwischen Schweigen und Sprechen: Wie bildet sich eine transkulturelle Brücke?: Eine psycholinguistisch orientierte Untersuchung von Übersetzungsvorgängen zwischen portugiesischen und brasilianischen Übersetzern. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.

Alves, F., & Gonçalves, J. L. (2007). Modelling translator’s competence: Relevance and expertise under scrutiny. In Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger , & R. Stolze, Translation Studies: doubts and directions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Anastasiou, D., & Schäler, R. (2009). Translating vital information: Localization, internationalization, and globalization. Retrieved from http://www.d-anastasiou.com/Publications/Syntheses.pdf

Anderson, J. R. (1987). Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem situations. Psychological Review 94, 192-210.

Arjona, E. (1984a). Issues in the design of curricula for the professional education of translators and interpreters. In M. L. McIntire, New dialogues in interpreter education. Proceedings of the fourth national conference of interpreters trainers convention (pp. 1-35). Silver Spring: RID.

ATA Website. (2017). List of approved translation and interpreting schools. Retrieved from American Translators Association - Certification Section: http://atanet.org/certification/eligibility_approved.php

Austermühl , F. (2006). Training translators to localize. In A. Pym, A. Perekrestenko, & B. Starink, Translation technology and its teaching (pp. 69-82). Tarragona: Servei de Publicacions.

Baer, B. J., & Koby, G. (2003). Beyond the ivory tower. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Beauchamp, G. A. (1975). Curriculum theory. Wilmette: Kagg.

Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London: Longman.

273

Bernal Merino, M. (2011). Video Game Localisation. TRANS. Revista de Traductología 15, 11-114.

Bernal-Merino, M. (2014). Translation and localisation in video games: Making entertainment software global. New York: Routledge.

Bernardini, S. (2004). The theory behind the practice. Translator training or translator education? In K. Malmkjaer, Translation in undergraduate degree programmes (pp. 17-29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Berners-Lee , T., Cailliau, R., Luotonen, A., Nielsen, H., & Secret, A. (1992/1994). The world-wide web. Communications of the ACM, 76-82.

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longman.

Bologna Process - European Higher Education Area. (1999). Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/

Bowker, L. (2002). Computer-aided Translation technology: A practical introduction. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burger, R., & Heller, R. (2015). Video game market report. Woodside Capital Partners (WCP). Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Ole5Gx

Cadieux, P., & Esselink, B. (2002). GILT: Globalization, internationalization, localization, translation. Retrieved from http://www.translationdirectory.com/article127.htm

Calvo, E. (2011). Translation and/or translator skills as organising principles for curriculum development practice. Journal of Specialised Translation, JoSTrans, 5-25.

Campbell, S. (1998). Translation into the second language. London & New York: Routledge.

Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher, 14, 13-17.

CIUTI. (2016, May). Conférence internationale permanente d'instituts universitaires de traducteurs et interprètes . Retrieved from http://www.ciuti.org/

274

Clark, D., Wakabayashi, D., & Barr, A. (2016). Strong Dollar Batters Earnings for U.S. Tech Firms. Retrieved from The Wall Street Journal: https://on.wsj.com/2LP85Eq

Clark, H. (2017). Linking education and employment: A foundatinal competency framework for career success. In J. Burrus, K. Mattern, B. Naemi, & R. Roberts, Building better students: Preparation for the workforce (pp. 247-278). New York: Oxford University Press.

Colina, S. (2003). Translation teaching: From research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Combe, K. R. (2011). Relationship management: A strategy for fostering localization success. In K. Dunne, & E. Dunne, Translation and localization project management (pp. 319-348). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Commission, E. (2008). European qualifications framework (EQF). Retrieved March 10, 2016, from European Center for the development of vocational training: https://bit.ly/2LAvuNd

Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. housand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Danks, J. H. (1997). Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage publications.

De la Paix, R., & Tarquini, G. (2012). Au-delà de la traduction: la formation de spécialistes multidisciplinaires GILT. The Big Wave, 2.

Delisle, J. (1980). L'analyse du discours comme méthode de traduction: Initiation à la traduction française de textes pragmatiques anglais, théorie et pratique. Ottawa: Ottawa University press.

Delisle, J. (1998). Définition, rédactoin et utilité des objectifs d'apprentissage en enseignement de la traduction. In I. García Izquierdo, & J. Verdegal, Los estudios de traducción: un reto didáctico (pp. 13-44). Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.

Delisle, J., & Woodsworth, J. (1995). Translators through history. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins publishing.

Densmer, L. (2014). Fishing for talent: How to find great localization PMs. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2mMoIWm

DePalma, D. (2002). Bringing home the localization bacon. Cambridge: Common Sense Advisory.

275

DePalma, D., Pielmeier, H., Lommel, A., & Stewart, R. (2017). The language services market: 2017. Annual review of the services and technology industry that supports translation, localization, and interpreting. Cambridge, MA: Common Sense Advisory, Inc.

DePalma, D., Pielmeier, H., Stewart, R., & Henderson, S. (2016). The language services market: 2016. Cambridge: Common Sense Advisory.

DePalma, D., Stewart, R., & Hedge, V. (2014). Can't read, won't buy. Retrieved from Common Sense Advisory: https://bit.ly/2OjNU36

Dictionaries, T. O. (2016). Entries: Education; training. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/education

DiFranco, C. (2003). Localization skills for translators: Localizability requirements for clients. ATA Chronicle. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2LAvMUj

Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson, Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 486-516). New York: Macmillan.

Drázdilová, P., Obadi, G., Slaninová, K., Al-Dubaee, S., Martinovic, J., & Snasel, V. (2010). Computational intelligence methods for data analysis and mining of eLearning activities. In F. Xhafa, S. Caballé, A. Abraham, T. Daradoumis, & A. Juan Perez, Computational intelligence for technology enhanced learning (pp. 195-224). Verlag/Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Blackwell Publishers.

Dreyfus, S., & Dreyfus, H. (1980). A five-stage model of mental activities involved in directed skills acquisition, paper to Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a084551.pdf

Drouin, P. (2006). Training for localization (replies to a questionnaire. In A. Pym, A. Perekrestenko , & B. Starink, Translation technology and its teaching (pp. 49-54). Tarragona: Servei de Publicacions.

Drugan, J. (2013). Quality in professional translation. New York: Bloomsbury.

Dunne, K. (2006). Introduction: A Copernican revolution: Focusing on the big picture of localization. In K. Dunne, Perspectives on localization (pp. 1-13). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

276

Dunne, K. (2009). Assessing software localization: For a valid approach. In C. Angelelli, & H. Jacobson, Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies (pp. 185-222). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Dunne, K., & Dunne , E. (2011). Translation and localization project management. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. eCoLoMedia. (2008/2010). eCoLoMedia: Vocational training in multimedia eContent localisation. Retrieved from http://ecolomedia.uni-saarland.de/en/project.htm eCoLoRe. (2002). eContent localisation resources. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2mOeQeU eCoLoTrain. (2006). Retrieved from http://ecolotrain.uni-saarland.de

EMT. (2009). Competences for professional translators, experts in multilingual and multimedia communication. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/translation

Ericsson, K., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist 49, 725-747.

Ericsson, K., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise. New York: Cambridge university press.

Esselink, B. (1999). Trained for tomorrow. Language intermational 11, 22-24.

Esselink, B. (2000). A practical guide to localization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Esselink, B. (2006). The evolution of localization. In A. Pym, A. Perekrestenko, & B. Starink, Translation technology and its teaching (pp. 21-29). Tarragona: Servei de Publicacions.

Essenhigh, H. (2000). A few thoughts on the difference between education and training. The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, http://goo.gl/F7gYvl. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/F7gYvl

EU launches Master’s in Translation network. (2009, December). Retrieved March 10, 2016, from EurActiv: https://bit.ly/2AfAthN

EurActiv. (2009). EU launches Master’s in Translation network. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2AfAthN

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. (2008). Learning opportunities and qualifications . Retrieved from European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training: https://bit.ly/2LAvuNd

277

European Commission. (2004). Working Group on Basic Skills, Foreign Language Teaching and Entrepreneurship. Progress Report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/ doc/basic2004.pdf

Fawcett, P. (1987). Putting translation theory to use. In H. Keith, & I. Mason, Translation in the modern languages degree (pp. 31-38). London: CILT.

Fernández Costales, A. (2009). Translation 2.0. The localization of institutional websites. Retrieved from https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/fernandez-costales.pdf

Fernandez Costales, A. (2009). Translation 2.0. the localization of institutional websites under the scope of functionalist approaches. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/L7n9F5

Ferreira-Alves, F. (2010). Brave new wor(l)ds: Translation, standardization and the reshaping of a professional profile in the language industry. Translation in transition 8, 1-18. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Op527M

Finch, C. R., & Crunkilton, J. R. (1999). Curriculum Development in Vocational and Technical Education: Planning, Content, and Implementation. Boston/London: Allyn and Bacon.

Finch, C., & Crunkilton, J. (1999). Curriculum development in vocational and technical education: Planning, content, and implementation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Fisher, E. (1994). Distinctive features of pupil-pupil classroom talk and their relationship to learning: How discursive exploration might be encouraged. In B. Stierer, & J. Maybin, Language, literacy and learning in educational practice (pp. 157-175). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Folaron, D. (2006). A discipline coming of age in the digital age. In K. Dunne, Perspectives on localization (pp. 195-219). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Folaron, D. (2012). Digitalizing translation. Translation spaces , 4, 5-31.

Friedman, A. (2015). America's lacking language skills. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2ovacSf

278

Gabr, M. (2001). Toward a model approach to translation curriculum. Translation Journal, 5. Retrieved from http://translationjournal.net/journal/16edu.htm

Gabr, M. (2003/2007). A TQM approach to translator training. Balancing stakeholders’ needs and responsibilities. the 4th International Conference on the Translation Industry Today: Communication, Standardization, Education. 1, pp. 65-77. Bologna: The Interpreter and Translator Trainer.

Garcia, I. (2010). Translation training 2010 : Forward thinking, work ready. Journal of Translation Studies 13, 275-282.

Genabith, J. v., & van Genabith, J. (2007). Next generation localisation exciting careers for tomorrow’s global economy. Dublin: Centre for Next Generation Localisation (CNGL).

Gerloff , P. (1988). From French to English: A look at the translation process in students, bilinguals, and professional translators. Doctoral Thesis, University of Harvard.

Gerloff, P. (1987). Identifying the unit of analysis in translation: some uses of Think-Aloud Protocol data. In C. Faerch, & G. Kasper, Introspection in Second Language Research (pp. 135-158). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gibbs, S. (2016). Mobile web browsing overtakes desktop for the first time. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://bit.ly/2fE2Z1B

Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Globalization and Localization Association. (2016). What is Localization? Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2AbGXOL

González Davies, M. (2004). Multiple voices in the translation classroom: Activities, tasks and projects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

González, J., & Wagenaar, R. (2003). Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Final Report. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.

González-Davies, M. (2004a). Undergraduate and postgraduate translation degrees. Translation in undergraduate degree programmes, 67-82.

279

Gouadec, D. (1994). L'assurance qualité en traduction - perspectives professionnelles, implications pédagogiques. The I Jornadas Internacionales de Traducción e Interpretación. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.

Gouadec, D. (2003). Notes on translator training. In A. Pym, C. Fallada, J. Ramón Biau, & J. Orenstein, Innovation and E-Learning in translator training (pp. 11-19). Tarragona: Universitat Rovira I Virgili.

Gouadec, D. (2007). Translation as a profession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner , & R. Calfee, Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.

Guillemin, P., & Trillaud, S. (2012). What has become of LISA's OSCAR standards? Multilingual Computing, 23, 38-41.

Haron, A. J. (2016). Standardized versus localized strategy: The role of cultural patterns in society on consumption and market research. Journal of Accounting & Marketing, 5, 1-4.

Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London/New York: Routledge.

