Transletters. International Journal of Translation and Interpreting, 9(2025), pp. 1-23 ISSN 2605-2954
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of
interpreting in Spanish university degrees
Marina Rueda-Martin
University Pablo de Olavide
Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
University of Malaga
Received: 09/07/2025
Accepted: 04/10/2025
Abstract
This article analyses the marginal role of interpreting within Spanish university degrees
in Translation and Interpreting (T&I), by examining both current Spanish T&I curricula
and a nationwide survey of T&I students. Although interpreting is a highly specialised
and demanding discipline, it remains underrepresented in most T&I programmes, both
in terms of compulsory coursework and practical training. In addition, the lack of
technological tools, such as computer-assisted interpreting (CAI), further limits
students’ preparation for the demands of the profession. Through the design and
distribution of a nationwide survey, this study gathers students’ perceptions,
expectations and experiences, revealing widespread concern over the imbalance
between translation and interpreting. The results confirm the need to restructure
academic programmes by integrating interpreting courses earlier, increasing practical
sessions and embracing technological advancements. This research calls for an urgent
reassessment of T&I curricula to ensure students graduate with comprehensive, modern
and competitive skills aligned with real-world interpreting practices.
Keywords
Curriculum design, interpreting training, Spanish universities, student perception,
Translation and Interpreting degrees.
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
2
INTRODUCTION
This study emerges from both academic experience and professional practice in
the field of Translation and Interpreting (T&I). It is evident that current curricula
in Spanish university T&I programmes reflect a significant imbalance: while
written interlinguistic translation receives extensive attention, interpreting
remains notably underrepresented. This is especially concerning considering that
interpreting is not merely oral translation but a complex multimodal process that
requires the integration of verbal and non-verbal cues, cultural sensitivity and
rapid cognitive processing.
Students themselves are the first to express disappointment at this
imbalance. Their initial expectations are often undermined by a lack of
structured guidance and practical training in interpreting. Despite the proven
demand and professional relevance of interpreting, the discipline remains
disempowered in most university programmes.
This study seeks not to radically overturn existing curricula but rather to
propose constructive improvements. By documenting current academic
shortcomings and exploring students’ perceptions, we aim to contribute
meaningfully to curriculum reform and advocate for greater academic parity
between translation and interpreting.
Understanding the historical foundations of interpreting allows us to
further appreciate its central role in human communication —and, by extension,
the importance of reinforcing its presence in academic training. Interpreting is
described as one of humanity’s oldest communicative practices (Valdivia
Campos, 1995) —predating even written translation— as it arose naturally when
mediators facilitated understanding between cultures. In early societies,
interpreters played a key role in trade, diplomacy and military conquest, acting
as bridges between different languages and communities. From an evolutionary
perspective, humans began speaking approximately 200,000 years ago, while
writing systems only appeared around 5,000 years ago. Thus, interpreting
emerged long before written translation and still plays a key role in facilitating
interlingual and intercultural communication, so it does not deserve a subsidiary
treatment in T&I studies and training.
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
3
1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK - CURRICULUM DESIGN
This study does not intend to impose a radical transformation on existing
curricula but rather to encourage constructive improvement in the design of
academic programmes in Translation and Interpreting (T&I). Our goal is to
highlight the perspectives of experts in the field, as well as the real experiences
of students in order to foster informed curricular evolution.
Curriculum theory in higher education resists absolute models or universally
valid procedures. Curriculum problems are not solved through fixed principles,
since academic programs are built around human experience and subjective
priorities. Researchers, educators and institutions bring different goals to the
design process, which naturally leads to diverse approaches across institutions.
In Spain, the development of T&I programmes has been influenced by
multiple factors, including legal frameworks, academic reports, evaluation
processes and the foundational “Libro Blanco” prepared by the National Agency
for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA). Calvo Encinas (2009)
stresses that these sources reflect how curricular changes are negotiated through
national and institutional agendas. These changes are not purely driven by
pedagogical reasoning but, as the author suggests, they are the result of three
main milestones: the scientific and technological revolution, globalisation and
the information society (Calvo Encinas, 2009).
The current T&I curriculum is the result of a carefully designed structure
that seeks to offer specialised, comprehensive training to all students
— regardless of their chosen language combinations. Its aim is to ensure that
graduates possess strong competencies in translation, interpreting and, more
generally, applied linguistics. However, despite this goal, interpreting often
receives less attention and fewer resources than written translation, which raises
concerns about the professional readiness of graduates.
A consistent academic framework should promote not only linguistic and
grammatical proficiency but also fluency, adaptability and oral expression, which
are essential to interpreting practice. In many Translation and Interpreting
programmes, significant progress has been made towards integrating these
competences through communicative (Sawyer, 2004) and task-based approaches
(Hurtado Albir, 2007). However, ensuring their systematic development still
represents a pedagogical challenge, particularly when students have limited
opportunities to engage in authentic or simulated interpreting contexts (cf. Gile,
2009; Sawyer, 2004).
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
4
While the inclusion of practical and technology-oriented courses has
increased substantially in Spanish Translation and Interpreting degrees, traces of
a predominantly theoretical orientation remain, especially in the conceptual
design of curricula. Calvo Encinas (2009) has analysed this imbalance and noted
that bridging the gap between academic training and professional practice
remains a key challenge in the field.
Although the degree has evolved considerably over the last three decades,
many challenges remain —particularly the lack of structure, early exposure to
interpreting and the minimal integration of digital tools. These shortcomings
continue to hinder the development of professional-level interpreting
competence among students.
1.1. Historical and institutional context of T&I degrees in Spain
The structure of subjects in Translation and Interpreting (T&I) degrees in Spain
is the result of a gradual, deliberate process influenced by international academic
standards and professional demands. This institutional evolution reflects both
external accreditation requirements and internal debates within university
faculties.
According to Calvo Encinas (2009), the curriculum has been shaped by
legislation, teaching plans, internal and external evaluations and scholarly
discussions. The “Libro Blanco” of ANECA played a particularly influential role
in standardising academic expectations across faculties. However, one of the
main concerns that emerged during this evolution was the rigidity of the
curriculum—especially regarding interpreting.
The creation of the official degree in Translation and Interpreting was
established by the Spanish Ministry of Education through the University Reform
Act (LRU). The first official implementation of the degree was formalised in the
Boletín Oficial del Estado (Official State Gazette or BOE) in 1991. The
pioneering universities —such as University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
(ULPGC), Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), University of Malaga
(UMA), University of Vigo (UVigo) and University of Salamanca (USAL)—
began offering T&I degrees in the early 1990s, with the University of Granada
(UGR) standing out as a leader in curriculum development.
However, the transition from diploma to degree programmes sparked
tensions between academic goals and institutional policies. Discussions held by
the University Schools of Translation and Interpreting (EUTIs) identified a key
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
5
structural issue: curricula often treated subjects as isolated units rather than parts
of an integrated whole. This fragmentation weakened cohesion across the
programme, especially in specialised areas like interpreting.
Although many academic leaders advocated for technological innovation
and subject diversification, interpreting remained insufficiently integrated in
most programmes. This is not necessarily due to a lack of interest but rather a
result of the complexity of managing such a broad curriculum for Translation
Studies —especially under institutional and bureaucratic constraints.
Even today, questions persist about the academic “location” of T&I
degrees. Some programmes emphasise philological and literary traditions, while
others focus more on applied or professional training. As Kreutzer and Neunzig
(1997) note, T&I has historically oscillated between disciplines: initially tied to
applied linguistics, later pulled between humanities, communication and even
business studies, among others. This disciplinary ambiguity has often led to
curricular inconsistencies and to Interpreting Studies struggling to find its
methodological and theoretical identity (cf. Gile, 2009; Pöchhacker, 2004;
Sawyer, 2004).
Resource allocation is another factor that shapes programme structure. In
public universities, decisions regarding budgets, staff and infrastructure are
linked to teaching quality, research activity and strategic priorities. Consequently,
technical and practical subjects —such as computer-based workshops or
interpreting simulations— often lack adequate support compared to traditional
lectures.
Despite efforts to modernise the curriculum, the imbalance between
translation and interpreting remains a persistent issue. Translation receives the
majority of the teaching load, while interpreting subjects are often optional,
introduced late in the degree or minimally resourced. This disparity has
significant implications for students’ professional development.
1.2. Curricular reforms and European influences
The Spanish educational model has long been anchored in a traditional
approach, characterised by a rigid structure of core and compulsory subjects.
Until 2006, academic curricula were guided by the General Guidelines and the
National Catalogue of Degrees and Professional Qualifications, which shaped
the design and approval of study plans nationwide. However, the integration of
Spain into the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) marked a paradigm
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
6
shift, promoting curricular flexibility, transnational harmonisation and
pedagogical innovation.
