Translation in UK International Studies

The status of translation in international studies under the UK REF

Translation matters in international studies

Translation matters to an era’s intellectual culture. Historically those moments of profound cultural flourishing have coincided with serious interest in translation.

Literary translation may sometimes animate the pages of cultural commentary. On occasion, this may even spill over into public debates as we witnessed this Christmas over Emily Wilson’s translations of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. However, literary translation is struggling in the UK, especially of poetry and drama, which publishers do not see as commercially viable. Moreover, literary translation as scholarly activity is struggling in UK academia, with threatened future closures of language-based area studies in the humanities, and its disregard in the social sciences. This neglect of literary translation should be regarded as surprising in political studies and international studies given their dependence on translation and their disciplinary origins taking translation seriously.

UK policymakers in the 1990s embraced a vision of Global Britain, but this vision was essentially premised on a globalised interdependent world constructed in a globalised English. The last three decades has witnessed a huge expansion of international studies clustered around the discipline of political studies and international relations in the UK. Translation is a presupposition of international studies. Nevertheless, this expansion of international studies has essentially assumed the subject is conducted in global English, marginalising questions of translation. Translation and literary translation in so far as they are pursued do so largely outside the existing frameworks of international studies in the UK. Yet the country has also seen a general decline of appreciation of language studies across schools and higher education, contributing to marginalisation of language-based area studies and literary translation in universities (British Academy and University Council of Modern Languages; Collen and Duff, 2024; Long and Danechi, 2024; OFSTED, 2021).

What does global Britain and its international studies know if only knowing global English or sources in global English? The answer is significantly more as an academic community if translation is supported. I emphasise here I am not talking about individual language knowledge, something too often wielded as a class signifier against those who might be monolingual but may have more grounded insights than many a multilingual individual about developments in the world. My defence of translation concerns collective knowledge, and how academia could support individual academics with language knowledge contributing to that collective knowledge through translation.

In this paper, I seek to defend literary translation as art and scholarship, here using the terms translation or literary translation interchangeably. We can define literary translation, following Clifford Landers’ popular Literary Translation: A Practical Guide, as a creative aesthetic, philosophical activity towards ‘recreating in a new language a work that would otherwise remain beyond reach’, and conveying its qualities to a new readers and audiences (Landers, 2001, p. 5). As such literary translation encompasses literary genres including drama, novels, poetry and essays, and historical, philosophical, political and religious works or other forms of translation premised on human judgement.

A translation embodies scholarship and should be recognised as scholarship in its own right. It should not simply be treated as secondary to publications on the text or translation of the text. Not least literary translation opens up works to others to read, enjoy and study beyond the confines of language specialists. New audiences of academics and the general public may read and interpret the work for themselves. Translation is a bridge between language communities giving voice to distinct perspectives on the world. At the same time translation is a form of international diplomacy.

What are political studies and international studies in Britain failing to know or contribute in their failure to recognise the importance of translation to its understanding of the world and the practices of international relations? To paraphrase the cultural critic George Steiner (1975), neglecting translation in politics and international studies would turn it into a hollow superficially globalised academic field, lacking the virtues of either provincial understanding or international understanding. A politics and international studies limited to global English represents a narrowed academic activity abstracted from the world. The essential contribution of translation to voicing and understanding the world and to international diplomacy is long overdue its proper recognition in international studies, and the UK formal academic governance structures.

The call for recognition of translation as scholarship in political studies and international studies is a call for an intellectual renaissance going back to the roots of our disciplinary methods of scholarship. After all, Thomas Hobbes, as perhaps the country’s greatest political philosopher, undertook translation as integral to his scholarship, for example, translating Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War in 1628, as well as Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey in his final years (Thucydides, 1989; Steinmetz, 2020). The Thucydides Trap, or the security dilemma, remains one of the core concepts used in International Relations today, which we derive from this past scholarly translation.

This paper identifies a key obstacle to the academic pursuit of translation as deriving from the previous provisions of the national academic research governance framework, known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) which failed to make explicit that translations could be submitted as legitimate research outputs to all its panels, including the social sciences panel, not only the arts and humanities panel.

If the REF is going to continue, an important simple and financially cost-free measure to support academic translation activity as valued scholarly activity would be to explicitly recognise translations as legitimate academic outputs in REF 2029 across the all the sub-panels in UK. Perhaps UK REF2029 can belatedly recognise the contribution of translation to the field of politics and international relations in honour of the three hundredth anniversary of Hobbes’ translation of Thucydides?

All that the REF 2029 planners need to do is a simple statement on its web site:

‘We value the contribution that translation makes as original, significant and rigorous scholarship and research across all fields and disciplines in UK higher education, and we recognise the submission of translation work as an output type to any panel in REF 2029.’

REF 2029 needs to make a statement of recognition as soon as possible to support translation’s resumption at UK universities as scholarly activity. Alarmingly many language-based area studies in the humanities may have shrunk or closed under university financial restructuring by the time of the REF 2029 (UCUQM), 2025; Roswell, 2025). This deplorable academic situation means that it is urgent for other academic fields including international studies to recognise the contribution of literary translation and other forms of scholarship from language, culture and history area studies.

Translation in area studies and international studies under the UK research governance framework

In this section I set out the position of translation under the UK research governance framework alongside the fields of area studies, and politics and international studies. The practice of translation has effectively been excluded as scholarship in UK politics and international studies under the nearly four decades of official academic governance frameworks since the mid-1980s, known originally as the Research Assessment Exercise, and later as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Indeed it was only belatedly from the 2000s onwards, that translation was officially recognised in the arts and humanities assessment criteria as work that could be submitted as part of an institution’s portfolio.

To begin with, we need to consider the assessment panels and units of the official academic review structure.

The UK Research Exercise Framework (REF) is the core UK national level academic review structure. The REF is organised around a number of panels. The REF2021 in a document entitled Index of revisions to the ‘Panel criteria and working methods (2019/02)’ sets out key information on its panels, sub-panels, units of assessment and their ‘descriptors and boundaries’:

Panel criteria and working methods (2019/02)

1.This document sets out the assessment criteria and working methods of the main and sub-panels for the Research Excellence Framework 2021.

2. This document, taken together with the ‘Guidance on submissions’ (REF 2019/01), provides a comprehensive description of the information required in submissions to the REF, and how the REF panels will assess submissions.

Key points

3. The REF is a process of expert review. Expert sub-panels for each of 34 units of assessment (UOA) will carry out the assessment, working under the leadership and guidance of four main panels. [….]

5. This document sets out a combined statement of criteria and working methods across the four main panels. Supplementary criteria are set out for each main panel where applicable. The main panels’ supplementary criteria are intended to be read alongside the combined criteria, and do not replace it.

(REF, 2020, Points 1-5, p. 2)

From document: REF Panel criteria and working methods (2019/02)

https://2021.ref.ac.uk/publications-and-reports/panel-criteria-and-working-methods-201902/index.html

Of key relevance to the recognition of translation as scholarly activity within area studies and international studies are Panel C: Social Sciences and Panel D: Arts and Humanities.

Main Panel C: Social Sciences:

Main Panel C: UOAs 13–24

Introduction

88. The sub-panels of Main Panel C cover a diverse range of content, disciplines and methodologies. The sub-panels anticipate receiving research outputs, impact case studies, and impact and environment templates which reflect that rich diversity, and have no pre-conceptions about where excellent research will be found.

89. Each sub-panel expects to receive submissions whose primary research focus falls within the stated remit of its UOA. Submitting units are encouraged to submit their strongest work, including interdisciplinary work, in the UOA where it is most appropriate. (REF, 2020, Points 88-89, p. 19)

Main Panel D: Arts and Humanities

Main Panel D: UOAs 25–34

Introduction

1. The main panel is charged with identifying excellence in the rich diversity of research covered by the UOAs described below. It welcomes all outputs arising from this research, in whatever genre, medium or location, that can be demonstrated to meet the definition of research for the REF, as outlined in Annex C of the ‘Guidance on submissions’ and that have entered the public domain during the publication period. The sub-panels are committed to applying criteria and working methods that reflect the distinctive character, methodologies and full breadth of these disciplines (including interdisciplinary research), and that facilitate the formation of a balanced range of judgements, without privileging or disadvantaging any particular form of research output, research methodology or type of research environment.

2. The main panel and its sub-panels will operate according to the following principles:

· Panels will assess submissions in the form that HEIs have chosen to present their research, within the REF framework.