Holmes, J. (1975). The name and nature of translation studies. In J. Holmes , Translated!: Papers on literary translation and translation studies (pp. 66-80). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Holmes, J. (1987). The name and nature of translation studies. In G. Toury, Translation across cultures (pp. 66-80). New Delhi: Bahri Publications.

Hurtado Albir, A. (1999). Enseñar a traducir: Merodología en la enseñanza de traductores e intérpretes. Madrid: Edelsa.

Hurtado Albir, A. (2017). Researching translation competence by PACTE group. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hurtado Albir, A., & Alves, F. (2009). Translation as a cognitive activity. In J. Munday, The Routledge companion to translation studies (pp. 54-73). New York: Routledge.

International Federation of Translators (FIT). (2016). Retrieved from International Federation of Translators: http://www.fit-ift.org/about/

280

Internet World Stats. (2018). Internet usage statistics . Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2CEWi66

Jääskaläinen, R., Kujamaki, P., & Jukka, M. (2011). Toward professionalism or against it?: Dealing with the changing world in translation research and translation education. Across languages and cultures 12, 143-56.

Jääskeläinen, R. (1990). Features of successful translation processes: A think-aloud protocol study. Joensuu: University of Joensuu: [Unpublished thesis].

Jääskeläinen, R. (1996). Hard work will bear beautiful fruit: A comparison of two think-aloud protocol studies. Meta, 41, 60-74.

Jiménez-Crespo, M. (2013). Translation and web localization. London & New York: Routledge.

Johnson, J. (2003). Learning through portfolios in the translation classroom. In B. Baer, & G. Koby, Beyond the ivory tower: Rethinking translation pedagogy (pp. 97-116). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kautz, T., Heckman, J. J., Diris, R., ter Weel, B., & Borghans, L. (2014). Fostering and measuring skills: Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2uUbawv

Kearns, J. (2006). Curriculum renewal in translator training: Vocational challenges in academic environments with reference to needs and situation analysis and skills transferability form the contemporary experience of Polish translator training culture. Dublin: Dublin City University.

Kearns, J. (2008). The academic and the vocational in translator education. In J. Kearns, Translator and interpreter training. Issues, methods and debates (pp. 184-214). London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Kelly, D. (1998). Ideological implications of translation decisions: Positive self and negative other presentation. Quaderns, 1, 57-63.

Kelly, D. (2005). A handbook for translator trainers. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.

Kelly, D. (2005). A handbook for translator trainers. Manchester & Northampton: St. Jerome Publishing.

Kelly, D. (2007). Translator competence contextualized. Translator training in the framework of higher education reform: In search of alignment in curricular design. In D. Kenny, & K. Ryou, Across

281

boundaries: International perspectives on translation studies (pp. 128-142). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kelly, D. (2007). Translator competence contextualized. Translator tTraining in the framework of higher education reform: in Search of Alignment in Curricular Design. In D. Kelly, & K. Ryou, Across boundaries: International perspectives on translation studies (pp. 128-142). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kelly, D. (2008). Training the trainers: Towards a description of translator trainer competence and training needs analysis. TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 21, 99-125.

Kelly, D. (2010). Curriculum. In Y. Gambier, & L. van Doorslaer, Handbook of translation studies, Volume 1 (pp. 87-93). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kelly, D., & Martin, A. (2009). Training and education. In M. Baker, & G. Saldanha, Routledge encycolopedia of translation studies. London & New York: Routledge.

Kim, M. (2012). Research on translator and interpreter education. In C. Millan , & C. Bartrina, Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 102-116). London & New York: Routledge.

Kiraly, D. (1995). Pathways to translation. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Kiraly, D. (2000). A social contructivist approach to translator education. Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Kiraly, D. (2003). Translation as process. In B. Baer, & G. Koby, , Beyond the ivory tower: Rethinking translation pedagogy (pp. 3-32). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kiraly, D. (2005). Project-based learning: A case for situated translation. Meta: Translators' Journal, 1098-1111.

Klaus, P. (2010). Communication breakdown. California Job Journal, 28, 1-9.

Klinger, M. (2016). What recruiters, localization vendors and employees look for. LocWorld - Attracting and developing talents. Montreal.