This transition was not without challenges. The move toward a
competence-based model introduced tensions between theory and practice,
standardisation and institutional autonomy. While the EHEA promoted
methodological renewal and student-centred learning, Spanish universities often
struggled to implement these ideals within the confines of national accreditation
systems and bureaucratic oversight.
Several European declarations played a decisive role in redefining curricular
priorities:
• Prague Declaration (European Ministers of Education, 2001): Emphasised
international mobility for students, teachers and researchers.
• Berlin and Bergen Declarations (European Ministers of Education, 2003,
2005): Advocated for transparency in degree structures and quality assurance
mechanisms.
• London Communiqué (EHEA, 2007): Encouraged continued review and
enhancement of academic programmes.
• Paris Communiqué (EHEA, 2018): Reaffirmed the need for equal access to
higher education.
These declarations shaped the framework for curricular reform in Spain.
Universities were encouraged to adopt a more pragmatic, practice-oriented
approach, favouring micro-level changes that improved student experience and
employability.
Nevertheless, as recent analyses by the OECD (2024) indicates, there is a
tendency to over-theorise the curriculum, leading to reforms that may not always
translate into meaningful change. In this case, EHEA facilitated a move toward
modular structures and learning outcomes, but it also reinforced centralised
accreditation systems that limited faculty autonomy.
Curricular engineering —when based on deliberation, conscious reflection
and stakeholder involvement— can lead to significant improvements. However,
many universities have yet to internalise the reformist spirit of the EHEA.
Institutional inertia, bureaucratic constraints and limited resources continue to
hinder full implementation of student-centred learning and integrated
curriculum design.
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
7
In this context, interpreting remains underrepresented. The persistence of
translation-heavy curricula, limited integration of interpreting technologies and
the oversight of oral communicative skills reveal a gap between European policy
objectives and local academic practices. Bridging this gap requires not only
structural reform but also a cultural shift in how interpreting is valued within the
T&I curriculum.
2. METHODOLOGY - DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The study adopts a dual approach to analyse the marginalisation of interpreting
in Spanish T&I degrees from two complementary perspectives: a comprehensive
review of the curricula of the nineteen public Spanish universities offering this
degree, and an analysis of data gathered through a survey administered to their
students. This design aims to explore both the structural framework and
students’ perceptions of interpreting within academic training.
2.1. Preliminary research and institutional review
The initial step involved the analysis of academic syllabi and official
documentation available on the websites of Spanish public universities offering
T&I degrees. Special attention was paid to the presence, distribution and
typology of interpreting-related subjects, including whether interpreting was
offered as a compulsory or optional module and at what stage of the degree it
was introduced.
In order to visualise the academic imbalance between translation and
interpreting courses across public universities in Spain, the following table
compiles the number of compulsory and elective subjects in both fields. This
comparative overview illustrates how interpreting continues to be
underrepresented in most institutions, highlighting the pressing need for
curricular readjustment.
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
8
AR1
PU
B/C
FL
CTS
CIS
ETS
EIS
TT
TI
Andalusia
Granada
(UGR)
B
9
2
4
2
13
4
C
3
0
0
2
3
2
Andalusia
Malaga
(UMA)
B
6
2
9
2
15
4
C
2
0
2
1
4
1
Andalusia
Pablo de
Olavide
(Seville)
(UPO)
B
5
2
3
2
8
4
C
4
0
2
1
6
1
Andalusia
Cordoba
(UCO)
B
7
3
4
0
11
3
C
5
0
0
0
5
0
Castile and
León
Salamanca
(USAL)
B
7
2
7
2
14
4
C
3
1
2
0
5
1
Castile and
León
Valladolid
(UVA)
B
11
2
2
1
13
3
C
7
0
0
0
7
0
Catalonia
Barcelona
(UB)
B
8
2
14
4
22
6
C
6
0
0
0
6
0
Catalonia
Pompeu
Fabra
(BarcelonaUP
F)
B
10
2
25
0
35
2
C
3
0
0
0
3
0
Catalonia
Lleida (UdL)
B
4
Not
applic
a-
ble
—
Not
applic
a
ble
4
0
C
2
—
2
0
Community
of Madrid
Autonomic
(UAM)
B
8
3
6
4
14
7
C
4
0
0
0
4
0
1 AR: Autonomous Region; PU: Public university; B/C FL: First (B) or second (C) foreign
language; CTS: Compulsory Translation subject; CIS: Compulsory Interpreting subject; ETS:
Elective Translation subject; EIS: Elective Interpreting subject; TT: Total Translation; TI: Total
Interpreting.
