How Legal Translation Studies Research Might Assist Lawyers with Best Procurement Practice

  • Juliette Scott
Part of the Communicating in Professions and Organizations book series (PSPOD)


This chapter differs from many of the others in this book insofar as the author herself attempts to straddle the two worlds the intersection of which is under discussion — those of academia and practice. The complexities of access to professional worlds by researchers have been widely discussed (e.g. Kaur Johl & Renganathan, 2010; Okumus, Altinay & Roper, 2007; Welch, Marschan-Piekkari, Penttinen & Tahvanainen, 2002), whilst the positive outcomes of academic-practice partnerships are commonly stated. One might therefore conclude that a practitioner-researcher would hold a privileged position in that regard. The realities are far more complex — in fact a practitioner-researcher (or indeed researcher-practitioner!) must take great pains in order for their research to be accepted as sufficiently robust 1, and may be mistrusted by both “sides” — by academia for not having a sufficiently proven “track record”, and by practitioners for no longer being “one of them”. Hence, a researcher-practitioner not only has to tread very carefully concerning the “INs” of the profession being studied, but also the “INs” of the world of research itself.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baskerville, R. & Evans, L. (2011). The darkening glass: Issues for the translation of IFRS. Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.Google Scholar
  2. Bazeley, P. (2009). Analysing qualitative data: more than “identifying themes”. The Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research 2 (2): 6–22.Google Scholar
  3. Bhatia, V.K. (1983). An applied discourse analysis of English legislative writing, A Language Studies Unit research report. Birmingham: University of Aston.Google Scholar
  4. Bhatia, V.K. (1987). Language of the law. Language Teaching 20: 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhatia, V.K. (1997). Translating legal genres. In Trosborg, A. (Ed), Text Typology and translation (pp. 203–214 ). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhatia, V.K. (2008). Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific Purposes 27: 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhatia, V.K. (2010). Interdiscursivity in professional communication. Discourse & communication 4 (32): 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borja Albi, A. & Prieto Ramos, F. (2013). Legal translation in context. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cao, D. (2008). Translation at the United Nations as Specialized Translation. Journal of Specialised Translation 9: 39–54Google Scholar
  10. Dam, H.V. & Zethsen, K.K. (2011). The Status of Professional Business Translators on the Danish Market: A Comparative Study of Company, Agency and Freelance Translators. Meta 56 (4): pp. 976–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14 (1): 57–74.Google Scholar
  13. Fortney, S.S. (2009). Taking empirical research seriously. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 22 (4): 1473–1477.Google Scholar
  14. Galdia, M. (2009). Legal linguistics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Garzone, G. (2000). Legal and functionalist approaches: A contradiction in terms? Paper presented at Legal translation, history, theory/ies, and practice. Accessed from Scholar
  16. Gotti, M. (2012). Text and genre. In P. M. Tiersma, & L. M. Solan, (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Language and the Law (pp. 52–66 ). Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Harvey, M. (2002). What’s so special about legal translation? Meta, 47 (2): 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katan, D. (2009). Translation theory and professional practice: A global survey of the great divide. Hermes–Journal of Language and Communication Studies 42: 111–153.Google Scholar
  19. Kaur Johl, S. & Renganathan, S. (2010). Strategies for Gaining Access in Doing Fieldwork: Reflection of two Researchers. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 8 (1): 42–50.Google Scholar
  20. Künnecke, M. (2013). Translation in the EU: Language and law in the EU’s judicial labyrinth. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 20 (2): pp. 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kurzon, D. (1997). “Legal language”: varieties, genres, registers, discourses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7 (2): 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mattila, H.E.S. (2006). Comparative legal linguistics. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  23. Monjean-Decaudin, S. (2012). La traduction du droit dans la procédure judiciaire. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
  24. Mayoral Asensio, R. (2003). Translating official documents. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
  25. Nickerson, C. (2014). Business communication. In V. Bhatia & S. Bremner (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication (pp. 50–67 ). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Nida, E.A. (1976). A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories of Translation. In R. W. Brislin (Ed), Translation: Applications and Research (pp. 47–91 ). New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
  28. Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11 (4): pp. 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Obenaus, G. (1995). The legal translator as information broker. In M. Morris, Translation and the Law. (pp. 247–259 ). Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Okumus, F., Altinay, L. & Roper, A. (2007). Gaining access for research: Reflections from experience. Annals of Tourism Research 34 (1): 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olohan, M. (2007). Economic Trends and Developments in the Translation Industry: What Relevance for Translator Training? The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (1): 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C. & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31 (4): 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prioux, R. & Rochard, M. (2007). Economie de la révision dans une organization internationale: le cas de l’OCDE. The Journal of Specialised Translation 8: 21–41.Google Scholar
  34. Pym, A., Grin, F., Sfreddo, C. & Chan, A.L.J. (2012). The status of the translation profession in the European Union. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  35. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Schroth, P.W. (1986). Legal Translation. American Journal of Comparative Law 34: 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scott, J. (forthcoming). PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  38. Seidel, J.V. (1998). Qualitative Data Analysis. Appendix to the The Ethnograph v4. Manual. Downloadable from
  39. Strandvik, I. (2012). Legal harmonization through legal translation; Texts that say the same thing? In Baaij, C. J. W. (Ed), The Role of Legal Translation in Legal Harmonization (pp. 25–49 ). London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  40. Tiersma, P.M. (2000). Legal language. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Vigier, F., Klein, P. & Festinger, N. (2013). Certified translators in Europe and in the Americas: Accreditation practices and challenges. In A. Borja Albi & F. Prieto Ramos (Eds), Legal translation in context (pp. 27–51 ). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  42. Welch, C., Marschan-Piekkari, R., Penttinen, H. & Tahvanainen, M. (2002). Corporate elites as informants in qualitative international business research. International Business Review 11: 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wright, K.B. (2006). Researching Internet-based populations: advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(3). doi: 10.1111/j.1083–6101.2005.tb00259.xGoogle Scholar
  44. Zu, X. & Kaynak, H. (2012). An agency theory perspective on supply chain quality management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 32 (4): 423–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Juliette Scott 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliette Scott

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations