Bible Translation Process vs Technology?

This entry is crossposted at https://www.etenlab.org/post/bible-translation-process-vs-technology

Having started work with the ETEN Innovation Lab, I have been reorienting myself to better internalize the ambitious All Access Goals¹. From what I know (at the time of writing) the current projected time frame of reaching the AAGs is delayed by ~8 years. The good thing about ambitious goals are that they push us out of our comfort zone and force us to take risks that we would not be easily motivated to take otherwise. On the flip-side, these are still risks (hopefully calculated) and can at best skew favorably the probability of success. Mulling these things over, I am trying to build a mental model that would helps me make better strategic decisions as part of my job. And I would like to share one such thought that continues to be developed…

Having a background in software and technology, I concede that I have a bent to see things through such a lens. I do have a hammer after all! But it is beyond doubt that historically technology has (and continues) to solve real problems. Cars and airplanes allow us to travel further and faster than ever before but even the humble spell-checker (and now not-so-humble LLMs) help solve real problems (though there are new one problems they introduce- that's for another post :)). But more importantly, more often than not, the technology changes the way things are done. If in the (distant) past someone may send a mail to convey a significant message, today we might decide to drive/fly over to be in-person to convey the same message because it is feasible to do so. If in the (distant) past someone may look up a dictionary (assuming it existed!) to cross-check spellings in a letter they hand-wrote, today we expect computers to handle this without a second thought (for the major languages, at least!).

Technology may enable us to reasonable accomplish tasks that previously seemed infeasible/inconvenient and thus were not considered 'normal'. Which opens up the opportunity to re-imagine how things are done. The task of Bible Translation has employed technology in some form for centuries. And the continued development of technology has influenced the way the translation work has been done (e.g. using computers instead of paper and pen- though there are still teams that resort to that!). In many other contexts, adoption of some new (even experimental) technology may seem to be low-risk. It would not make sense to think about experimenting the use of LLMs to code your next hobby project or draft a letter as it would to just try it out. Bible Translation teams, however, may have an inhibition to 'just try' things out since there may be a sense of reverence/fear of how it would affect quality or even a feeling that general technology improvements may not (which is occasionally true) actually apply to their unique problems. Moreover, there may also be a pious desire that one should do the hard (and long) work and not be in pursuit of finding the easiest way to do things.

Ironically, I have felt similarly for a code project which I over-engineered since I wanted to do the right thing and revel in the sense of accomplishment. One reason it was probably okay to do that was because I did not have a tight deadline and I used the opportunity to learn to use a couple fancy code libraries. I think it is characteristic of developers to want to feel proud about their code². The pressure of a deadline, though, makes any realistic software team weigh development options based on delivery estimates. The best developers are able to make dispassionate choices in order meet targets and deadlines. Similarly, the fact that unless something changes we will not meet the AAGs, should force us to reconsider our normal and rethink the status quo if, indeed, they are our goals.

Tying some of these thoughts together, my mental model is currently that the biggest impact (both in terms of quality and speed) to Bible Translation would be a change in the way or process of how it is practiced. This could look like merging different stages of checking or reducing feedback time through tighter project management. Though there maybe a reasonable case for making such changes, such a shift is an uphill battle. Organizations and individuals are usually not equipped to deal with significant process changes based on recommendations from a research study. This is especially true for Bible Translation where the work is highly decentralized and communication with the field could be challenging due to limited accessibility.

If technology improves our lives and more importantly changes how we do things then it is worth thinking if the corollary holds equally. What if we could develop technology that is adopted due to attractive features but subtly encourages users/teams/organizations to shift process? The examples of technology improvements I shared earlier prove this. Good technology encourages better process which has the potential to significantly improve quality and speed of translation. I do not think this is a novel idea but it seems to me that it is easy for me to fixate on either one and forget how there is a deeper interplay between the two concepts.

What does this mean for us practically? I think we should (at least):

• Invest in studying existing processes (ways of doing translation) with the goal of identifying bottlenecks.
• Experiment newer translation methodologies to understand their impact on quality and speed.
• Invest in technology that encourages 'better' processes via an on-ramp.
• Generally, see technology as a vehicle for process change which holds the promise for significant improvements in quality and speed of translation.