· Panels will aim to identify excellence wherever they can find it. (REF, 2020, Points 127-128, p. 28)

Translation is a core activity underpinning the spectrum of academic disciplines. Here I am focused on the importance of translation for area studies, and politics and international studies. The REF document sets out the following descriptor for politics and international studies:

Unit of Assessment 19: Politics and International Studies

107. Descriptor: Politics and international studies has a broad spectrum, including: comparative politics; area studies, international development, national and sub-national and grassroots politics; studies of political institutions, public administration, policy and governance; the examination of power, authority and legitimacy; political behaviour, political sociology and political economy; and political theory and philosophy, including histories of political and international thought. It also includes international relations theory; security studies including strategic, war and peace studies; conflict research; international history; international political economy; and foreign policy analysis. The sub-panel will welcome work from across this spectrum, including work that draws on a wide range of theoretical approaches, among them feminist, postcolonial and queer perspectives, and on diverse methods in political and international studies, among them quantitative, qualitative and multimethod work as well as formal analysis and conceptual research. Outputs on pedagogic research in politics and international studies will also be welcome.

108. Boundaries: The sub-panel expects to receive submissions in the UOA from all areas of the discipline. It recognises that the boundaries of politics and international studies are not fixed and welcomes work that is interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary in nature. The sub-panel expects to read most of the material ‘in-house’. However, it will draw on the expertise of other sub-panels where appropriate. (REF, 2020, Points 107-108, p. 23)

This descriptor is not comprehensive and it explicitly states that ‘its boundaries.. are not fixed’, and how it ‘welcomes work that is interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary in nature’ (ibid.) There is no explicit reference to translation as part of its research outputs or language expertise among its diverse methods. However, it is unlikely a field dependent on translation for many of its sources in political theory and international theory, and in its empirical comparative political research on different countries and its research on international studies, would seriously deny translation as valuable scholarship. Any such denial would undermine the overall legitimacy of its claims to be an international academic field realising work of world class and international standing, especially given the REF’s broad statements supporting diverse approaches and output types as highlighted below (REF, 2020, point 88, p. 19; REF, 2020, points 206-208, p. 49).

The Politics and International Studies unit makes explicit reference to area studies. What is areas studies? The UK REF tells us that area studies is as follows:

Unit of Assessment 25: Area Studies

1. Taking an inclusive view of Area Studies as a dynamic field, the sub-panel understands Area Studies broadly to include the study of all regions of the world, across any period of time (ancient, medieval and modern) however defined, and the communities associated with them. As well as in terms of national territories, regions may be delineated in various ways, including by traditional geographical designations (e.g. African Studies, American and Anglophone Studies (Canada and the United States); Asian Studies including Central Asian, North East Asian Studies (including China and Japan), South Asian and South East Asian Studies; Latin American and Caribbean Studies; Australian, New Zealand and Pacific Studies; European Studies, including Russian and East European Studies; Middle Eastern Studies (including Jewish and Islamic Studies)); by ecological (e.g. Circumpolar Studies), geopolitical (e.g. Post-Soviet Studies) or institutional (e.g. European Union Studies) criteria; or in terms of themes, processes or networks (e.g. Diaspora Studies, Post-Colonial Studies, Gender Studies, Intercultural Studies etc.).

2. The sub-panel has expertise across the humanities and social sciences and welcomes work in any language from any single-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, empirical or theoretical perspective. It will assess submissions covering all, but not limited to, aspects of anthropology, law, history, heritages, languages and linguistics, cultures, literatures, religions, philosophy, media, society, economics, human geography, sociology, politics and international relations, and translation, as well as inter-regional and globalisation studies. It welcomes ground-breaking or novel approaches and seeks to reward innovation and excellence in both traditional and non-traditional formats, including applied, practice-based and pedagogical research. The sub-panel comprises specialists in humanities and social sciences and particularly welcomes work that crosses the arts and humanities/social sciences boundary. (REF, 2020, Points 129-130, pp. 28-29)

As can be seen, Area Studies as a unit of an assessment explicitly welcomes ‘expertise across the humanities and social sciences and welcomes work in any language from any single-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, empirical or theoretical perspectives’ (ibid.). It also explicitly includes submissions from ‘politics and international relations, and translation’ (ibid.).