Kohls, L. R. (1995). Training know-how for cross-cultural and diversity trainers. Duncanville, TX: Adult Learning Systems.

Koller, W. (1979). Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.

282

Kosaka, T., & Itagaki, M. (2003). Building a curriculum for Japanese localization translators: Revisiting translation issues in the era of new technologies. In B. Baer, & G. Koby, Beyond the ivory tower: Rethinking translation pedagogy (pp. 229-250). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kridel, C. (2010). Encyclopedia of curriculum studies, Volume 1. California/London: Sage Publications.

Krings, H. P. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French. In J. House, & S. Blum-Kulka, Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 263- 275). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.

Kunte , N., & Vihonen , I. (2016). European Master's in Translation (EMT) – Putting quality, innovation, and students at the heart of translator training. Retrieved from Globalization & Localization Association (GALA): https://bit.ly/2uYLVcH

Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lane, C. (1992). Retraining 50 million Americans: The electronically mediated solution. Ed, 6, 4-9.

Lasnier, F. (2000). Réussir la formation par compétences. Montreal: Guérin.

Lawless, A. (2015). The talent gap. Multilingual, 22-23.

Li, D. (2001). Needs assessment in translation teaching: Making translator training more responsive to social needs. Babel, 46, 289-299.

LISA. (2003). Localization Industry Standards Association. Retrieved from www.lisa.org

LISA. (2007). LISA Globalization Industry Primer. Romainmôtier, Switzerland: Localization Industry Standards Association.

LISA Education Initiative Taskforce (LEIT). (1998). LEIT phase I final report.

Lommel, A. (2007). The globalization industry primer. Romainmôtier: The Localization Industry Standards Association.

Lowe, P. (1987). Revising the ACTFL/ETS scales for a new purpose: Rating skill in translating. In M. G. Rose, Translation excellence: Assessment, achievement, maintenance (pp. 53-61). New York: SUNY Binghamton Press.

283

Maes, J., Weldy, T., & Marjorie, I. (1997). A Managerial perspective: Oral communication competency is most important for business students in the workplace. The Journal of Business Communication, 67-80.

Mager, R. F. (1975). Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, CA: Fearon.

Malmkjaer, K. (2004). Translation in undergraduate degree programs. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Marfell, J. (2017). Key considerations for moving to a nurse faculty role A deanʼs perspective. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners 29, 475-483.

Martínez Melis, N., & Hurtado Albir, A. (2001). Assessment in translation studies: Research needs. Meta, 46, 272-287.

MeLLANGE. (2007). MeLLANGE (Multilingual eLearning in Language Engineering) project . Retrieved from http://mellange.eila.jussieu.fr/

MeLLANGE. (2007). MeLLANGE Project. Retrieved from http://mellange.eila.jussieu.fr/

Melnikova, O. (2018). How to become a localization project manager. Considerations for current hiring practices in established companies and startups. Multilingual, 41-45.

Milano, M., & Ullius , D. (1998). Designing powerful training: The sequential-iterative model. San Francisco: Josey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Mileto, F., & Muzii, L. (2010). Teaching Computer-Assisted translation and localization: A project-based approach. In Ł. Bogucki , Teaching translation and interpreting (pp. 13-14). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Mitchell, G. W., Skinner, L. B., & White, B. J. (2010). Essential soft skills for success in the twenty-first century workforce as perceived by business educators. Delta Pi Epsilon journal, 52, 43-53.

Mobile Is Driving Retail Ecommerce Sales Worldwide. (2018). Retrieved from eMarketer: https://bit.ly/2qZxcuY

More, C. (1980). Skill and the English working class, 1870-1914. London: Croom Helm.

284

Morón Martín, M. A. (2009). Percepciones sobre el impacto de la movilidad en la formación de traductores: La experiencia de los graduados en el programa LAE (Lenguas Aplicadas Europa). Universidad de Granada.

Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed-method design: Principles and procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Left Coast Press.

