Welcoming International Visitors - Communication and Culture

It is extremely rare for an international visitor to museums and galleries in the UK to find information in foreign languages which is anything more than a relatively literal translation of an English source text. At the same time, a huge body of research and theory in the humanities and social sciences implies that major cultural differences are likely to accompany the differences in first language of international visitors. As such, in spite of the fact that museums and galleries often declare their intention to meet the needs of their visitors, it is fairly clear that, in this instance, they are at best meeting their international visitors’ linguistic needs whilst ignoring their broader cultural needs. With this in mind, staff from the University of Westminster together with a number of London’s major museums and galleries obtained UK Research Council funding to work on the production of leaflets in foreign languages fully acknowledging cultural differences amongst international visitors. The collaboration was intended to generate reflection on how such materials might be most effectively produced, what impact they might have and what forms of policy review museums and galleries might as a result wish to undertake. The collaboration confirmed that cultural difference, and therefore difference in need, between visitors with different first languages is a simple reality. Translations, including ones which are culturally ‘adapted’ or ‘sensitive’, will always fall short of acknowledging the intercultural complexity of the experience of international visitors. Materials acknowledging that complexity are more effective. Museums and galleries need, therefore, to ask themselves how far and in what ways they wish to acknowledge this reality in the nature of the welcome they offer. The core of this article will draw on the outcomes of this collaboration, and also on aspects of translation and intercultural theory, to offer a critical exploration of some of the options museums and galleries therefore have in producing materials to welcome international visitors in ways which acknowledge the intercultural complexity of their experience.

Culture in Transfer: Translation and Transcultural Communication International Conference

It is widely acknowledged that interpreters need to have knowledge of the cultures represented by the languages they work with (e.g. Roy 2002, Angelelli 2004, Wadensjŏ 2008). However, it is not clear what interpreters are expected to do with this knowledge. Some scholars recommend that interpreters be cultural mediators (e.g. Katan 2004 & 2014). As an attempt to examine existing guidelines on interpreters’ roles in the face of cultures/cultural issues, the research reported in this paper compares and contrasts the codes of conduct for interpreters from a number of associations and institutions in the UK, the US and China. The research has collected three different sets of data and has sought to investigate (1) in what ways interpreters are expected to do with their knowledge of cultures; (2) to what extent interpreters’ role as cultural mediators is referred to or defined in these codes of conduct; and (3) whether or not relevant guidelines are practically helpful for interpreters to deal with the range of cultural issues they may encounter in interpreting. Data analysis suggests that while cultural knowledge is a requisite for interpreters, the expectation for them to be cultural mediators may depend on the types of interpreting setting they work with and further guidelines are needed so that interpreters are clear on what they are required to do in dealing with cultural issues. The paper then discusses the implications of these findings and points to some directions for future research. Key references Brunette, L., G Bastin, I. Hemlin and H. Clarke (ed.). The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Hale, S. 2007. Community Interpreting. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. The International Association of Conference Interpreting, 2015. Interpreting Explained. Available from: http://aiic.net/; accessed on 24 June 2015 Katan, David, --- 2004. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. St Jerome. --- 2014. Workshop: Translation at the cross-roads: time for the transcreational turn? University College London. Martín, Mayte C. & Mary Phelan, 2009. Interpreters and Cultural Mediators – different but complementary roles. In: Translocations: Migration and Social Change. ISSN Number: 2009-0420 (online) McDonough Dolmaya, Julie, (2011. Moral ambiguity: Some shortcomings of professional codes of ethics for translators. In: The Journal of Specialised Translation. Issue 15, January 2011 (online). Pöchhacker, F., 2008. Interpreting as Mediation. In: (ed.) Valero Garcés, C. and Martin, A, Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: definitions and dilemmas, pp. 9-26. John Benjamins Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Roy, Cynthia B., 2002. The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of Interpreters. In: (ed.) Pöchhacker, Franz & Miriam Shlesinger, The Interpreting Studies Reader. Routledge. Wadensjö 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.

Learning Environments in Design Studio Culture

The paper reports on a study of design studio culture from a student perspective. Learning in design studio culture has been theorised variously as a signature pedagogy emulating professional practice models, as a community of practice and as a form of problem-based learning, all largely based on the study of teaching events in studio. The focus of this research has extended beyond formally recognized activities to encompass the student’s experience of their social and community networks, working places and study set-ups, to examine how these have contributed to studio culture and how there have been supported by studio teaching. Semi-structured interviews with final year undergraduate students of architecture formed the basis of the study using an interpretivist approach informed by Actor-network theory, with studio culture featured as the focal actor, enrolling students and engaging with other actors, together constituting an actor-network of studio culture. The other actors included social community patterns and activities; the numerous working spaces (including but not limited to the studio space itself); the equipment, tools of trade and material pre-requisites for working; the portfolio enrolling the other actors to produce work for it; and the various formal and informal events associated with the course itself. Studio culture is a highly charged social arena: The question is how, and in particular, which aspects of it support learning? Theoretical models of situated learning and communities of practice models have informed the analysis, with Bourdieu’s theory of practice, and his interrelated concepts of habitus, field and capital providing a means of relating individually acquired habits and modes of working to social contexts. Bourdieu’s model of habitus involves the externalisation through the social realm of habits and knowledge previously internalised. It is therefore a useful model for considering whole individual learning activities; shared repertoires and practices located in the social realm. The social milieu of the studio provides a scene for the exercise and display of ‘practicing’ and the accumulation of a form of ‘practicing-capital’. This capital is a property of the social milieu rather than the space, so working or practicing in the company of others (in space and through social media) becomes a more valued aspect of studio than space or facilities alone. This practicing-capital involves the acquisition of a habitus of studio culture, with the transformation of physical practices or habits into social dispositions, acquiring social capital (driving the social milieu) and cultural capital (practicing-knowledge) in the process. The research drew on students’ experiences, and their practicing ‘getting a feel for the game’ by exploring the limits or boundaries of the field of studio culture. The research demonstrated that a notional studio community was in effect a social context for supporting learning; a range of settings to explore and test out newly internalised knowledge, demonstrate or display ideas, modes of thinking and practicing. The study presents a nuanced interpretation of how students relate to a studio culture that involves a notional community, and a developing habitus within a field of practicing that extends beyond teaching scenarios.