Exploring the ethical perspectives of translation students and professional translators on translation technology

Abstract This study adopts Q methodology to explore the ethical perspectives of translation students and professional translators on translation technology. It reveals four salient viewpoints among the two groups, i.e., “Boldness with Tradition,” “Relativism in Intersection,” “Empowerment without Agency,” and “Optimism and Social Darwinism,” and finds that the two groups differ in perspectives on clients’ interest, human translation’s sustainability, the humanist values of translation, and communication of technological usage. A shared acceptance of technology driven by social responsibility is also identified across the two groups. The findings suggest that despite the ethical divide between the two groups, lack of ethical knowledge may also exist on the professional side. Considering gap but also bridge, it is argued that the revealed consensus between the two groups offers a foundation for dialogue, where translation education and industry can converge to build a more inclusive ethical vision that encompasses a wider range of stakeholders.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Translation Spaces
Published
2025-03-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.24021.li
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Translation Studies and Practices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
20.85
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exploring the ethical perspectives of translation students and professional translators on translation technology

Yizhu Li
2 citations
Translation Spaces
Translation Studies and Practices
20.85
article

Exploring the ethical perspectives of translation students and professional translators on translation technology

Yizhu Li
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract This study adopts Q methodology to explore the ethical perspectives of translation students and professional translators on translation technology. It reveals four salient viewpoints among the two groups, i.e., “Boldness with Tradition,” “Relativism in Intersection,” “Empowerment without Agency,” and “Optimism and Social Darwinism,” and finds that the two groups differ in perspectives on clients’ interest, human translation’s sustainability, the humanist values of translation, and communication of technological usage. A shared acceptance of technology driven by social responsibility is also identified across the two groups. The findings suggest that despite the ethical divide between the two groups, lack of ethical knowledge may also exist on the professional side. Considering gap but also bridge, it is argued that the revealed consensus between the two groups offers a foundation for dialogue, where translation education and industry can converge to build a more inclusive ethical vision that encompasses a wider range of stakeholders.

Translation SpacesVol. 14(1)
University College Dublin (IE), University of Auckland (NZ), National University of Singapore (SG), Fudan University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Translation Studies and Practices
20.85
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Exploring the ethical perspectives of translation students and professional translators on translation technology — Yizhu Li · Translation Spaces (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS