#NewThread - about the relationships between interpreter training institutions / trainers and the "market"...
1) What are these relationships like?
2) What are the risks if they get too close or too distant?
3) How do we manage these relationships?

Interpreting is a profession. A practical skill. Training in interpreting is thus naturally geared towards exercising that profession. So trainees need to learn skills that are actually relevant for the "market".

To ensure training is relevant for the market, some contact between training actors and market actors is useful and necessary, which can take different forms:
-staff interpreters of a large employer acting as trainers or exam jury members
- internships for trainees,
...

There are also informal exchanges between training coordinators and representatives of large employers during working groups, conferences, etc.

All nice and well. Now, the pitfalls.

1) In community interpreting, employers of interpreters or even interpreters themselves cannot represent the voice of beneficiaries but training must take their needs into account.
A training program must be able to teach an interpreter to act in the best interest of their users.

Acting in the best interest of the users of interpreting services can sometimes mean going against the preferences of the organization paying your salary. This is a very fine line to walk but training institutions need to prepare trainees for this.

A solid understanding of ethics for interpreters means knowing when to say no if necessary. Training institutions cannot train ppl based only on specifications received from employers. Their approach must take the interests of all parties on board, not just those who pay.

2) In conference interpreting working with large employers can help ensure your graduates fulfill their requirements. But gearing your training only to one or two large employers limits the prospects of your students and is unwarranted, esp in publicly funded courses.

One thus needs to strike a balance between proximity and distance.
Too much distance means you might run a training program that completely ignores the actual needs on the market.
Too much proximity means you will become dependent on a single employer's view of the profession.

A very simple example, based on a recent training course I was asked to designed. It was interpreters working for a large hospital in Switzerland and many medical professionals also took part as trainers in the course.

We had a discussion upfront and there was a disagreement regarding medical terminology. Some medical professionals argued that knowing the medical terminology was part of the relevant things to include in this (very short) training course.

However, it became clear to us that the profiles of the beneficiaries in this context were such that directly translating medical terms into the target language would miss the point of mutual comprehension. Professionals had to clarify their language.

I deliberately use "clarify" here instead of "simplify" - bc it is not about simplicity but about using language that is context-appropriate, i.e. can be understood by your patient. It is not the interpreter's job to explain medical jargon to the patient but the doctor's job.

Interpreters work between people. Generally one of the people involved represents the institution that pays for the interpreter and being in-between is extremely challenging.
Training institutions working "with" employers, yes! Training institutions working "for" employers, no!