Mossop, B. (2003). What should be taught at translation school? In A. Pym, C. Fallada, J. Ramón Biau, & J. Orenstein, Innovation and E-learning in translator training (pp. 20-22). Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Intercultural Studies Group. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2NLHzfK

Muegge, U. (2014). How I teach localization: Not like old-school translation. tcworld. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2LDG4Tp

Muzii, L. (2013). Translation education: A three-legged table. Multilingual, 22-24.

Nealy, C. (2005). Integrating soft skills through active learning in the management classroom. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 2, 1-6.

Neubert, A. (1989). Translation as mediation. In R. Kolmel, & J. Payne, Babel: The cultural and linguistic barriers between nations (pp. 5-12). Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.

Neubert, A. (2000). Competence in language. In C. Schäffner, & B. Adab, Developing translation competence (pp. 3-18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Nord, C. (1991). Text analysis in translation. Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

O'Hagan, M. (2006). Training for localization (replies to a questionnaire. In A. Pym, A. Perekrestenko, & B. Starink , Translation technology and its teaching (pp. 39-44). Tarragona: Servei de Publicacions.

O'Hagan, M., & Ashworth, D. (2002). Translation-mediated communication in a digital world: Facing the challenges of globalization and localization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Olohan, M. (2007). Economic trends and developments in the translation industry: What Relevance for Translator Training? The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 37-63.

Olvera Lobo, M., & Gutiérrez-Artacho, J. (2017). Training versus profession: From traslation to web location. Proceedings of INTED2017 Conference, (pp. 5461-5469). Valancia.

285

OPTIMALE. (2011). Mapping translation programmes: Fact sheet template. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2uTLTCK

OPTIMALE. (2013). Optimising translator training in Europe 2014-2020: Declaration adopted at the OPTIMALE final conference. Rennes.

Orange, E. (2017). Meet our keynote speaker at #LocWorld35. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2NOsYQH

Orlando, M. (2016). Training 21st century translators and interpreters: At the crossroads of practice, research and pedagogy. Berlin: Frank & Timme.

PACTE. (2000). Acquiring translation competence: Hypotheses and methodological problems of a research project. In A. Beeby, Investigating translation (pp. 99-106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

PACTE. (2003). Building a translation competence model. In F. Alves, Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research (pp. 43-66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

PACTE. (2005). Investigating translation competence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Meta, 50, 609-619.

PACTE. (2008). First results of a translation competence experiment: Knowledge of translation and efficacy of the translation process. In J. Kearns, Translator and interpreter training, Issues, methods and debates (pp. 104-126). London: Continuum.

PACTE. (2009). Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Acceptability and decision-making. Across Language and Cultures, 10, 207-230.

PACTE. (2011). Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Translation problems and translation competence. In A. Beeby, O. Fox, A. Hurtado Albir, A. Kuznik, W. Neunzig, P. Rodríguez-Inés, & S. Wimmer, Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Pereira, J. (2018). Content localization revenue opportunities. Multilingual, 34-37.

POSI. (1996). POSI takes shape. A project to ‘Europeanise’ translator training. Language International, 8, 7-9.

286

Posner, G. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Process, B. (2009). Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2LD7xEJ

Proctor, R., & Dutta, A. (1995). Skill acquisition and human performance. London: Sage.

Pym, A. (1993). Epistemological problems in translation and its teaching. A seminar forthinking students. Meta, 40, 139-143.

Pym, A. (1998/2002). Translator training: A global overview. In M. Snell-Hornby, Handbuch translation (pp. 33-36). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Pym, A. (2003). Redefining translation competence in an electronic age. In defence of a minimalist approach. Meta, 48, 481-497.

Pym, A. (2004). Localization from the perspective of translation. Overlaps in the digital divide? SCALLA Conference. Kathmandu.

Pym, A. (2006). Localization, training & the threat of fragmentation. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2v63QgL

Pym, A. (2009). Translator training. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2NQxWN5

Pym, A. (2011). What technology does to translating. Translation & Interpreting, 3, 1-9.

Pym, A. (2014). Localization, training, and instrumentalization. In E. Torres-Simón, & D. Orrego- Carmona, Translation research projects 5 (pp. 37-50). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.

Pym, A., & Caminade, M. (1998). Translator-training institutions. In M. Baker, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 280-285). London: Routledge.

