Volunteer translators have played a crucial role in various global initiatives that depend on the process of translingual production and dissemination of knowledge for their successful implementation. They have enabled speakers of different languages to engage in dialogue and have empowered marginalized groups to have access to information and knowledge, thereby contributing to the promotion of linguistic and social justice. As individuals who may or may not have formal training as translators, yet translate texts with little or no financial compensation, these translators are increasingly being studied by scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds. Within translation studies, there has been a growing research interest in recent years in volunteer translation activities in online environments, even though volunteer translation can occur in any environment. Online volunteer translation, which is the focus of this study, has been approached mostly as an act of translation carried out by enthusiastic amateurs or socially committed people who engage in translation as a form of social responsibility, self-fulfillment, enjoyment activism (Olohan 2014; Pérez-González and Susam-Saraeva 2012; Jiménez-Crespo 2017a). Diverse topics have been studied in relation to volunteer translation, ranging from motivation for participation (Olohan 2014; O’Brien and Schäler 2010) and social responsibility (Drugan and Tipton 2017) to translation quality (Jiménez-Crespo 2017b; Drugan 2013) and political engagement (Boéri and Maier 2010; Baker 2013).

Although volunteering may occur in all sectors of the economy, researchers have generally focused on the non-profit sector as the locus of volunteer activities, as exemplified in studies of activist communities or NGOs (for instance, Boéri and Maier 2010). Considering that volunteering is commonly viewed as “unpaid non-compulsory work; that is, time individuals give without pay to activities performed either through an organization or directly for others outside their own household”[1] and that “unpaid” work is frequently understood in relation to “charitable” or “nonprofit” institutions (Jenner 1982; American Red Cross 1988[2]),[3] the focus on the non-profit sector is hardly surprising. However, unpaid translation work carried out by volunteers has recently been increasing within the context of business settings and commercial organizations. The increasing mobilization of volunteer translators by commercial institutions raises the need to interrogate how the institutional environment impacts perceptions about volunteer translation.

High profile companies such as Facebook and Twitter have adopted the crowdsourced translation model, which relies on volunteer translators, and other companies have followed this lead, mobilizing volunteer translators to meet their translation needs. In 2009, the online professional networking platform LinkedIn sparked a heated debate when it invited its members to complete a survey about their interest in translating its website. In the survey, members were asked to choose the kind of incentive they preferred from a list prepared by LinkedIn. The list, ranged from “because it’s fun” to recognition on user profiles and an upgraded LinkedIn account, but did not include monetary compensation. Unsurprisingly, the survey generated criticism for asking its members, many of whom were professional translators, to indicate their intention to translate, without any financial compensation, for a company that promotes itself as being dedicated to professionalism.

Many translation practitioners and researchers responded to this incident. A LinkedIn group called Translators against Crowdsourcing by Commercial Businesses was formed shortly afterwards, and the resentment shared by many professional translators at the time was aptly summarized in a professional translator’s blog[4] with the following remarks: “LinkedIn has always marketed itself as a professional site, but now it is treating its professional members (translators) as non-professionals” and “LinkedIn isn’t asking its accountants for free accounting services or PR folks to do its market research and publicity work for free. Why then do they think it is ok to ask translators to offer their services for free?” In 2015, the Fédération Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT), a key international association of translators and interpreters, released a position statement regarding crowdsourcing within translation, interpreting, and terminology services. In this statement, the association stated that crowdsourcing is “disrupt[ing] the organization of labor and professional status of industry practitioners.”[5]

Meanwhile, translation researchers, such as McDonough Dolmaya (2011: 106), have argued that crowdsourcing “devalues the work involved in the translation process and contributes to lowering the occupational status of professional translators,” despite the potential for enhancing the visibility of translation, translation’s value to society, and non-financial benefits for participants. García (2012: 376), citing Kelly (2009),[6] pointed out that the LinkedIn case showed that “[i]f the crowd feels like it is being exploited, the model doesn’t work.”

The incident brought attention to the connection between volunteer translation and feelings of (not) “being exploited,” but the discussion was not taken any further. Although people are arbiters of their own exploitation and have their own understanding of what counts as unfair, they may not feel like they are “being exploited” when they “click on ‘agree’ from the safety of their home, without being physically coerced into work or the free labor is predominantly perceived as a fun pastime, even though someone else makes a huge profit from it” (Schmidt 2013: 532). Furthermore, crowdsourcing initiatives, even in commercial contexts, are typically connected to values (equal opportunity, global connectedness or universal access to information) or affect (passion for a particular technology, product or service) that have resonance for the participants, so the feelings of “being exploited” may not be readily experienced on the part of volunteer translators. While volunteers may focus on helping others or taking action based on their passion, the benefits that commercial companies gain in the form of capital accumulation as a result of using volunteer translators may not be clearly detectable. Identifying feelings of “being exploited” becomes even more challenging if the business model of the companies in question involves openness, participation, and equal access to knowledge. Companies, in their description of volunteer translation activities, may also use discursive strategies that foreground a commitment to a social mission and portray the translators’ role mainly in terms of helping and supporting others and being part of a mission.

In this study, we investigate the ways in which volunteer translation activity is discursively constructed by a commercial company. This study examines the case of Coursera, an online learning platform launched in 2012. Having more than 35 million registered users and offering more than 2,700 courses as of May 2019, Coursera has become one of the largest online MOOC (massive open online course) providers in the world. The course videos are subtitled by members of Coursera’s volunteer translator community. In this study, the discursive strategies that Coursera used to depict volunteer translation is compared with those used by other related actors. Particular emphasis is placed on critical points in the framing of the volunteer translation activity and the ethical problems raised in relation to Coursera’s use of specific discursive strategies in the construction of volunteer translation.

Within translation studies, collaborative translingual activities done under free-will in online environments by groups of individuals who utilize participatory Web tools for a cause that is not profit-seeking, and for which there is often below market or no monetary payment, are referred to by numerous terms, including community translation (O’Hagan 2011), user-generated translation (Perrino 2009), crowdsourcing or crowdsourced translation (McDonough Dolmaya 2012), wiki-translation (Cronin 2013), non-professional translation (Pérez-González and Susam-Saraeva 2012), and volunteer translation (Pym 2011). Pym regards these terms as being generally synonymous and suggests using volunteer translation instead of crowdsourcing, collaborative translation or community translation for the reason that they all refer to a “group translating where the work is largely voluntary (i.e. unpaid in financial terms)” and the central issue is whether “monetary payment [is] received (or not received) by the translator” (Pym 2011: 97). However, as the activities referred to by these terms continue to evolve and become more heterogeneous, researchers have attempted to identify the distinguishing features and conceptual boundaries between them (Jiménez-Crespo 2017a, 2019).

When crowdsourced translation is considered in relation to volunteer translation, some significant differences in meaning and usage may be identified. Crowdsourcing, consisting of crowd and sourcing, refers to the process of harnessing the wisdom of the crowd in order to accomplish a task. Usually initiated by communities, businesses or other organizations, the process involves the outsourcing of a task to a group of individuals of varying knowledge (amateurs and experts), many of whom participate without financial compensation. As such, crowdsourcing is often viewed as a “business practice” (Howe 2008), “problem-solving model” (Brabham 2008: 76) or “process of organizing labor” (Whitla 2009:16). Although crowdsourcing may be subcategorized into “crowdsourcing with a monetary incentive” and “crowdsourcing without a monetary incentive” (Schmidt 2013: 531), compensation is often significantly below market rates, if any, and dependent on the qualifications or performance of participants. As the case of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn have shown, the crowdsourced translation model that captures the interest of many commercial companies seems to be one that does not entail financial compensation to translators.[7]

Volunteering, on the other hand, has historically played an important role in meeting the needs of people in communities and societies, especially in times when government capacity was limited and private wealth lacking (Starr and Curry 1992). Citizens voluntarily collaborated to address social problems and nonprofits were established to provide services that neither government nor businesses would or could effectively provide. As such, volunteering is historically a humanistic, as well as a social and political, concept consistent with egalitarian principles and involving activities that provide potential benefits for both volunteers and service organizations. In many instances, it is different from participating in a crowdsourcing initiative, which tends to be more closely related to technological or business problem-solving. Crowdsourcing is a means for task completion that utilizes collective intelligence and digital technology and an increase in crowdsourcing initiatives has led to diversification of its form and functions. Although both volunteering and crowdsourcing may occur within non-profit or for-profit contexts, crowdsourcing in commercial contexts, especially in relation to software development, architecture, design, and funding projects, has become widespread (Schlagwein and Bjørn-Andersen 2014). In line with such developments, crowdsourced translation within the context of commercial companies is increasingly being regarded as part of the translation landscape, as shown by subcategorizations of crowdsourced translation based on the criteria of ‘nonprofit’ and ‘for-profit’ contexts within which translation activity is carried out (Flanagan 2016; Dombek 2014).

Due to the features shared by volunteer translation and crowdsourced translation (for example, a lack of financial compensation, participation based on affect, and people-centeredness in the work process), as well as the evolving nature of online translation practices in general, it is becoming increasingly difficult to identify the differences between the two terms. This difficulty, however, seems to have the effect of weakening people’s awareness of the ethical problems associated with translation work without financial compensation in commercial contexts. Furthermore, the responsibility for translation work seems to be transferred onto volunteers and users of the translation under such circumstances, despite the fact that in most commercial cases those who ultimately benefit financially (commercial company) should bear the lion’s share of the responsibility (translation cost).

Distinguishing whether an institution that utilizes volunteering is a for-profit or nonprofit organization is neither easy nor straightforward (Dees and Anderson 2003). The categories of for-profit and nonprofit organizations respectively encompass diverse organizational forms and functions and are thus heterogeneous. However, the approaches to the study of organizations and institutions that focus on the differences among nonprofit, for-profit, and public institutions emphasize the distinction in their main goals. Whereas an appropriate return on invested capital for its shareholders is given the highest priority for for-profits, helping community (and in many cases being concerned with profit-making only to the extent that it is necessary to operate) is the main concern for nonprofits (Epstein and McFarlan 2011).[8] Meanwhile, public institutions focus on public interests and values, prioritizing upholding democratic principles, constitutional values, and public welfare (Christensen and Laegreid 2007).[9] Furthermore, the aspect of nonprofits, which is considered to be the most prominent, especially compared to for-profits, is their commitment to a mission, often providing services that neither the government nor for-profits are able or willing to offer. Thus, nonprofit organizations have a

[…] distinct mandate to be good stewards of the resources they receive toward the pursuit of their mission, whether those resources come in as philanthropic dollars, government contracts and grants, membership dues, or earned income through revenue-generating activities.

Tschirhart and Bielefeld 2012: 3; our emphasis

More recently, however, the distinction between for-profit and nonprofit institutions has been breaking down. Commercial enterprises are interested in distributing not only profits but also social goods to constituencies other than their shareholders, as evidenced by an increasing emphasis on corporate social responsibility, social capital, and trust in business discourses (Shamir 2008). The value-oriented culture both within the company and in relation to its multiple stakeholders is being espoused in unprecedented ways. Meanwhile, nonprofit organizations are increasingly adopting the strategies, concepts, and practices of the business world. They have become more business-like by finding ways to generate fees for services rendered. This “sector-bending,” which refers to “approaches, activities, and relationships that are blurring the distinctions between nonprofit and for-profit organizations, either because they are behaving more similarly, operating in the same realms, or both” (Dees and Anderson 2003: 16),[10] makes it difficult to identify whether an institution is for-profit or nonprofit. The fuzzy boundary becomes particularly problematic when the mobilization of volunteer translators by for-profit companies is considered.

When volunteer translation is examined from the perspective of the commercial company, issues related to real and potential benefits to the company emerge. The motive behind the increase in crowdsourced translation within commercial contexts has been discussed in connection to a number of factors[11]; however, it is economic considerations in the digital era that have been seen as the most significant motivation for a company’s embrace of crowdsourcing. The cost of crowdsourcing, which is dependent on volunteer translators, is generally understood as being substantially lower than having translation done by professionals. Jiménez-Crespo (2017b), for example, citing Munro’s (2013) report, states that the cost of a crowdsourcing initiative is only 20 percent of that of using professional translators, although DePalma and Kelly (2011) report that the cost of creating and managing a crowdsourcing platform might be the same as the cost of using professional translation services. Others have also pointed out that platform creation and maintenance is “a relatively cheap solution” (Anastasiou and Gupta 2011: 640) compared to professional translation services. Trained staff may be needed to implement a platform in the initial stages, but less maintenance is needed for a basic crowdsourcing translation platform.

Most crowdsourcing initiatives are “performed through dedicated web platforms that are initiated by companies or organizations and in which participants collaborate with motivations other than strictly monetary ones” (Jiménez-Crespo 2017b: 479). Commercial companies with digital platforms are able to financially benefit from the value-adding activities of volunteers. Thus, the development of digital technology, which has enabled the crowd, including both amateurs and experts, to collaboratively complete tasks (including translation tasks) through digital platforms, has made employment conditions more precarious and has prioritized platform and customer needs over worker needs.

Researchers examining the realm of the political economy of networked new media technologies have focused on the negative impact of the coordination of labor through the use of digital technologies (Burston, Dyer-Witheford, et al. 2010; Fuchs and Dyer-Witheford 2013). As value in the digital era is created by users and audiences through digital technologies, these users and audiences can be considered digital workers on the platform. However, in many cases, their work on the platform remains unpaid or underpaid. Although there may be some exceptions, the involvement of users, audiences, consumers, and fans in the creation of content is not typically recognized as work (Scholz 2017). Using the term digital labor to refer to value-adding activities performed on platforms, these scholars focus on the changes in the perception of work and labor in the digital age and the ways in which increasing participation in activities weakens or even nullifies the distinction between work and play. The consequences of changes in the perception of work and labor in the digitally connected world are described by Scholz as follows:

Our online identity, so eagerly performed, has a curious afterlife in faraway data centers where subjectivities and data are turned into monetary value. Without being recognized as labour, our location, expressions, and time spent on the network can be turned into economic value. The tracking and monetization of users is frequently justified with the significant operating costs of platform operators. It is unclear, however, what exactly is recorded, how its value is measured, to whom it is sold, and for what purpose.

Scholz 2017: 69

The changes have impacted not only translation but also many other fields including journalism, music, and manufacturing. Volunteers taking part in crowdsourced initiatives and providing digital labor on platforms are susceptible to exploitation as there is “no minimum wage, no labor regulation, no governmental jurisdiction” (Rushkoff 2016: 50) in crowdsourcing. As an increasing number of people possess foreign language skills and are willing to share skills in collaborative problem solving and the circulation of ideas, translation lends itself readily to crowdsourcing projects initiated by commercial companies.

In the following, we examine the discursive strategies used by Coursera in describing volunteer translation and translators. This is done by comparing the ways in which volunteer translation is discursively constructed by volunteer translators and the general public, in addition to Coursera. Coursera is an online learning platform that offers MOOCs, specializations, and degrees to learners around the world.[12] It was launched as a for-profit company in 2012 by two Stanford professors, Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller, and offers online courses on subjects that range from medicine and data science to humanities and social sciences. The company started out with $22 million in investment from venture capitalists,[13] but as of April 2019 its valuation stood at $1.7 billion.[14] Coursera is described as belonging to the category of “EdTech, Education, Enterprise, Internet,” according to Crunchbase, a platform that offers business information about private and public companies, and as of April 2019, Coursera’s estimated annual revenue was $140 million.[15]

Coursera has 35 million users and it partners with more than 150 universities, offering more than 2,700 courses. Many courses were offered for free to learners, but the number of free courses has rapidly decreased in recent years. In a report on Coursera written for Class Central’s MOOC Roundup Series, Shah (2017)[16] states: “Coursera has pushed its learners aggressively towards paying for more and more features, many of which were initially offered for free.” Coursera also offers 250 specializations (a sequence of online courses designed to enable learners to master a particular topic) and four degrees, neither of which are free.[17]

MOOCs, however, are typically considered to be free, and as a university slogan “A Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) is a way to help you learn for FREE”[18] shows, MOOC providers are characterized as allowing unlimited participation and open access via the Web. Thus, the assumption is often made that online education companies that own and operate learning platforms are nonprofit organizations. However, out of the three largest online learning platforms in the world, Coursera and UDACITY are for-profit and the remaining, edX, is a not-for-profit. For Coursera, revenue sources include employee training in commercial enterprises, subscriptions, certification, and human tutoring amongst others. In 2017, Coursera had partnerships with more than 500 companies, which was a dramatic increase from 30 in the previous year (Shah 2017). It has also continued to monetize its user base, as the number of paying users on Coursera grew by 70% in 2017 compared to 2016.[19]

The lectures are subtitled by volunteer translators belonging to the Global Translator Community (GTC) at Coursera. Launched on April 28, 2014, the community is responsible for translating course video subtitles, mostly from English into more than 65 languages. Following Coursera’s announcement of the launch of GTC, social critics, educators, journalists, professional translators, and social media users have responded to and commented on this news. In this process, diverse meanings of volunteer translation and translators were constructed and circulated.

This study has examined how Coursera discursively constructs volunteer translation by comparing its portrayal of volunteering with the depiction of volunteer work by GTC translators and the public. In the case of Coursera, volunteer translation is represented in terms of a mission (universal access to education, linguistic justice, and equality), hijacking the discourse of philanthropic and non-profit activities. It is also shown as a learner-initiated activity, with the overt claim being made that the initiators, targets, and beneficiaries of translation are the learners. Furthermore, volunteering is constructed as a community building practice, enabling volunteers to engage with others in the community to effect change. Coursera’s discursive work is in line with its portrayal of itself as a moral entity, embarked on a mission. Notable parallels may be drawn between Coursera’s discourse and that of GTC translators, with GTC translators portraying volunteer translation as an act of initiating social change, helping others, and community building. For GTC translators, focus is also given to training and experience in translation, as well as having the opportunity to interact with language coordinators. The most diverse and critical opinion of volunteer translation is found in discussions by the public. The portrayal of volunteer translation ranges from helping others and gaining experience to providing free labor and being a key component of the global business model.

As Coursera’s discourse foregrounds morality, social responsibility, and community-building values related to volunteer translation, what is backgrounded is that Coursera makes and consolidates corporate profits as a result of delegating the responsibility of translation to volunteers. By using volunteers, Coursera not only saves translation cost but also earns revenues by tailoring its content to global audiences in their respective languages and gaining more subscribers. Critical opinions concerning Coursera’s mobilization of volunteer translators are expressed only by the public (mostly social critics and professional translators). For those that posted negative opinions, the extent of criticism of Coursera’s use of volunteers differs, ranging from emphasis of translation as intellectual work requiring a high level of expertise to condemnations of Coursera’s use of translators’ uncompensated labor for profit-making. Unsurprisingly, no mention of unfairness or exploitation is made by GTC translators, as most of their comments, which are in response to interview questions, are uploaded on their community blog. Although it is not known whether their comments were edited by anyone, this study found numerous words and phrases used by Coursera being repeated by volunteer translators, forming intertextual chains between Coursera and GTC translators.

The diverse opinions of different voices concerning volunteer translation show that the issue of volunteering in the platform economy is complex. When GTC translators or the public describe volunteer translation participation in terms of making a difference and connecting with peers and experts, their position may be related to their view of translators as active participants in the media landscape, engaged in cultural production and exercising citizenship. Also, when volunteer translation is portrayed as a learning experience and a source of training, this view may be based on the belief that volunteering is a rational career investment with a payoff. From the perspective of business pundits, a global company’s mobilization of volunteer translators may be a rational business decision in that the company can enhance the financial position of shareholders while enabling volunteers to do good and offer recognition for their contribution, as well as allow them to gain much needed experience.

In a discussion of what counts as fair or unfair volunteering, however, the ways in which Coursera, a commercial firm, approaches, portrays, and uses volunteer translation are clearly problematic, because translation activity, which involves cultural and technological work in the form of digital labor, serves a global business enterprise without any financial compensation. Although non-monetary benefits are mentioned, volunteers’ subtitling of lectures in different languages contributes, both directly and indirectly, to the earning of profits and financial position of its shareholders. More importantly, Coursera’s use of discourses of moral and social responsibility, with the effect of blurring the boundary between for-profit and nonprofit institutions when in fact Coursera is a for-profit company, raises ethical concerns. That Coursera is an online learning platform further ambiguates the boundary, given that MOOC providers are generally understood to serve broader social goals and causes. Meanwhile, the distinction between production and consumption, labor and culture, in relation to translation activity becomes fuzzy as a result of Coursera’s use of discourses of self-initiation and autonomy on the part of translators. Coursera carefully highlights non-coercion by explicitating that translation activities are learner-initiated, even though invitations for participation are disseminated widely to non-learners and non-members. Particularly worrying about Coursera’s discourse is the ideological work involved in naturalizing translation without financial compensation in the context of a commercial company. Thus, volunteering for Coursera may not be experienced as exploitation; nonetheless, Coursera engages in commercial and even exploitative use of the donated effort of translators and packages these efforts in discourses of giving and moral acts.

The findings suggest that volunteer translation in commercial contexts is an intricate issue involving discursive, economic, social, and technological factors. An understanding and portrayal of volunteer translation is connected to changing perceptions on translation and work, evolving economic and social situations, and digital technology, as well as the broader “economic experimentation with the creation of monetary value out of knowledge/culture/affect” (Terranova 2013: 36). As more organizations turn to translation and embrace volunteer translation as an effective way to involve and reach global consumers, there is a need for academia and industry to include translation-related issues in discussions concerning the ethical and responsible behavior of companies in the use of digital platforms that go beyond legal compliance. Translation researchers and practitioners should urge commercial organizations to examine their new responsibilities related to the ways in which they capture and use pools of social and cultural knowledge. Crowdsourced translation without financial compensation should also be included in discussions concerning ethical consequences of problematic commercial use of such knowledge.

Meanwhile, it is important that people considering volunteering make informed decisions. An awareness of specific conditions and contexts of their volunteering activity and the effects of their actions are now significant issues that need to be considered. This is needed even if the organizations for which they are considering volunteering clearly espouse values that have resonance for them. In future research, the ways in which volunteer translation is being used in other fast-growing, large-scale for-profit institutions need to be examined so that the findings from this study could be examined from a broader context. Furthermore, there is a need for research comparing discourses on volunteer translation among nonprofit, for-profit and public organizations. These studies would offer much needed empirical evidence for raising awareness on this issue in industry and academia and for more interesting and critical research projects to follow on the ethics of volunteer translation.