Interpreting as a Service: The Uberization of Interpreting Services

Abstract

This proposed paper examines the phenomenon which might be referred to as the Uberization of the interpreting and language services as well as the possible benefits and the potential drawbacks of applying the Uberization model to conference interpreting and language services. One needs to consider valid concerns such as income instability, loss of professional standards, and the potential commoditization of specialized skills. The article also discusses how the gig economy nature of Uberization might lead to reduced job security, lack of benefits, and challenges in maintaining quality and ethical standards within the scope of interpreting and language services in general. While the model offers convenience and accessibility, it raises critical questions about the sustainability and integrity of the interpreting profession in an increasingly on-demand digital landscape. This article attempts at looking at the phenomenon through the remote interpreting services platforms and their affiliated marketplaces with possible conclusions for the interpreters and the interpreting industry in an overall context of professionalization.

Keywords

• Gig economy
• uberization
• conference interpreting
• remote interpreting
• professionalization

References

1. Barabe, D. Translation Status- (2021). A professional approach. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (36), 165-183.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
3. Chan, L. J. (2005) Why are most translators underpaid? A descriptive explanation using asymmetric information and a suggested solution from signalling theory. Translation Journal, 9(2), http://accurapid.com/journal/32asymmetric.htm.
4. Dam, H. V., & Zethsen, K. K. (2008). Translator status. The Translator, 14(1), 71-96. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799250
5. Fırat, G. (2021). Uberization of translation: Impacts on working conditions. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization, 8(1), 48-75.
6. Gaiba, F. (1998). Front matter. In The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial (pp. 1–6). University of Ottawa Press.
7. Gentile, P. (2013). The status of conference interpreters: A global survey into the profession. Rivista internazionale di tecnica della traduzione, (151), 63–82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273257256.
8. Gentile, P. (2016). The professional status of public service interpreters. A comparison with nurses. FITISPos International Journal, (3), 174-183.

9. Herbert, J. (1952). The interpreter’s handbook: How to become a conference interpreter. Geneva Librairie de l'UniversiteÌ.
10. Lambert, J. (2018). How ethical are codes of ethics? Using illusions of neutrality to sell translations. Journal of Specialised Translation, (30), 269-287.
11. Lambert, J. & Walker, C. (2022). Because we’re worth it: Disentangling freelance translation, status, and rate-setting in the United Kingdom. Translation Spaces, 11(2), 277-302.
12. Pöchhacker, F. (2009). Surveying the profession. In R. Sela-Sheffy and M. Shlesinger (Eds.). Profession, identity and status: Translators and interpreters as an occupational group. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 4(2), 172-186. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
13. Rosado, T. (2016). Are we protecting our profession? https://rpstranslations.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/are-we-protecting-our-profession-part-1/. Last accessed 9 July 2023.
14. Scholz, T., & Schneider N. (Eds.). (2016). Ours to hack and to own: The rise of platform cooperativism, a new vision for the future of work and a fairer internet. OR Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv62hfq7