Home > Issue37 > Valero article

Prisons as communities of practice: An example of situated and collaborative learning in translation and interpreting

Carmen Valero-Garcés, Universidad de Alcalá

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on the results of a research and training action project in translation and interpreting developed with and for foreign bilingual prisoners in Spain. The starting point for this project was the presence of communication deficiencies in the foreign prison population. The project had two objectives: to facilitate communication in prisons and to provide training and useful tools for the resocialisation of foreign prisoners. The project’s theoretical framework was based on situated learning and communities of practice and was applied to the development of training in the specific context of prisons. Cooperation between research team members, prison staff, inmates, and teachers and trainers on an MA in Intercultural Communication and Public Service Interpreting and Translation led to the development of a pilot course on translation and interpreting aimed at bilingual prisoners who serve as linguistic and cultural links inside the prison. Publication of an introductory manual and a guide of good practice for the prison staff on how to work with interpreters and translators also resulted from the project. Following the successful implementation of the pilot training initiative in one prison centre, preliminary efforts are underway to adapt and integrate the training into other prisons’ education programmes.

KEYWORDS

Prison, interpreting, situated learning, training bilinguals, collaborative translation.

1. Introduction: Interlinguistic communication in Spanish prisons

The foreign population in Spanish prisons has been increasing, as shown in data collected about migratory flows of the last decade of the twentieth century (cf. Almeida et al. 2006; Gutiérrez et al. 2008). According to the latest official statistics available in prisons, in 2018, three out of every ten prisoners in Spanish prisons did not hold a Spanish passport (Pérez 2018). Prison legislation at both national and international levels recognises an inmate’s right to communicate in their own language. However, the legal and regulatory framework does not stipulate how messages produced in an inmate’s native language are to be conveyed to prison staff.

Spanish Prison Regulations¹ contain a number of references to language issues (Ministerio de Justicia e Interior 1996: Articles 46, 52 and 242). These references to communication with foreign nationals mainly focus on the translation of informative documents. Regarding interpreting, this task is usually delegated either to officials whose roles are not related to interpreting or to the inmates themselves who know Spanish and other languages. The fundamental right to communication is also described in the brochure Prison: Step by Step (Ministerio del Interior 2010: 9), which is given to prisoners upon their arrival at the prison and is available in five different languages: Spanish, Arabic, English, French and Romanian. The English version of the brochure explains that Penitentiary Law in Spain recognises the:

…RIGHT TO FREQUENT COMMUNICATION: in an oral and written manner, in your own language, with family, friends and credited representatives of entities and institutions of penitentiary cooperation, except in the cases of judicial isolation. (Ministerio del Interior 2010: 10)

Some reforms have also been promoted from within the EU, as in the case of Directive 2010/64/EU of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpreting and translation in criminal proceedings and Directive 2012/13/EU of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, transposed in Spanish Organic Law 5/2015². In general, resources for dealing with linguistic diversity are very scarce, and interlinguistic communication generally depends on the availability and willingness of staff and inmates with language skills (Baixauli-Olmos 2013; Granados 2014; Martínez-Gómez 2018; Valero-Garcés and Mojica López 2014).

2. Contextualisation: Education and work while in prison

Education and work are fundamental elements of prison treatment to ensure rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This right to education in prison settings is also supported by international and national legal texts. At the international level some examples include the United Nations’ Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (United Nations 1955), the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948), the Council of Europe’s recommendations on European Prison Rules (Council of Europe 1987, 2006) and Education in Prison (Council of Europe 1989), UNESCO’s Recommendation on Adult Learning and Education (UNESCO 2015) and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe 1950). At the national level, the Spanish Constitution of 1975, the Spanish General Organic Prison Law, the Spanish Prison Regulations of 1996, as well as Spanish Royal Decree 1203/1999, by which the Corps of Prison Teachers is integrated into the Education Administration, are good examples (Valero-Garcés 2018).