Translation submissions under the REF

I now want to set out the position of translation under the REF.

Unfortunately, translation as scholarship was marginalised in Britain for over a decade and a half when the country introduced the national assessments of academic research in the mid-1980s. Translation studies was belatedly recognised as an area of research in the arts and humanities in the 2000s, but translation was not considered scholarship in its original research criteria. Previously academics could submit articles or books related to translation studies or commentaries on translations as outputs, but not translations in their own right.

This failure to recognise translations as scholarly outputs for the purposes of auditing distorted the activity of academic translation studies, but it also had broader intellectual costs at British universities in stifling the activity of translation as scholarship across the arts, humanities and social sciences. British universities have expanded significantly in the last three decades, but they have contributed relatively little to scholarship in the form of new translations. Potential translation scholarship within UK academia, and within the existing pool of academics, was stifled and continues to be stifled by the unintended consequences of REF criteria and institutional cautious interpretation of implicit REF criteria. British contributions to new translations have largely been outside of academia, or if from within universities, by academics despite the legacy of UK academic auditing frameworks undermining translation as scholarly practice.

The position of translation was subsequently corrected under the revised criteria for the UK Research Assessment Exercise 2008 and UK 2014 Research Excellence Frameworks (REF 2014), which was further enhanced in the UK REF 2021. The Unit of Assessment for Modern Languages and Linguistics is as follows:

Unit of Assessment 26: Modern Languages and Linguistics

133. The UOA includes research on the languages, literatures, cultures and societies of all regions, countries and communities where Celtic, Germanic, Romance or Slavonic languages or other languages of Europe and Latin America are, or were, used. This includes areas where European languages have interacted with other cultures and languages. The UOA also includes all areas of general, historical, theoretical, descriptive and applied linguistics, phonetics, and translation and interpreting studies, regardless of the methodology used or the language to which the studies are applied. The sub-panel will take a broad view of what constitutes modern language studies. This will include, but not be limited to: literature and thought; cultural studies; theatre studies; film and media studies; visual cultures; language studies; translation and interpreting studies; political, social and historical studies; editorial scholarship, bibliography, textual criticism and theory and history of the book; philosophy and critical theory; world literature and comparative literature; literature in relation to the other arts; and applied, practice-based and pedagogical research, including translation and creative writing. The sub-panel welcomes the submission of interdisciplinary research, including work on language and literature in relation to science, medicine and technology, digital humanities, or creative technologies, and will ensure that such work is assessed with appropriate expertise.

134. The sub-panel has expertise to assess a wide range of work and takes an inclusive view of the subject areas within its scope. Given the broad range of its descriptor, it recognises that submissions may be made in this UOA that include work on languages, literatures, cultures and societies falling wholly or partially outside its members’ expertise. The sub-panel consequently expects some degree of overlap with UOA 25 (Area Studies). It anticipates that the two sub-panels will work together closely and as appropriate before and during the assessment period.

135. The sub-panel recognises the overlapping boundaries in the sub-panel descriptors, and that aspects of research are naturally interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary or span the boundaries between individual UOAs. The sub-panel welcomes the submission of research that may equally be submitted to other sub-panels. Where judged necessary by the panels, expertise will be augmented by additional assessors, or work will be cross-referred to relevant panels […] (REF, 2020, points 133-134, pp. 29-30)

The Modern Languages and Linguistics panel explicitly includes ‘translation and interpreting studies’ and ‘translation’ as potential research submissions. The English Language and Literature and Classics sub-panels also explicitly refer to translation (REF, 2020, points 137, 144, pp. 30-31).

Moreover, the REF2021 document reiterates in its general guidance on how ‘The main panels welcome all forms of research output that fulfil the eligibility criteria for the REF’, and specifically refers to the place of translations in its research assessment:

Output types

206. The main panels welcome all forms of research output that fulfil the eligibility criteria for the REF (set out in Part 3, Section 2 of ‘Guidance on submissions’). All forms of output, in any language, will be considered equitably, with no distinction being made between the type of research or form of output submitted. The sub-panels will neither advantage nor disadvantage any type of research or form of output. The main panels encourage submitting institutions to refer to the glossary of output types for information on the categories under which outputs may be submitted for assessment (see ‘Guidance on submissions’, Annex K).

