A crisis translation maturity model for better multilingual crisis communication
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 30 November 2024
https://doi.org/10.54754/incontext.v4i2.98
https://doi.org/10.54754/incontext.v4i2.98
Abstract
Accurate, timely, and trusted communication in appropriate languages and cultural frames and through appropriate channels is vital to achieving principles of equity and inclusivity in crisis settings. However, organizations engaging in multilingual and multicultural crisis communication can struggle to achieve such communication and assess their communicative capacities. Maturity models are well-established instruments used to understand, review, and assess processes and practices within organizations. This article discusses the development of a crisis translation maturity model to assist organizations in evaluating and improving their multilingual crisis communication efforts. The model does not evaluate translation per se; it evaluates organizational capability to engage in translation in crisis settings. The model presented here builds on a previously published iteration. The current iteration aimed to refine the model and was co-designed with stakeholders from 11 organizations across two design workshops using a multiagency design-thinking methodology. Design thinking was chosen for this research because it is a collaborative approach to problem solving that prioritizes creativity and innovation, user-centeredness and involvement, iteration and experimentation, and interdisciplinary collaboration. This approach allowed us to co-design with stakeholders a model that considers crisis translation capabilities along 17 evaluative categories, with each category described across five maturity levels: ad hoc, repeatable, defined, managed, and optimizing. The categories are all defined in detail and the corresponding maturity levels are explained to help members of an organization evaluate their current crisis translation capabilities and discern the changes that would be required to improve their level of crisis translation maturity. The objective of the research described in this article is to present a version of a crisis translation maturity model that will now be field-tested, customized, and refined. We plan to conduct further tests with stakeholders in authentic settings to produce improved versions of the model going forward.
논문초록
위기 상황에서 적절한 언어와 문화적 틀을 통해, 그리고 적합한 채널을 통해 이루 어지는 정확하고 시의적절하며 신뢰할 수 있는 의사소통은 형평성과 포용성의 원칙을 달성 하는 데 필수적이다. 그러나 다언어 및 다문화 위기 커뮤니케이션에 참여하는 조직은 이러한 커뮤니케이션을 효과적으로 수행하고 자신들의 커뮤니케이션 역량을 평가하는 데 어려움을 겪을 수 있다. 성숙도 모델은 조직 내 프로세스 및 실무의 이해, 검토, 평가에 널리 사용되는 도구이다. 본고는 조직이 다언어 위기 커뮤니케이션 노력을 평가하고 개선할 수 있도록 돕는 위기 번역 성숙도 모델의 개발을 논한다. 동 모델은 번역 자체를 평가하지 않으며, 위기 상황 에서 번역에 참여할 수 있는 조직의 역량을 평가한다. 본고에 제시된 모델은 이전에 발표된 초기 버전을 기반으로 한다. 본 연구의 목표는 모델의 정교화로, 다기관 디자인 사고 방법론 을 활용하여 두 차례의 디자인 워크숍에서 11개 조직의 이해관계자와 공동 설계하였다. 본 연구에서 선택한 디자인 사고는 창의성과 혁신, 사용자 중심성 및 참여, 반복과 실험, 그리고 학제간 협업에 우선순위를 부여하는 협력적 문제 해결 접근법이다. 동 접근법을 통해 17개 의 평가 범주에 따라 위기 번역 역량을 고려하는 모델을 이해관계자와 함께 공동 설계할 수 있었으며, 각각의 범주는 다섯 가지 성숙도 수준(임시적, 반복 가능, 정의됨, 관리됨, 최적화 됨)으로 설명된다. 범주별 정의와 해당 성숙도 수준에 대한 설명은 조직 구성원이 현재의 위 기 번역 역량을 평가하고 성숙도를 개선하기 위해 필요한 변화를 파악하는 데 도움이 된다. 본고에서 설명한 연구의 목적은 한 가지 버전의 위기 번역 성숙도 모델을 제시하는 것으로, 동 모델은 앞으로 현장 테스트, 맞춤화, 추가 정교화를 거치게 된다. 향후 이해관계자와의 실 제 현장 테스트를 통해 동 모델의 개선된 버전을 개발하고자 한다.
핵심어: 위기번역, 성숙도모델, 포용적사회, 다언어위기커뮤니케이션, 다기관디자인사고
References (35)
Bititci, Umit S., Patrizia Garengo, Aylin Ates and Sai S. Nudurupati. (2015). Value of maturity models in performance measurement. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3062–3085.
Caralli, Richard, Mark Knight and Austin Montgomery. (2012). Maturity models 101: A primer for applying maturity models to smart grid security, resilience, and interoperability [White paper]. Carnegie Mellon University.
Carvalho, João Vidal, Álvaro Rocha and António Abreu. (2016). Maturity models of healthcare information systems and technologies: A literature review. Journal of Medical Systems, 40(6), 131.
Coombs, Timothy W. and Elina R. Tachkova. (2023). Extending the value of crisis translation in crisis communication. In Sharon O’Brien & Federico M. Federici (Eds.), Translating Crises (pp. 37–48). Bloomsbury Academic.
European Union Agency for Cybersecurity. (2022). ENISA CSIRT Maturity Framework: Updated and Improved. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity.
Federici, Federico M., Sharon O’Brien, Patrick Cadwell, Jay Marlowe, Brian Gerber and Olga Davis. (2019). International network in crisis translation: Recommendations on policies. Retrieved August 9, 2024 from [URL]
Frisk, Jane Elisabeth and Frank Bannister. (2022). Applying design thinking to the decision- making process: A field study in Swedish local authorities. Management Decision, 60(1), 66–85.
Gholamizadeh, Kamran, Esmaeil Zarei, Saman Poursiahbidi and Omid Kalatpour. (2022). A hybrid framework to analyze crisis management system maturity in sociotechnical systems. Journal of Safety Science and Resilience, 3(4), 302–320.
Gimenez, Raquel, Leire Labaka and Josune Hernantes. (2017). A maturity model for the involvement of stakeholders in the city resilience building process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1211, 7–16.
Humphrey, Watts S. (1988). Characterizing the software process: A maturity framework. IEEE Software, 5(2), 73–79.
Liedtka, Jeanne. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938.
McConnell, Allan and Lynn Drennan. (2006). Mission impossible? Planning and preparing for crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(2), 59–70.
Micheli, Pietro, Sarah J. S. Wilner, Sabeen Hussain Bhatti, Matteo Mura and Michael B. Beverland. (2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124–148.
Mintrom, Michael and Joannah Luetjens. (2016). Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 391–402.
Mohamed, Sherif and Xiaobo Qu. (2018). Organisational Maturity for Disaster Preparedness. Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre.
Mulder, Femke. (2020). Humanitarian data justice: A structural data justice lens on civic technologies in post-earthquake Nepal. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 28(4), 432–445.
O’Brien, Sharon. (2022). Crisis translation: A snapshot in time. INContext: Studies in Translation and Interculturalism, 2(1), 84–108.
O’Brien, Sharon and Patrick Cadwell. (2022). Communicating COVID-19 in multiple languages: A maturity model assessment of Ireland’s crisis communication practice. Revista de Llengua i Dret [Journal of Language and Law], 771, 1–17.
O’Brien, Sharon, Patrick Cadwell and Alicja Zajdel. (2021). Communicating Covid-19: Translation and trust in Ireland’s response to the pandemic. Dublin City University. [URL]
O’Brien, Sharon, Federico M. Federici, Patrick Cadwell, Jay Marlowe and Brian Gerber. (2018). Language translation during disaster: A comparative analysis of five national approaches. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 311, 627–636.
O’Mathúna, Dónal P., Carla Parra Escartín, Proinsias Roche and Jay Marlowe. (2020). Engaging citizen translators in disasters: Virtue ethics in response to ethical challenges. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 15(1), 57–79.
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada. (2023). Official Languages Maturity Model (OLMM). Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada. Retrieved August 9, 2024 from [URL]
Orru, Kati, Margo Klaos, Kristi Nero, Friedrich Gabel, Sten Hansson and Tor-Olav Nævestad. (2023). Imagining and assessing future risks: A dynamic scenario-based social vulnerability analysis framework for disaster planning and response. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 31(4), 995–1008.
Peffers, Ken, Tuure Tuunanen, Marcus A. Rothenberger and Samir Chatterjee. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77.
Reed, Mark. (2022, August 9, 2024). Should we banish the word “stakeholder”? Fast Track Impact. [URL]
Reynolds, Barbara and Matthew W. Seeger. (2005). Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communication, 10(1), 43–55.
Rosenstock, Christian, Robert S. Johnston and Larry M. Anderson. (2000, September 7–16). Maturity model implementation and use: A case study. Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Houston, TX. [URL]
Ruohonen, Heini and Klas Backholm. (2023). Matter of trust: How to include digital volunteers in crisis management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 31(4), 843–852.
Treurniet, Willem and Jeroen Wolbers. (2021). Codifying a crisis: Progressing from information sharing to distributed decision-making. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 29(1), 23–35.
United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution A/RES/70/71. Retrieved August 9, 2024 from [URL]
Wendler, Roy. (2012). The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology, 54(12), 1317–1339.
World Health Organization. (2023). WHO Principles for Effective Communications. Retrieved August 9, 2024 from [URL]