However, in practice, protecting these rights has not been an easy task. Structures, norms, attitudes, prejudices and past habits have had to be changed in order to reintegrate prisoners into society (Beltrán Cruz 2010). In Spain, the 1996 Prison Regulations (Ministerio de Justicia e Interior 1996; referred to from here on by the relevant Spanish acronym RP) have been fundamental in producing a shift in the concept of inmate resocialisation. RP completely reformed the previous regulation by incorporating advances produced in the field of inmate intervention and treatment into its text. This was achieved by opting for a broad conception of treatment that included not only therapeutic-assistance activities but also training, educational activities, work, socio-cultural projects, recreation and sports (Beltrán Cruz 2010).

This change in the concept and approach produced a substantial change in the daily dynamics of prisons by incorporating new professionals: sociologists, criminologists, psychologists, social workers, educators, monitors of leisure activities and teachers. In addition, by opening up the possibility of incorporating complex activities and relationships on a daily basis, each centre became an independent community. As a result, inside prisons there are schools, sports centres with gymnasiums, labour workshops, occupational workshops, support groups and therapy for drug addicts, alcoholics, perpetrators of domestic violence and/or rape, as well as professional training courses such as gardening, cooking, carpentry and online high school and university courses.

Educational provisions usually adapt to the idiosyncrasies and specifications of the prison population and take into account variables such as the imprisonment process, the mobility of the prison population, their origin, their degree of classification, their level of studies and jobs or other activities that determine organisation and educational plans (Rodríguez Yagüe and Pastor Comín 2012). These variables undoubtedly condition the type of educational programme and its duration, which in many cases depend on the imprisonment process in which inmates find themselves. Educational measures also respond to the heterogeneous prison population and take into account the percentage of women and men, illiteracy problems, the potential presence of children as young as three in the Mothers’ Units and a significant foreign population that cannot speak Spanish (De la Cuesta Arzamendi 2005, and several publications and projects of the FITISPos research group³). Furthermore, the right to education can be determined by factors arising from a prisoner’s condition and the possibilities within the criminal code. These factors can include unequal levels of education or motivation among prisoners as well as the age or economic circumstances of the prisoner, who, in many cases, when able to choose between carrying out productive and paid work or following an educational programme, prioritises the former. To guarantee the fundamental right to education, RP legislation requires correctional institutions to offer comprehensive training programmes that include formal or regulated education and vocational training, as well as non-regulated training programmes with cultural, educational and sports activities. This right to education is also considered a duty in prisoners’ re-education and social reintegration processes.

3. The project: Training in translation and interpreting in prisons

The starting point for this research and training in translation and interpreting was the presence of communication deficiencies in the foreign prison population. Having conducted several projects related to interlinguistic and intercultural communication in prisons, members of the research group FITISPos gained access to prisons and carried out the project “Effective Communication in Spanish Penitentiaries”⁴. The proposal for the implementation of the project was approved and supervised by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Alcalá and by Secretaría General de Instituciones Penitenciarias in order to ensure compliance with ethical requirements involved in the production of scientific knowledge and the publication of research results. In the following sections, the different steps of the project will be described briefly; then, in sections four and five, the training initiative aimed at bilingual prisoners who serve as linguistic and cultural links inside the prison will be explained.

3.1. Project development: First steps

Previous research showed that translation and interpreting services generally depend on the availability and willingness of staff and inmates with language skills. As for resources dealing with linguistic and cultural diversity, research in Spanish penitentiaries also showed that they were very scarce (Valero-Garcés and Lázaro Gutiérrez 2017; Valero-Garcés 2019). With this information and data, the next step was to decide which penitentiary centre from those in which FITISPos was authorised to operate would serve as the pilot centre. The final goal of the project was to implement this pilot training initiative in other prisons in the future (Valero-Garcés 2020). The decision was made based on several factors: a positive reception from prison staff, the presence of a group of inmates with different languages ready to take part in the course, and the collaboration of educators and inmates in the design and implementation of the programmes.