207. No sub-panel will use journal impact factors or any hierarchy of journals in their assessment of outputs. No output will be privileged or disadvantaged on the basis of the publisher, where it is published or the medium of its publication.

208. Reviews, textbooks and edited works (including editions of texts) and translations may be included if they embody research as defined in ‘Guidance on submissions’, Annex C. [….] (REF, 2020, points 206-208, p. 49)

Annex B of the document sets out the panel requirements where an output type should include more ‘Information about the research process and/or content’. The panel requirements for Main Panel C: Social Sciences states:

Statement where this is not evident from the output itself (for any type of output)

For practice-based outputs, an explanatory presentation in paper format should be included

For software and data sets, a full written description with details how to access (REF, 2020, p. 111)

The REF2021 document also sets out helpful specific supplementary criteria and guidance for translation:

Main Panel D supplementary criteria – output types

[…]

211. An additional classification of ‘Translation’ has been added to the list of output types, for the submission of works of translation of literary or scholarly texts or other cultural documents that constitute original, significant and rigorous research. Translations that meet the definition of research will often exhibit a deep insight into the source material, while drawing on and reflecting specialist knowledge of its historical, political, social and cultural contexts, and will also rely on a detailed engagement with style in both the source and target languages. Research may, as a result, be reflected in the critical apparatus associated with a translated text but will also be inherent in the translation process itself. Such outputs will often contribute to the development and maintenance of intellectual infrastructure of subjects and disciplines. They may demonstrate research practice that is critical and/or creative, and may also serve as substantial interventions in intellectual and cultural life in their own right. (REF, 2020, point 211, p. 50)

Crucially here we see the REF Panel recognising how research is ‘inherent in the translation process itself’ (ibid). In short, the translation itself is deemed valuable original contribution - not only studies about translation or the translated text. The official recognition of the translation as research in its own right is underscored by the more detailed guidance in an Annex on Main Panel D on presenting the output type in a submission arising from it receiving ‘the widest diversity of output types across the exercise’ (REF, 2020, p. 113):

Type

Translation

Recommended additional statements (making clear the research process/content/contribution

Up to 300 words*

Medium

DOI/PDF/Object

Recommended content

It is anticipated that the research will normally be evident within the submitted ‘translation’ and that no additional information is required.

*Translations where the research is not self-evident, should be submitted with a 300-word statement. (REF, 2020, p. 118)

Reading the guidance in Annex B and Annex C together, while other Main Panels could follow Annex C on translation outputs and legitimately dispense with the need for an additional statement given the anticipation that ‘the research will normally be evident with the submitted “translation”’ (ibid). Nevertheless, since the other Main Panels would be less familiar with translation scholarship then prudence would entail prudence an institution submitting an additional statement to explain the research process/content/contribution of the translation.

In summary, the official criteria and the explicit welcome of diverse interdisciplinary research on all the panels and units of assessment outlined above should mean that translation already has a clear, recognised status in politics and international relations reinforced through its express mutual links with area studies.

REF 2021 did see some translations submitted and well received as outputs in the Art and Humanities Sub-Panels (REF, 2022b).

Under REF2021, Panel C: Social Sciences explicitly welcomed diverse theoretical and methodological approaches, and explicitly anticipated outputs reflecting the ‘rich diversity’ of research, and explicitly stated as to having ‘no pre-conceptions about where excellent research’ would ‘be found’ (REF, 2020, point 88, p. 19). Again its sub-panels reiterated this message of welcoming of interdisciplinary work. So what was this ‘rich diversity’ reflected in any translation outputs? REF 2021 also saw at least one translation submitted and recognised in the Panel C: Social Sciences Sub-Panel under the Sociology Unit of Assessment, which confirms the principle that translations are welcomed and may be submitted to social sciences panels (REF, 2022a, point 27, p. 141).

• Overview report by Main Panel C and Sub-panels 13 to 24 May 2022 https://2021.ref.ac.uk/media/1912/mp-c-overview-report-final-updated-september-2022.pdf

This potential receptivity was confirmed in the views of the subsequent Social Sciences Sub-Panel Overview report which appears disappointed that the outputs submitted to the Politics and International Relations Unit of Assessment as ‘remaining quite conservative’ in academic form:

16. As shown in Table 3 below, the majority of outputs were in the form of journal articles, authored books, edited books and chapters in books. The largest categories received were journal articles (3,065), double-weighted authored books (556) and single-weighted authored books (361). There was a dramatic decline of around 75% in numbers of chapters in books (129) and edited books (14) submitted compared to REF 2014. The sub-panel noted that Politics and International Studies remained quite conservative in terms of the types of output submitted, with very few examples departing from the article, monograph or chapter format. The few non-standard output submissions were well-received, though it was noted that in some cases these kinds of output needed more contextualisation in the accompanying statement. As in REF 2014, it was journal articles and, above all, authored books which were most likely to be judged world-leading. (REF, 2022a, point 16, p. 119)

The lessons here from the REF2021 is that if the Social Sciences Panel, and the Politics and International Studies and other sub-panels want more diversity of outputs in the future, it is clear general statements on approaches are inadequate to encourage submissions. The Panel review highlighted ‘political and international theoretical work drawing on arts and literature’ (REF, 2022a, point 14, p. 119), but this evident interest in world literature has not yet become manifest in a disciplinary culture encouraging literary translation as scholarship integral to international studies.

It is a shame that Politics and International Studies as a Unit of Assessment did not explicitly state the importance of translation within the Social Sciences Sub-Panel and explicitly confirm translation as academic scholarship in its REF 2021 output criteria.

Conclusion and recommendations

To foster translation scholarly outputs, more explicit official guidance is now required to ensure proper institutional acceptance of translation as academic scholarship across disciplines in the UK, or indeed language and culture area studies within politics and international studies.

There is an implied promise in the UK REF 2029 to reinforce the recognition of translation in its endorsement of ‘an expanded definition of research excellence’ and the setting up of a ‘Research Diversity Advisory Panel (RDAP)’ with a remit of supporting ‘the equitable recognition of diverse forms of research’ (REF 2029, 2024).

The newly released REF 2029 Guidance published for the People, Culture and Environment Pilot states:

‘The guidance for the Pilot gives participating HEIs flexibility in how they approach their submissions, and flexibility to assessment panels in how they approach the assessment.’ (REF 2029, 14 January 2025a)

Its PCE Pilot Exercise Guidance sets out how:

‘Redesigning the UK’s national research assessment exercise offers an opportunity to reshape the incentives within the research system and rethink what should be recognised and rewarded.’ (REF 2029, 14 January 2025b, point 8)

This guidance also states its interest in ‘the production of non-traditional research outputs’ (REF 2029, 14 January 2025b, point 14).

Alarmingly, however, none of the guidance documents address academic freedom, despite many representations on this principle having been raised by academics in the REF 2029 consultation last year. Academic freedom is critical for politics and international studies. The British International Studies Association’s important Statement on Academic Freedom sets out how:

BISA considers academic freedom to be central to the scholarly work of its members and of the broader scientific community. It is essential that individuals and institutions are free to undertake research and teaching without fear of discrimination, censorship, or other restrictions that would prevent them from undertaking their work. (BISA, undated).

Here BISA endorses the Royal Society’s Statement on Academic Freedom in the Science Community (Royal Society, undated).

Translation not only embodies art and scholarship. Translation is underpinned by the principle of intellectual freedom and the democratising of knowledge against the knowledge gatekeepers who would limit what people may read and know. Translation has historically been important in resisting political, social or cultural oppression, and opening up ideas to more people across languages and walls. As the Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko declared during the Cold War, translation was a lifeline for writers:

The translation of various literatures from language to language is a mysteriously powerful mutual transfusion of blood between the sliced-up pieces of the single body of mankind. (Yevtushenko, 1979, p. xiii)

Unless and until the REF 2029 criteria explicitly set out their recognition of translation as an output for all panels, and they make clear that translation is not only welcomed in the Art and Humanities Panel, then institutions are likely to remain cautious in their submission strategies even those willing to endorse non-traditional output submissions.

It is important for the REF 2029 to clarify the position on translation as soon as possible. Explicit assurances over translation as output types are needed as the absence of explicit endorsement has on-going implications for individual academics under institutional research governance strategies and performance processes. I hope the REF 2029 will correct this situation over this most traditional of ‘non-traditional outputs’ to foster research environments locally nationally encouraging the submission of translations as scholarship.