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
9
Community
of Madrid
Complutens e
(UCM)
B
8
7
5
3
13
10
C
9
5
3
0
12
5
Community
of Madrid
King Juan
Carlos
(URJC)
B
6
2
2
1
8
3
C
5
2
0
0
5
2
Valencian
Community
Alicante (UA)
B
10
3
6
—
16
3
C
3
0
3
—
6
0
Valencian
Community
Valencia
(UV)
B
7
2
2
—
9
2
C
2
0
1
—
3
0
Valencian
Community
Jaume I
(Castellon-
UJI)
B
10
1
12
3
22
4
C
2
0
0
0
2
0
Galicia
Vigo (UVigo)
B
7
5
4
1
11
6
C
3
0
3
2
6
2
Canary
Islands
Las Palmas
de Gran
Canaria
(ULPGC)
B
7
5
1
1
8
6
C
3
1
0
1
3
2
Murcia
Murcia (UM)
B
8
4
1
1
9
5
C
5
0
0
0
5
0
Basque
Country
Basque
Country
(UPV/EHU)
B
15
1
—
6
15
7
C
3
0
—
0
3
0
Table 1. Distribution of T&I subjects in Spanish public universities
Source: Authors’ compilation based on public university syllabi (2025)
The abbreviations used in Table 1 refer to the classification of compulsory
and elective subjects in Translation and Interpreting across Spanish universities.
Each cell has been subdivided to indicate the number of compulsory and
optional courses in both translation and interpreting offered by each faculty
through the T&I degree programme. In this analysis, ‘B’ and ‘C’ stand for the
first and second foreign languages, respectively. ‘Compulsory T. subjects (B/C)’
refer to mandatory translation courses from and into Language B and C, while
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
10
‘Elective T. subjects (B/C)’ refer to optional translation courses involving those
languages. The variable ‘Total B’ and ‘Total C’ indicate the overall credit weight
of both compulsory and elective translation subjects in each foreign language as
offered by each faculty.
The following figure illustrates the data collected in Table 1.
Figure 1. Comparison of mandatory T&I courses by universities
2.2. Survey design and distribution
The main source of empirical data was a nationwide online survey mainly
targeted at students enrolled in the final years of T&I programmes (3rd, 4th or
5th years, including double degrees). The survey was designed to explore
students’ perceptions regarding interpreting training, their expectations before
entering the degree and their assessment of the current academic offering.
The survey was developed using Google Forms and disseminated with the
help of faculty deans and academic coordinators. It consisted of both closed and
open-ended questions, structured around the following key dimensions:
• Demographics (age, gender, university, year of study)
• Reasons for choosing the degree
• Expectations vs. reality of training received
• Interest in interpreting as a career path
• Evaluation of interpreting courses offered
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
11
• Familiarity with computer-assisted interpreting tools (CAI)
• Suggestions for curriculum improvement
To maximise clarity and accessibility, the questionnaire was kept concise
and user-friendly. Questions were formulated to avoid ambiguity or bias and
open-ended items were placed at the end to capture deeper reflections without
deterring participation.
The survey is provided in Annex 1 for illustrative purposes.
2.3. Pilot study and refinement
Before dissemination, a pilot version of the survey was tested with a small group
of students to evaluate the structure, clarity and timing. Feedback was
incorporated into the final version, which aimed to strike a balance between
breadth of information and participant engagement.
2.4. Data processing
As mentioned in Section 2.2., the questionnaire included closed and open-ended
questions and was implemented through Google Forms. For the closed
questions, Google Forms automatically generated descriptive statistics, including
frequency counts, percentages and basic graphical visualisations, which were
used to identify general trends in participants’ responses. We also made used of
the service Google Colab for the elaboration of graphics. The numerical results
were exported to Microsoft Excel for further processing and refinement. Excel
facilitated the organisation of numerical data and its integration with the
institutional analysis of compulsory and optional interpreting courses.
Open-ended responses were manually examined by using qualitative
thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns, representative excerpts and
similarities between institutions. This combined quantitative-qualitative
approach ensured both numerical consistency and interpretive depth in the
treatment of the data.