Once a pilot penitentiary centre was chosen, regular meetings with the different participants in the project were arranged. The participants were FITISPos research team members, prison staff, inmates, and teachers and trainers on the MA in Intercultural Communication and Public Service Interpreting and Translation⁵ (MA in PSIT) at the University of Alcalá. The first meeting was held with the prison management team and the staff responsible for the education programme (the director, educators, psychologists and social workers). After that, a meeting was held with ten inmates chosen in advance by the prison staff. All of them had acted as ad hoc interpreters for their fellow prisoners. Seven of these ten inmates later participated in the training. The languages they spoke, apart from Spanish, were Albanian, German, Arabic, Bulgarian, Flemish, English, Italian, French, Dutch and Romanian. The meetings took place in the prison library. The inmates reported briefly on daily life in the prison. At the end of the meetings, the prison staff and the research and training team made the following decisions:

• The training had to fit in as one more activity within the prison’s educational plan.
• The training would be an instrument to promote social reintegration.
• The selected working languages would be English, French, Arabic and Romanian.
• The training would include a blended introductory course on translation and interpreting accompanied by an introductory manual that the inmates could follow in class without the presence of the tutor or trainer and under the supervision of a prison educator.
• Prison staff, inmates and the FITISPos research and training team would cooperate in the development of the training.

3.2. Course design in a community of practice

An introductory course and manual and its subsequent implementation were developed as the result of this cooperation. The course was adapted to the context restrictions and characteristics of the prison. Thus, it was decided that it would be an 8-week, blended course with 4 hours a week divided into 2-hour sessions, 2 days a week. The manual contained eight units so that each week corresponded to one unit, and the language of instruction was Spanish. Each unit followed the same structure in six parts: section 1 contained general information about prison life and the related legislation; section 2 introduced fundamental concepts of translation and interpreting contextualised for the prison environment; section 3 included a brief summary of the contents in section 1 and 2; section 4 included activities; section 5 was dedicated to self-assessment, and section 6 contained a bibliography of recommended readings, which were included in an appendix at the end of the manual.

The subject and content of each unit were varied, and the main sections (1 and 2) covered different aspects related to prison life and the fundamentals of translation and interpreting. The cooperation of prison educators and inmates was fundamental in section 1. Prison staff provided all sorts of application forms and documentation sources. For instance, they provided the Spanish Criminal Code: Organic Law 1/1979, of 26 September, General Penitentiary⁶ and Information on Penitentiary Institutions from the General Secretariat of Penitentiary Institutions⁷. This latter document includes information about permits, rules of the penitentiary centre internal regime, and the brochure La prisión paso a paso and its translation into Arabic, English and Romanian. Inmates provided texts, vocabulary, materials for role-plays and comments about text selection; for example, lists of items available and prices in the prison market, examples of prison slang used by the inmates and sports activity timetables. As for section 2, the main topics covered were interlinguistic communication, terminology and documentation, different registers and levels of specialisation, basic interpreting and translation skills and modalities, and finally, ethical principles and deontological codes for professional translators and interpreters. The cooperation of teachers and trainers on the MA in PSIT was fundamental for this section as well as for the implementation of the course.

In the activities section, a series of exercises including summaries, role-plays, rewriting a text in a different register, sight translation and the translation of short texts into the students’ mother tongues were developed. The activities were designed with the collaboration of the different groups. An example of an activity taken from Unit 2 can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Example of activity 1

An example of an activity taken from Unit 3 follows in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Example of activity 2

Finally, a self-evaluation exercise was included so that students could check their knowledge (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Example of self-assessment

3.3. Course structure and implementation

Once the manual had been designed as a course textbook, additional materials were developed, such as short video presentations of the units, additional slide shows and summaries, and a collection of mandatory and additional bibliographic resources to be included in PDF format in the final electronic format (USB).

The prison educator received a copy of all the course materials. He was also responsible for providing the students with access to a copy of all the materials. The course was taught in the computer room so each student had access to all the materials (videos, readings, activities, etc.). Students had to complete the activities in an electronic format. There was no access to the internet.