Quirion, M. (2003). La formation en localisation à l'université: Pourquoi faire? Meta, 48, 546-558.

Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. New York: Elsevier.

Ray, R. (2016). Preparing your team to localize more mobile moments. Multilingual , 31-33.

Reed, R. (2008). On the relationship among training, mentoring, and education. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2LUK3I6

287

Renfer, C. (1991). Translator and interpreter training: A case for a two-tier system. In C. Dollerup, & A. Loddegaard, Teaching translation and intepreting (pp. 173-184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Research, A. (2012). INDEX M-Commerce Growing to 24% of Total E-Commerce Market Value on Back of Smartphone Adoption. Retrieved from ABIresearch: https://bit.ly/2uVk8JS

Rico Pérez, C. (2010). Translator training in the European higher education area. Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 4, 89-114.

Roberts, R. (1984). Compétence du nouveau diplômé en traduction. Colloque société des traducteurs du Québec/Conseil de la langue française (pp. 172-184). Québec: Éditeur officiel du Québec.

Robinson, D. (1991). The translator's turn. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Robinson, D. (1997/2003). Becoming a translator. An accelerated course. London: Routledge.

Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75, 453-465.

Roy, C. (1984). Response to Etilvia Arjona on curriculum design. In M. L. McIntire, New dialogues in interpreter education. Proceedings of the fourth national conference of interpreter trainers convention (pp. 36-42). Silver Spring: RID.

Samson, R. (2005). Computer-assisted translation. In M. Tennent, Training for the new millennium: Pedagogies for translation and interpreting (pp. 101-126). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sargent, B., & Ray, R. (2016). Expanding global customer experience. Cambridge, MA: Common Sense Advisory, Inc.

Sawyer, D. (2001). The integration of curriculum and assessment in interpreter education: A Case Study. University of Mainz. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Oki06I

Sawyer, D. (2004). Fundamental aspects of interpreter education: Curriculum and assessment. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Schäffner, C. (2000). Running before walking? Designing a translation programme at undergraduate level. In C. Schäffner, & B. Adab, Developing translation competence (pp. 143-156). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

288

Schäffner, C. (2005). Preparing students of translation for the real world: needs, methods, constraints. In J. Peeters, On the Relationships between Translation Theory and Translation Practice 2005 (pp. 237-248). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Schäffner, C. (2009). Does translation hinder integration. Forum, 7, 99-122.

Schäffner, C. (2012). Translation competence: Training for the real world. In S. Hubscher-Davidson, & M. Borodo, Global trends in translator and interpreter training: Mediation and culture (pp. 30- 44). London: Bloomsbury.

Schäffner, C., & Adab, B. (2000). Developing translation competence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Schäler, R. (2004). A framework for localisation. SCALLA 2004 Working Conference, (pp. 1-12). Kathmandu, Nepal.

Schäler, R. (2007). Translators and localization: Education and training in the context of the Global Initiative for Local Computing (GILC). The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 119-135.

Schäler, R. (2008). Linguistic resources and localisation. In E. Yuste Rodrigo, Language resources and localization (pp. 195-214). Amsterdam/Philadelphi: John Benjamins.

Secară, A., & Hartley, T. (2006). eCoLoTrain-Blended Learning Resources for Translation Teachers. Interpreting & Translating Symposium, 57-71.

Séguinot, C. (1989). The translation process: An experimental study. In C. Séguinot, The translation process (pp. 21-53). Toronto: HG Publications.

Shreve, G. (2000). Translation at the millennium: Prospects for the evolution of a profession. In P. Schmitt, Paradigmenwechsel in der translation. Festschrift für Albrecht Neubert zum 70. geburtstag (pp. 217-234). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

Shreve, G. (2006). The deliberate practice: Translation and expertise. Journal of Translation, 9, 27-42.

Shreve, G., Danks, J., S. Founrain & M. McBeath. (1997). Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shuttleworth, M. (2010). Teaching localization via e-learning: developing and delivering an e-course on software localization at Imperial College London . Journal of Translation Studies, 3-12.