Moreover, it is critically important for the REF 2029 to act swiftly to support the cross-panel academic recognition of literary translation since the future of language-based area studies in the humanities is in jeopardy nationally. To repeat, many language-based area studies departments may have shrunk or closed by the time of the REF 2029, making it is urgent for other academic fields including international studies to offer a recognised place for the forms of scholarship from language and culture area studies.

A simple confirmation statement on the REF 2029 web site could be posted tomorrow:

‘We value the contribution that translation makes as original, significant and rigorous scholarship and research across all fields and disciplines in UK higher education, and we recognise the submission of translation work as an output type to any panel in the REF 2029.’

Notes

I will be discussing the marginalisation of translation in UK international studies at the South East Europe Working Group workshop of the British International Studies Association (BISA) at the University of Liverpool on Thursday 27 March 2025.

I welcome feedback, suggestions on other relevant studies and corrections on this paper. I would also welcome working with others interested in this subject and potentially collaborating on a comprehensive report on the subject, and any suggestions on the academics, organisations institutions or advisory committees or bodies who should be consulted or read this draft report.

In other posts, I will elaborate on the importance of language and culture area studies from the humanities and the scholarship behind literary translation, and why literary translation matters for international studies, whether located within the arts and humanities or the social sciences. These posts will include more extracts from my own translations of the works of Milos Crnjanski and Miroslav Krleza or others as well as a longer paper providing an informal guide on literary translation and language and culture area studies for academics in political studies and international studies.

References

British Academy and the University Council of Modern Languages (2022) Languages Learning in Higher Education: Granular Trends. London: The British Academy. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publications/languages-learning-higher-education-granular-trends/

BISA (undated) Statement on Academic Freedom. British International Studies Association. https://www.bisa.ac.uk/about/policies-and-procedures/statement-academic-freedom

Collen, Ian and Jayne Duff (2024) Language Trends England 2024. London: British Council. https://www.britishcouncil.org/research-insight/language-trends-england-2024

Thucydides (1989) The Peloponnesian War. Translated by Thomas Hobbes. With an Introduction and Notes by David Grene. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Landers, Clifford (2001) Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Long, Robert and Shadi Danechi (2024) Research Briefing: Language Teaching in Schools (England). London: House of Commons Library. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7388/

OFSTED (2021) Research Review Series: Languages. London: OFSTED. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/curriculum-research-review-series-languages/curriculum-research-review-series-languages

REF 2021 https://2021.ref.ac.uk/

REF 2021 (2020) Index of revisions to the ‘Panel criteria and working methods’ (2019/02). London: Research Excellence Framework. https://2021.ref.ac.uk/publications-and-reports/panel-criteria-and-working-methods-201902/index.html

REF 2021 (2022a) Overview report by Main Panel C and Sub-panels 13 to 24. London: Research Excellence Framework. https://2021.ref.ac.uk/media/1912/mp-c-overview-report-final-updated-september-2022.pdf

REF 2021 (2022b) Overview report by Main Panel D and Sub-panels 25 to 34. London: Research Excellence Framework. https://2021.ref.ac.uk/media/1913/mp-d-overview-report-final-updated-september-2022.pdf

REF 2029 https://2029.ref.ac.uk/

REF 2029 (2025a) Guidance published for the People, Culture and Environment Pilot. 14 January. London: Research Excellence Framework. https://2029.ref.ac.uk/publication/pce-pilot-exercise-guidance/

REF 2029 (2025b) PCE pilot exercise guidance. 14 January. London: Research Excellence Framework. https://2029.ref.ac.uk/publication/pce-pilot-exercise-guidance/

Roswell, Juliette (2025) ‘Thousands back call to save Sheffield East Asian studies degrees.’ Times Higher Education, 16 January. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/thousands-back-call-save-sheffield-east-asian-studies-degrees

Steiner, George (1998) [1975] After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Royal Society (undated) Statement on Academic Freedom in the Science Community. London.

Steinmetz, Alicia (2020) ‘Hobbes and the Politics of Translation.’ Political Theory, Vol. 49(1), pp. 83-108.

UCU Queen Mary, University of London (UCUQM) (2025) ‘UK HE shrinking.’ https://qmucu.org/qmul-transformation/uk-he-shrinking/

Yevtushenko, Yevgeny (1979) The Face Behind the Face. London: Marion Boyars.