Three on-site sessions were organised with the team (two initial sessions and another at the end with the team of trainers). During the remaining five sessions, the inmates worked either in groups or individually in the computer room. One inmate was in charge of collecting the activities on a USB drive and passing them to the staff educator, who in turn sent them to the trainers for feedback.

3.4. The students

The first edition of the introductory course was taken by seven students (see Valero-Garcés 2019). The following information was obtained from the survey conducted at the beginning of the course. The names of the students have been changed to maintain their anonymity.

1. Felipe. Italian nationality. Italian mother tongue. High level of Spanish due to family relations with Spanish speakers and intermediate knowledge of English. He has been in the centre for four years and is in charge of the library loans. He was also responsible for collecting the materials and giving them to the educator.
2. María. Spanish nationality. Degree in Business and Economics. Also has international secretarial training. Spanish mother tongue. High level of French and intermediate level of English. Along with Felipe, she is responsible for the library.
3. Raúl. Spanish nationality. Bachelor’s degree in biology, certified mountain guide. Mother of German origin, he studied in a French bilingual school. He speaks Catalan, Spanish, German and French, which he usually practices with some inmates. He also knows some English and Hebrew, which he has learned while traveling.
4. Brian. Dutch nationality. He has been in this centre for three years. Dutch mother tongue. He speaks Spanish, English and German at an intermediate level. He teaches English to the inmates and uses material that he has created. He has experience as an ad hoc interpreter in hearings with lawyers and social workers.
5. Mohamed. Albanian nationality. He has been in the centre, where he learned the Spanish he knows, for three years. He speaks French, a little Italian and English.
6. Asad. Moroccan nationality. He speaks the Moroccan dialect of Arabic, as well as some of the Algerian dialect and Spanish. He admits having problems when writing in Arabic since he studied in a Spanish school. He indicates that he served as an interpreter with the Prison Surveillance Judge and helps other inmates when they have questions. He is studying to obtain a degree in Social Work through UNED (Universidad Española a Distancia).
7. Marius. Romanian nationality. He has been in Spain for many years and speaks Romanian and Spanish. He only attended the first two sessions and was unable to continue due to internal issues at the prison.

All the students contributed to the design of the materials and showed great interest in the course from the beginning. According to the educator’s comments, apart from the hours set in the computer room, there were moments when some students met in their free time to continue working on tasks, exchange information and read the texts or supplementary material included in the course package.

Comments from both sides—prison staff and inmates—indicated that the prison itself was a multicultural place where differences were usually solved in a mutually helpful environment using the communicative strategies available to them. These included gestures, drawings and short phrases or words in languages they knew, which could be seen as a good example of a community of practice. They also remarked that this experience and the course and materials developed increased the confidence of both the prison staff in the team of students who had taken the course and the students in themselves and their fellow prisoners.

4. The methodological framework: Situated learning and communities of practice

The framework chosen to develop the course comprised situated learning and communities of practice. Extensive research (Lave and Wenger 1991, 2002; Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner 2015; Smith 2013; González-Davies 2006; Risku 2016; González-Davies and Enríquez-Raído 2016; Crezee et al. 2013, among others) shows that applying methodologies based on the main principles of the situated learning and communities of practice approaches to education helps establish synergies between academia and society. In the context of prisons, differences in education, socio-economic level, institutional practices, available facilities, budgetary issues and resource quality, among other variables, require a specific pedagogical approach based on the combination of both procedures: simulated and real-life work.

The seven principles identified by Risku (2016) as common features in the implementation of the situated learning model were considered in the development and implementation of the training. The first two principles—collaboration and construction—had already been developed by Risku (2010), Muñoz Martín (2010) and Kiraly (2012). The point of departure is the assumption that knowledge is always based on existing knowledge, which is our own experience and which we integrate into our knowledge structures—not the structures of the reality as such. The cognitive processes linked to the acquisition of this knowledge do not occur solely in the brain but are instead shared with the individual’s interaction with others and the environment, i.e, collaboration, which leads to the construction of knowledge by the student (and not prescribed by the lecturer).

The third principle of situated learning is self-organisation. The main assumption here is that knowledge and competence will happen (or will be acquired) only when we (or the learners) link them to our (their own) worlds, i.e., to their existing actions and contexts.

The fourth principle is application in a social action context. In Risku’s words, “we do not just learn because we absorb ‘facts’ as ‘information’, but because we navigate with others in a given environment and so learn to act in specific situations” (2016: 14). Emphasis is on the social aspect of learning or cooperative forms of learning as a primary source of new knowledge. As Risku (2016: 12) indicates, “the object of education should therefore not be restricted merely to the imparting of information but must instead extend to the use of this information in interaction with the organisational environment.”

The fifth principle of situated learning identified by Risku is the use of shared artefacts. Individual practice is not enough to gain all the competences that an authentic situation might require. Interaction and dialogue with others help gain competence, especially when learners can assume a meaningful role in an authentic situation. This dialogue can lead to critical and informed action knowledge that produces progress in the learner’s learning process. This knowledge can only be consolidated through the subsequent feedback obtained.

Accordingly, Risku identifies appropriate feedback as the sixth principle. A principle that guarantees acquiring expertise, and one that is (should be) accompanied by reflection, which is the seventh principle. Reflection allows us to determine the limits of validity of the knowledge gained or the possible uses for newly acquired competences.

Reflection on some processes and on the difficulties in acquiring this new knowledge can also be performed in a group as a community of practice, which, for example, reflects on solving an ethical dilemma, discusses a stereotype, reasons about a reaction or comment, and so on. According to Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner (2015), “[c]ommunities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.”

This idea of communities of practice allows thinking beyond the restrictive boundaries of traditional on-site courses. When combined with a situated learning approach, where knowledge is attained in an authentic context and social interaction and collaboration are required, the result helps bridge the gap between abstract learning and the real-life application of this knowledge in the work environment, or what Resnick and Klopfer (1989) called “bridging apprenticeships”.

5. Applying situated learning to a training initiative in prisons

The design, development of materials and implementation of an introductory course on translation and interpreting as part of the project to improve the quality of communication in prisons fits in with the philosophy of the Spanish General Prison Regulations, which state that education is a means of reintegration and integral to the development of a prisoner’s personality. The course presented here is targeted at a group of people who, thanks to their work as communication liaisons, connect with a part of the prison population that is even more isolated, marginalised, separated and disconnected from prison life because they do not know the language of contact.

The combination of a collaborative approach and situated learning methodology was considered a very positive experience for both groups—prison staff and students. The design and development of the manual as well as the implementation of the course and the additional materials and practice in class were considered clear and explicit motivating factors for participation in the project. Consequently, the students considered themselves members of a collaborative project, and participated actively throughout the process. A short questionnaire to investigate the practical relevance of the course for their future or as an instrument of social reintegration was distributed among the students. The answers were positive: they not only learned and improved their understanding of translation and interpreting practice, but the authentic workplace data also inspired them to reflect on their future work in prison or when they would leave the prison (Valero-Garcés 2017). The experience of the course generated a number of findings that will now be discussed under each of the seven of Risku’s (2016) principles of situated learning.

Collaboration: Collaboration between the different interested parties as a team was maintained throughout the project. The handling of more theoretical approaches to translation and interpreting (T&I; section 2 of the course) by using authentic material (section 1 of the course) as part of the same project allowed a comprehensive, in-depth discussion and practical outputs in the students’ (role-play) performances. There was a strong sense of a collaborative knowledge-generation process.

Construction: The involvement of the different parties in the design and implementation of the course can be viewed as a process in which individual, interconnected constructions are formed. The trainers (research team) did not act as an omniscient deliverer of known truths but presented the material or used the material provided by the prison staff (e.g., legal texts) and the inmates (e.g., a translation, a role play) to present the knowledge gaps, and then gave the students the opportunity to discuss the topic.