289

Sikes, R. (2011). Rethinking the role of the localization project manager. In K. Dunne , & E. Dunne, Translation and localization project management (pp. 235-264). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Singh, N. (2008). The importance of localization education. tcworld. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2LQqJeZ

Singh, N. (2012). Localization strategies for global E-Business. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, L. (2007). Teaching the intangibles. T+D, 61, 23-25.

Snell-Hornby , M. (1992). The professional translator of tomorrow: Language specialist or all-round expert? In C. Dollerup, & A. Loddegaard, Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience (pp. 9-22). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Spacinsky, D. (2013). Careers in localization. Multilingual, 25-30.

Sternberg, R. (2005). Intelligence, competence, and expertise. In A. Elliot, Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 15-30). New York & London: The Guilford Press.

Sterne, J. (2004). Adventure in code: The story of the Irish software industry. Dublin: Liffey Press.

Stoeller, W. (2011). Global virtual teams. In K. Dunne, & E. Dunne , Translation and localization project management (pp. 289-318). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sviridova, T., & Fadyeyeva, K. (2009). Software localization: Translation memory using. 2009 10th International Conference - The Experience of Designing and Application of CAD Systems in Microelectronics (pp. 556-559). Lviv-Polyana: IEEE.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.

The Localization Institute. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.localizationinstitute.com/

Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1990). Professional vs. non-professional translation: A Think-Aloud Protocol study. In M. Halliday, J. Gibbons, & H. Nicholas, Learning, keeping and using language: Selected papers from the eigth World Congress of applied linguistics (pp. 16-21). Amstrdam: John Benjamins.

290

Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1992). The interaction of world knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the processes of translation. A Think-Aloud Protocol study. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Thelen, Translation and meaning. Part 2 (pp. 433-440). Maastricht: Universitaire pers Maastricht.

Tong, K.-K., & Hayward, W. (2001). Speaking the right language in wesbite design. Conclusions of the study carried out by the department of psychology and the department of management, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Shatin, NT: Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The Univesity of Chicago Press.

U.S.DOL. (2018). Interpreters and translators. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Labor (US DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/interpreters-and- translators.htm

Ulrych, M. (2005). Training translators: Programmes, curricula, practices. In M. Tennent, Training for the New Millennium: Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Urien, E., Howard, R., & Perinotti, T. (1993). Software internationalization and localization: An introduction. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Vienne, J. (1994). Towards a pedagogy of "Translation in Situation". Perspectives, 2, 51-59.

Washbourne, K. (2012). Teaching and learning of translation. Context: Translators, academia, and the marketplace. In Teaching and learning of translation (pp. 5622-5627).

Watts, M., & Watts, R. K. (2008). Developing soft skills in students. Retrieved from http://l08.cgpublisher.com/proposals/64/index_htm

Williams, J. (2010). Backing into localization. Multilingual, 24-25.

Williams, J., & Chesterman, A. (2002). The map: A beginner's guide to doing research in translation studies. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

Wilss, W. (1976). Perspectives and limitations of a didactic framework for the teaching of translation. In R. Brislin, Translation applications and research (pp. 117-137). New York: Gardner.

291

Wilss, W. (1989). Towards a multi-facet concept of translation behavior. Target, 129-149.

Wilss, W. (2004). Translation studies: A didactic approach. In K. Malmkjaer, Translation in undergraduate degree programmes (Vol. 49, pp. 9-16). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Winterton, J., Delamare, F., & Stringfellow, E. (2005). Typology of knowledge, skills and competences: Clarification of the concept and prototype. Retrieved from http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/3048_en.pdf

Wolf, A. (1989). Can competence and knowledge mix? In J. W. Burke, Competency-based education and training. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Wright, S. (2004). Localization competence for translation and project management. In E. Fleischmann, P. Schmitt, & G. Wotjak, Translationskompetenz (pp. 581-595). Tübingen:: Stauffenburg.

Wright, S. (2006). The creation and application of language industry standards. In K. Dunne, Perspectives on localization (pp. 241-280). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Yunker, J. (2003). Beyond borders: Web globalization strategies. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.

292