Naughty and Nice

     I've been thinking about ethics lately, at least partly because my NAATI accreditation is up for renewal soon and there is an ethics component to the revalidation criteria but there have been a few other items that have piqued my attention as well.

     I once somewhat facetiously wrote that most ethics can be summed up as 'play nice' and I still think that this is not far wrong. In fact, I would say that most codes of ethics can probably boil down to 'don't abuse people's trust in you'. There are a lot of details but I think this is the key point. For example, the AUSIT code of ethics (sitting next to me as I type this) warns against misusing inside information, breaching confidentiality or undertaking work beyond your abilities, which all seem to be relatively unrelated. However, these are all cases where a client has chosen to trust you, whether that be trusting you will keep their secrets or that you are as good as you say you are, and in all cases unethical behaviour results from an abuse of that trust.
     Of course, it is not only the client's trust that we are required to keep. Requirements such as being professional are at least partly about other translators and bringing associations such as NAATI or AUSIT or the profession as a whole into disrepute. Other parties that trust us include the readers, hence the exhortations for accuracy and impartiality. The readers can't always check the source document for themselves (at least not easily) and rely on us to report the true meaning of the original as closely as we can. I think a part of this also includes avoiding the appearance of impropriety but this is something I would like to return to later.
     In general, I think that most people try to do the right thing (if you're not one of these people, this discussion probably doesn't apply to you. You may be excused early) and most ethical dilemmas are likely to be the result of conflicting interests. An example of this occurred a few months ago (I'm omitting any details in case I make a mistake and because they're not really the point I'm getting at) when a company got in to trouble for selling a defective product. A translator was asked to translate some internal documents that, among other things, discussed how the company could hide the extent of this from the public or at least limit the fallout. Now, on the one hand, the translator is bound to be objective (the AUSIT code of ethics states a translator or interpreter should decline a job if they feel they cannot be objective) and maintain confidentiality but on the other hand, the translator may feel she has a duty to the public to reveal what has been said (as far as I can tell AUSIT doesn't cover whistle blowing). Of course, it is not that simple and other factors also come into play and need to be considered (e.g. what are the repercussions of speaking out vs not speaking out? Are people I know going to be personally affected one way or another? Is there a third option? Whatever happens, can I live with myself afterwards?) but I think this is at least a part of the issue. I realise that this barely scratches the surface of a complex topic and in many cases states the obvious but this is just a starting point for the conversation, not the final word.

     A point that I wanted to come back to was avoiding the appearance of impropriety. I feel that this is a topic closely related to ethics because regardless of whether you have done something wrong, the appearance that you have brings about a similar result, namely, people doubt their trust in you and question your past and future actions. There are a couple of examples that I have noticed recently that I invite you to consider but keep in mind that there is no proof of unethical behaviour. These are activities that may be as innocent as is claimed but that look damning, or at best a little questionable, to outside observers.
     First, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has updated its ethical guidelines recently. However, in doing so they have acted to prevent the updated guidelines from undergoing public scrutiny, which is considered by some to be an essential part of the process, and the ethics committee responsible for the guidelines was quietly disbanded, so quietly that the members of the committee were not told it had disbanded. As far as I can tell, the college has not given any reasons other than to say they no longer intend to have a public-consultation process. They may not have technically done anything wrong but some of their actions appear to be unethical in relation to their member physicians and certainly appear suspect to outsiders. More can be read here.
     Another example that has been in the headlines recently is the misuse of entitlements by MPs on both sides of Australian politics. For those who are unaware, Australian MPs can claim to have the government pay for work related travel expenses and it has recently come to light that many MPs have been claiming travel entitlements incorrectly (in all fairness, it is not always entirely clear what is eligible to be claimed and what is not). However, this starts looking bad when the Prime Minister refuses to consider clarifying the legislation involved, made $84,000 in dubious claims and even claimed on the expenses incurred when he was spruiking his book. Considering the pillorying Peter Slipper received from the LNP over less than $1000, this certainly looks bad. Tony Abbott is not the only MP involved (I just picked on him because I don't like him), many others claimed travel expenses for weddings in particular (including Tony Abbott going to Peter Slipper's wedding) with very weak justifications of networking etc. Now, much of these claimed travel entitlements have been paid back and some of these claims may even have been legitimate but it seems quite obvious that there was no intention to pay anything back if this had not been brought to the intention of the public. There is no clear distinction here between those who knowingly rorted the system (definitely on the naughty list) and those who were happy to take advantage of a grey area but were willing to pay the money back if they were wrong.
     There is one last point that I want to bring up and this relates directly to both AUSIT and NAATI. As I mentioned way back in the beginning, there is an ethics component to NAATI revalidation (For the record, I think the ethics component to the accreditation test is a good idea. It ensures that people who are accredited know what is expected of them). Now this was introduced relatively recently (I think I would have been exempt if I had qualified for accreditation a couple of years earlier) and both AUSIT and NAATI had a say in the revalidation requirements. Both AUSIT and NAATI offer paid courses on ethics that help to meet this requirement. Now, these may have been in place before the revalidation requirements were negotiated or it may even be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing but, seriously, offering a paid course to meet requirements that you had a hand in setting (ethical requirements, no less), that looks pretty bad to me, almost like a misuse of inside information. I haven't taken the courses, so I can't speak to whether or not they are worth the money but I would hope that they are bloody fantastic because otherwise it looks like a cold grab for cash at the expense of people you claim to be representing.

A Regular Client

I have a regular client with guaranteed work every month. I'm quite happy about this.

There are a number of reasons that I'm pleased (aside from the fact that I'm getting paid). For a start, it gives me some measure of income security. It's not enough work to pay all my bills (yet), but it does mean I have some income that I can count on. I'm also happy to be working with this agency. They have high standards but they're also very supportive in helping me to meet those standards. They provide good feedback from their internal checkers and from the end client and they are willing to listen to any comments or questions that I have. I have also spoken to my contact there a couple of times and she seems like a nice person. Importantly, they are also transparent and consistent in their payment.

Naturally it's not all sunshine and puppy dogs but I can't really blame them for any problems that have come up and they've been really good about trying to make things easier for their translators.

Staying Alive

Just a short post to remind the world that I'm still not dead. I was quite busy for a while but I find myself with more free time now and am planning to write something in the very near future. I feel it has been remiss of me to deny the world of my wisdom for so long.

Fashionably Late for New Year's

It seems to be the done thing to have a New Year's post to look back at the year that's been and at the year ahead, etc. and who am I to argue against the collective wisdom of the Internet; that many people can't be wrong (/sarcasm).

I actually achieved most of the goals that I set for myself last year. Namely, I had some business cards made (they are now depressingly out-of-date), went to IJET in Hiroshima (it was great) and set up a website (I'm averaging about a half dozen hits a day, maybe more), all of which were discussed at the time. The only thing on the list I didn't do was being a bit more active in responding to blog posts and the like. In fact, I think I went backward in that area. For a start, I have been posting less on my own blog. Furthermore, I have accounts on Facebook, Google+ (Don't bother looking me up. If I haven't met you, I won't add you. I'm weird like that) and Twitter and I don't remember the last time I posted anything to any of them, I barely even look at them. I just don't 'do' social media.

Sometime over the coming year, I need to think about improving my website. There are some good ideas that I saw on other websites that I didn't put in because I wanted to get mine up and running, like a page with standard terms and conditions. I'll also need to think about a Japanese version (will I write it myself or get someone else to do it for me?) and the mechanics of how it will be set up. I know of at least one example where the button to change language is actually a link that goes to a separate website with exactly the same layout so it looks like the same site. I thought this was a clever idea and probably the simplest to implement given my level of web design ability and I can make it work very easily with my given set up.

I also want to get new business cards. I like the design of the ones that I have but I've moved house and I want to put my website on them as well. I also picked up a few ideas from other people's business cards at IJET that I want to incorporate.

Speaking of IJET, I'm not sure if I will go this year. I would like to go (especially since they have put up some hints of what will be discussed on the website and it looks to be very interesting), but I'm not sure if I will be able to afford it (one of the downsides to living in regional Australia) and I want to be sure that I can afford to go to next year's, which I hear is in Tokyo.

The other big thing is my NAATI accreditation expires this year and I need to decide if I will just let it expire or if I will renew it. On the one hand, I like being accredited and it looks good on my CV; on the other hand, I don't think I've had any work from an agency interested in my NAATI accreditation for at least two years and I'm not sure what work I did have justifies the trouble and expense of meeting the revalidation requirements. It's a big thing because in addition to translating an average of 10,000 words a year (this is not an issue; I've occasionally done more than that in a week) there are professional development requirements, some of which I don't agree with and I've been a little slack in this regard in any case. As any example of the former, there is a compulsory ethics component that can involve taking ethics classes every year and I don't think this necessary or even helpful. If you have the accreditation, you have already passed an ethics exam to start with, rendering this component unnecessary, or you lied well enough to pass, rendering it useless. Further, I doubt people's ethics will be seriously affected by anything short of a major life altering event (or possibly a study of philosophy and meta-physics) and no course will make a difference in such a case. Anyway, it mostly boils down to 'play nice' and 'don't bite off more than you can chew'. As for the latter, I'm sure I can make all sorts of excuses to justify myself but I won't. It'll only come across as whining anyway.  Regardless, revalidation costs $165 and I'm not sure if it's worthwhile.

Lastly, and apropos of nothing, over the Christmas period I was watching a Danish politico-drama called Borgen and I noticed that they sometimes used English for emphasis. This happened quite a bit in the first episode, in cases where we would rely on tone of voice or air quotes to convey a point, they were able to do so by speaking English. (For example, a character quoted Nixon saying "I'm not a crook". In English, you would need to imitate his voice to get the point across but here the point came across because it was in English. This was not the only example, just the one that sticks in my mind.) I suppose we do a similar thing using French, saying that something lacks that je ne sais quoi or experiencing a frisson of delight, but it seems to be something that we don't see very often any more given how anglocentric English-speakers tend to be. Still, it was interesting to see from the other side.