Self-organisation: The design and implementation of the course in a specific setting—the prison—provided an ideal scenario for linking research to the contexts of meaning occupied by the students. The students’ participation in the design of the course and as training subjects encouraged students to reflect on their practice, be open and develop an interest in T&I as a profession instead of a mere ad hoc volunteer activity.

Application in a social action context: In this project, both the students and staff could apply their knowledge and skills learned throughout the project; they continue to act as translators and interpreters for their fellow prisoners when required with better skills and understanding of intercultural communication—the main objective of the project. The students were uncertain about their future as translators and interpreters when they leave the prison, but all of them viewed working on this project as a positive endeavour.

Use of common artefacts: Working together on the same project generated a basis for discussion in the first stages to define the objective, comply with the restrictions of the setting, analyse the student profiles, etc. The incorporation of authentic material for practice was seen as a positive and attractive element. The material was always explicitly used as an example or in the activities, and all the students had to work through some material on their own to complete the activities. Some material was analysed by the group in class, thus providing the students with a chance to incorporate other skills and knowledge.

Feedback: Through their answers to the questionnaire to assess the course, the students reflected on and showed greater interest in the quality of communication with foreign nationals compared with the reality in the prison courtyard. They showed sensitivity to the feedback relating to personal aspects in such a specific setting where cultures and languages combine in a very restrictive environment. Learning intercultural and T&I skills in such a situated context was a social experience characterised by mutual appreciation, an open atmosphere and the explicit recognition of the students’ potential in motivating learning and facilitating the interaction needed. This social learning could be seen as a good example of situated learning.

Reflection: The project as a whole initiated reflective, metacognitive processes along the dimensions pointed out by Risku (2014): (1) awareness of an understanding of the project’s main objective (improving communication in prison and an opportunity to enhance the students’ abilities in T&I); (2) awareness of the usefulness of the knowledge acquired when helping in communication and acting as ad hoc translators and interpreters; and (3) awareness of one’s role and capacities as a translator and interpreter. Thus, individual reflective processes relating to both scholarly content and personal self-development were identified.

To conclude, the action-research project described in this article can be seen as an example of the practical implementation of a situated-learning approach and community of practice for translation and interpreting training. Even though no rigorous conclusions can be drawn due to the limited number of participants and the restrictions of the setting, all participants—students, prison staff, trainers on the MA in PSIT and the research team—actively participated in this sociocultural practice of translation training and research and contributed to adapting the learning process to the needs of a specific group and setting. The pilot training initiative to improve interlinguistic and intercultural communication in prison is also a tool to promote the reintegration of prison groups; their possible social exclusion is reduced by giving these inmates the opportunity to access the labour market if they have the appropriate qualifications and professional experience.

The manual, entitled Manual de introducción a la traducción e interpretación en centros penitenciarios. Curso Básico (Introduction to Translation and Interpreting in Correctional Facilities. Introductory Course) (Valero-Garcés et al. 2019a) and a guide for the prison staff entitled Guía de las buenas prácticas sobre cómo trabajar con intérpretes y traductores en el ámbito penitenciario (Valero-Garcés et al. 2019b), once published, were distributed to all of Spain’s prisons. Some prisons have shown interest in both the course and the manual, and the first steps are being taken to adapt and integrate the course into the prisons’ education programmes. A translation into English of both the Manual and the Guide are in progress.

Acknowledgments

The training would not have been possible without the experience of years of coordinating and teaching on the PSIT Programme at the University of Alcalá, the contributions of colleagues, the work and effort of trainers on the MA in PSIT, the collaboration of the Directorate General for Penitentiaries, the prisons that allowed us access and the Project financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (ref. REF FFI 2015-69997-R, 2016–2018) entitled “Effective Communication in Spanish Penitentiaries”.