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
12
3. RESULTS AND STUDENT FEEDBACK
The survey received 97 responses from students enrolled in Translation and
Interpreting programmes at public universities across Spain. The data reveal
important insights into their academic experiences, expectations and perceptions
—particularly regarding interpreting and the integration of support tools.
3.1. Demographic overview
The majority of respondents were aged between 18 and 23, with a small
percentage in the 24-27 range. Most participants identified as female (88.1%), a
figure that aligns with gender distribution trends in language-related degrees.
Figure 2. Demographic distribution of survey respondents: Age and gender
A significant proportion of respondents came from institutions such as
UPO (20%) and UJI (16%), followed by the UAM (6.9%), UGR (6.9%) and
UMA (6.9%). The UM accounts for 6.4%, while the UPV/EHU accounts for
6.2%. Others with a lower student ratio are the USAL (5.2%), UCM (4.9%) and
UPF (4.6%). The remaining 16% is distributed among the UCO, the UB, the
URJC, the UVigo, the UVA, the UV, the UA, the ULPGC and the UdL. In
terms of academic progression, 47.6% were in their third year, 42.9% in the
fourth year and 9.5% in the fifth year of double degrees.
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
13
3.2. Motivations and Expectations
Most students indicated that Translation and Interpreting was their first-choice
degree, chosen during secondary education. Their primary motivations included
a passion for languages, the desire to work in international environments and
specific interest in translation and interpreting. However, a substantial portion
of students expressed dissatisfaction with how the programme met their
expectations—particularly regarding the lack of practical training in interpreting,
as we can observe in some of the students’ feedback:
“I had always wanted to be an interpreter. Sadly, there are only two
mandatory interpreting subjects across the four years of study. I know that
you can also choose optional subjects but it is unfair regarding the possibility
of trying new translation areas. Interpreting should be more important in
the T&I degree. If not, don’t call it Translation and INTERPRETING.
Also, the first contact with interpreting is in the second semester of the third
year, very late. You cannot know if that’s what you want to do and it’s late
if you want to prepare any exam for an interpreting master’s degree.”
3.3. Perceived gaps in training
Over 50% of respondents felt their initial expectations had not been fulfilled,
citing insufficient exposure to real-world interpreting scenarios and a lack of
progression in oral skills development. While some acknowledged the usefulness
of grammar and language theory modules, many (81.6%) advocated for the
earlier integration of interpreting practice throughout the degree.
Others were critical of the absence of digital and technical training. Students
reported unfamiliarity with computer-assisted interpreting (CAI) tools and
expressed concern that the programme did not reflect technological
advancements in the profession:
“I didn’t realise I wouldn’t be taking any interpreting subjects until the
second semester of the third year. That’s too late.”
“There’s an over-theorisation of content. Subjects could be combined into
a more practical seminar.”
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
14
Figure 3. Perceived gaps in interpreting training
3.4. Career aspirations and skill development
19.3% of respondents indicated that they had always aimed to pursue becoming
professional interpreters while 30.4% said that they had developed this interest
during their degree course. However, although interest in interpreting increases
throughout the degree programme, this does not always translate into a clear
intention to continue training in this area. Only 18.7% of respondents said they
had decided to pursue a master's degree in interpreting, which represents a
considerable drop compared to the percentage of those who expressed an
interest in specialising in this discipline. This difference could be related to
factors such as limited training opportunities, the requirements for admission to
these programmes or the employment prospects perceived by students.
Other career interests included teaching, proofreading, international
relations and translation in specialised fields. Notably, 80.3% agreed that
interpreters are made—not born—and highlighted key attributes such as stress
management, oral fluency, multitasking and the ability to summarise and
improvise under pressure:
“To be a good interpreter, you need strong social skills, mental agility and a
wide lexical range.”
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
15
3.5. Suggestions for improvement
Students proposed several improvements to the curriculum, including:
• The early integration of interpreting courses.
• Greater use of technology and CAI tools.
• Increased practical sessions over theoretical modules.
• A more intercultural and content-based approach to language learning.
Many regretted that interpreting courses were optional or delayed until the
third or fourth year, hindering their confidence and preparation for real-life
interpreting settings. Others wished they had been informed earlier about the
programme's limited focus on interpreting.
“The degree has useful modules but I would have liked to start interpreting
from day one.”
“If the degree is called Translation and Interpreting, there should be more
interpreting modules-not just a focus on languages.”
Figure 4. Student proposals for curriculum improvement
Despite the criticisms, only 5.9% of respondents said they regretted
choosing the degree. Most remained committed to their professional goals and
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
16
demonstrated a clear understanding of the skills and reforms needed to
modernise T&I education in Spain.