References

• Almeida Herrero, Cristina, Lucena García, Manuel and Francisco José Rodríguez Enríquez (2006). Situación de los presos extranjeros en el Centro Penitenciario de Topas (Salamanca). Salamanca: Cáritas diocesana de Salamanca.
• Baixauli-Olmos, Lluís (2013). “A description of interpreting in prisons: Mapping the setting through an ethical lens.” Christina Schäffner, Krzysztof Kredens and Yvonne Fowler (eds) (2013). Interpreting in a Changing Landscape: Selected Papers from Critical Link 6. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 45-60.
• Beltrán Cruz, Juan (2010). “La educación en prisiones. Elemento fundamental del tratamiento penitenciario.” Educar(nos) 52, 1-8.
• Council of Europe (1950). European Convention on Human Rights. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf (consulted 13.08.2021).
• Council of Europe (1987). Recommendation No. R (87) 3 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules. https://rm.coe.int/16804f856c (consulted 13.08.2021).
• Council of Europe (1989). Recommendation No. R (89) 12 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Education in Prison. https://rm.coe.int/09000016804c858f (consulted 13.08.2021).
• Council of Europe (2006). European Prison Rules. https://rm.coe.int/european-prison-rules-978-92-871-5982-3/16806ab9ae (consulted 01.03.2021).
• Crezee, Ineke, Jülich, Shirley and Maria Hayward (2013). “Issues for interpreters and professionals working in refugee settings.” Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 8(3), 253-273. DOI: 10.1558/japl.v8i3.253
• De La Cuesta Arzamendi, José Luis (2005). “Retos principales del actual sistema educativo.” Ministerio del Interior (ed.) (2005). Jornadas en Homenaje al XXV Aniversario de la Ley Orgánica General Penitenciaria. Madrid: Ministerio del Interior, Secretaria General Técnica, 119-137.
• González-Davies, Maria (2006). “Challenges for the new century: Schools for all and narrowing gaps through transformation pedagogies.” Quaderns de traducció 13, 41-54.
• González-Davies, Maria and Vanessa Enríquez-Raído (2016). “Situated learning in translator and interpreter training: Bridging research and good practice.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 10(1), 1-11.
• Granados, Francisco José (2014). Interpretación en los servicios públicos en el ámbito jurídico: jurisdicción, penal, policía, juzgado, prisión. Algeciras. Master’s thesis. Universidad de Alcalá.
• Gutiérrez, José Antonio, Jordán, Javier and Humberto M. Trujillo (2008). “Prevención de la radicalización yihadista en las prisiones españolas. Situación actual, retos y disfunciones del sistema penitenciario.” Athena Intelligence Journal 3(1), 1-9.
• Kiraly, Don (2012). “Skopos theory goes to Paris: Purposeful translation and emergent translation projects.” mTm 4, 119-144.
• Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger (2002). “Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice.” Roger Harrison, Fiona Reeve, Ann Hanson and Julia Clarke (eds) (2002). Supporting Lifelong Learning: Volume I Perspectives on Learning. London/New York: Routledge, 111-126.
• Martínez-Gómez, Aída (2018). “Language, translation and interpreting policies in prisons: Protecting the rights of speakers of non-official languages.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 251, 151-172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-0008
• Ministerio de Justicia e Interior (1996). Real decreto 190/1996, de 9 de febrero, por el que se aprueba el reglamento penitenciario. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1996/02/15/pdfs/A05380-05435.pdf (consulted 01.03.2021).
• Ministerio del Interior (2010). Prison. Step by Step. http://www.interior.gob.es/documents/642317/1201664/Prison+step+by+step (consulted 15.05.2021).
• Muñoz Martín, Ricardo (2010). “On paradigms and cognitive translatology.” Gregory M. Shreve and Erik Angelone (eds) (2010). Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 169-188.
• Pérez, Roberto (2018). Tres de cada diez presos que hay en España son extranjeros. https://www.abc.es/espana/abci-tres-cada-diez-presos-espana-extranjeros-201802260257_noticia.html (consulted 01.03.2021).
• Resnick, Lauren B. and Leopold E. Klopfer (1989). “Toward the thinking curriculum: An overview.” Lauren B Resnick and Leopold E. Klopfer (eds) (1989). Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1-18.
• Risku, Hanna (2010). “A cognitive scientific view on technical communication and translation: Do embodiment and situatedness really make a difference?” Target 22(1), 94-111.
• Risku, Hanna (2014). “Translation process research as interaction research: From mental to socio-cognitive processes.” MonTI – Monographs in Translation and Interpreting 1, 331-353.
• Risku, Hanna (2016). “Situated learning in translation research training: Academic research as a reflection of practice.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 10(1), 12-28.
• Rodríguez Yagüe, Ana Cristina and Juan José Pastor Comín (2012). “La población penitenciaria como comunidad educativa. La expresión musical como intervención socializadora.” Juan Antonio Morales-Lozano and Julio Barroso Osuna (eds) (2012). Redes educativas: La educación en la sociedad del conocimiento. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla, 1-11.
• Smith, Melissa B. (2013). More than Meets the Eye: Revealing the Complexities of an Interpreted Education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
• UNESCO (2015). Recommendation on Adult Learning and Education. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=49354&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (consulted 13.08.2021).
• United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights (consulted 13.08.2021).
• United Nations (1955). Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. https://www.unodc.org/.../UN_Standard_Minimum_Rules...pdf (consulted 01.03.2021).
• Valero-Garcés, Carmen (2017). “Ethical codes and their impact on prison communication.” Carmen Valero-Garcés and Rebecca Tipton (eds) (2017). Ideology, Ethics and Policy Development in Public Service Interpreting and Translation. London/New York: Multilingual Matters, 156-173.
• Valero-Garcés, Carmen (2018). “Language policy in prisons at the crossroads: The voice of foreign inmates.” The Open Journal of Criminology & Sociology 1, 63-70.
• Valero-Garcés, Carmen (2019). “Training bilingual inmates for translation and interpreting tasks.” Beatriz Martínez Ojeda and María Luisa Rodríguez Muñoz (eds) (2019). Translation in and for Society: Sociological and Cultural Approaches in Translation. Córdoba: UCOPress, 64-81.
• Valero-Garcés, Carmen (2020). “Comunicación eficiente en centros penitenciarios. Investigación y primeros resultados.” Carla Botella Tejera, Javier Franco Aixelá and Catalina Iliescu Gheorghiu (eds) (2020). Translatum nostrum. La traducción y la interpretación en el ámbito humanístico. Granada: Comares, 3-16.
• Valero-Garcés, Carmen and Esperanza Mojica López (2014). “La comunicación con mujeres extranjeras en la cárcel. Estudio de caso.” Carmen Valero-Garcés (ed.) (2014). (Re)considerando ética e ideología en situaciones de conflicto / (Re)Visiting Ethics and Ideology in Situations of Conflict. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá, 94-107.
• Valero-Garcés, Carmen and Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez (2017). “Community translation in Spanish penitentiaries: A co-ordinated approach.” Mustapha Taibi (ed.) (2017). Translating for the Community. London/New York: Multilingual Matters, 121-137.
• Valero-Garcés, Carmen, Vitalaru, Bianca and Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez (2019a). Manual de introducción a la traducción e interpretación en los servicios públicos. Curso básico. Alcala de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá.
• Valero-Garcés, Carmen, Vitalaru, Bianca and Raquel Lázaro Gutiérrez (2019b). Guía de las buenas prácticas sobre como trabajar con traductores e intérpretes en el ámbito penitenciario. Alcala de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá.
• Wenger-Trayner, Etienne and Beverly Wenger-Trayner (2015). Introduction to Communities of Practice. https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/ (consulted 01.03.2021).

Biographies

Carmen Valero-Garcés is a Full Professor of Translation and Interpreting at the University of Alcalá, Madrid (Spain). She is the coordinator of the Research Group FITISPos® as well as the managing editor of FITISPos International Journal. She has edited and authored several books and articles.

Email: carmen.valero@uah.es

Home | Past Issues | Keyword Search | Editorial Board | Events | About | Contact | Help