4. DISCUSSION
The results of the first part of this study reveal an imbalance in the curriculum
structure of T&I degrees in Spain, especially with regard to the presence of
compulsory interpreting subjects. These only represent a weighted average of
8.19% of the total curriculum, as concluded from the analysis in Table 1
regarding the credits for compulsory courses in language B and C interpreting in
each Spanish faculty. The data reveal notable disparities among institutions. At
the lower end of the spectrum, two faculties (UPV/EHU, UJI) allocate only
2.5% of their total curriculum to compulsory interpreting credits in language B
and C; in seven faculties (UGR, UMA, UPO, UVA, UB, UPF, UV) it is just 5%;
in four faculties, 7.5% (UCO, USAL, UAM, UA), and in two faculties, 10%
(URJC, UM). Only three universities in Spain allocate more than 10% of their
curricula to compulsory interpreting subjects: UVigo (12.5%); ULPGC (15%)
and UCM (30%). The UdL does not appear to include compulsory interpreting
credits in language B and C in its curriculum.
The proportion of compulsory translation subjects (Languages B and C)
across the Spanish universities is considerably higher when compared to
compulsory interpreting subjects: UdL (15% vs. 0%); UMA (20% vs. 5%); UPO
(22.5% vs. 5%); UV (22.5% vs. 2.5%); USAL (25% vs. 7.5%), UVigo (25% vs.
12.5%); ULPGC (25% vs. 15%); URJC (27.5% vs. 10%); UAM (30% vs. 7.5%);
UCO (30% vs. 7.5%); UJI (30% vs. 2.5%); UGR (30% vs. 5%); UA (32.5% vs.
7.5%); UPF (32.5% vs. 5%) and UB (35% vs. 5%). Finally, the highest
proportions of compulsory translation subjects are found at UCM (42.5% vs.
30%), UVA (45% vs. 5%) and UP/EHU (45% vs. 2.5%). In this sense,
compulsory translation subjects account for a weighted average of 30.92% of
the total credits across Spanish T&I programmes, indicating their systematic
consolidation in the curricula. In contrast, compulsory interpreting subjects
represent only an average of 8.19%. This scarcity of compulsory interpreting
subjects may cast doubt on the ability of current Spanish T&I degrees to
properly prepare students for a discipline of high cognitive and professional
complexity such as interpreting.
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
17
In most of the Spanish public universities analysed, compulsory interpreting
subjects are introduced only in the final years of the T&I degree, typically during
the third or fourth year. In this sense, the analysis of the nineteen degree
programmes revealed that translation subjects always precede interpreting
subjects. In some cases (e.g., the UVA), interpreting is not even introduced until
the fourth year, frequently as part of a specialisation track or an optional
pathway.
By contrast, as can be concluded from the analysis, a small number of
institutions (for instance, the UCM) have adopted a more progressive approach
by including an introductory interpreting subject in the second year of study.
This early exposure enables students to develop oral and cognitive strategies in
parallel with their translation training.
The late inclusion of interpreting courses may limit the gradual
development of interpreting-related-skills, such as active listening, spontaneous
reformulation and oral fluency —since students have little time to consolidate
them before completing their degree. In fact, the survey showed that this
situation becomes more complex when considering external variables such as
participation in international mobility programmes (e.g. Erasmus), which
frequently take place during the third and/or fourth year. Since many host
institutions do not offer interpreting modules or recognise them within the
curricular frameworks, students can miss the opportunity to take these core
subjects altogether.
Considering that the curricular analysis confirmed a clear asymmetry
between compulsory translation (30.92%) and interpreting training (8.19%), this
imbalance appears to influence students’ academic choices and perceptions.
Survey responses reveal that many students (86.6%) perceive interpreting as a
demanding field for which they feel insufficiently prepared. This perception is
stronger among older respondents, who tend to prioritise career-oriented
decisions and, therefore, opt for translation pathways that they consider more
attainable within their linguistic competence. Furthermore, Table 1 reveals a
clear imbalance in the provision of interpreting training across the nineteen
public Spanish universities analysed. On average, the curricula include 2.61
compulsory and elective subjects in interpreting (covering both Language B and
Language C), which represents 6.51% of the total 240 ECTS credits that make
up T&I degree programmes. This limited presence of interpreting subjects
further reinforces students’ perception of insufficient preparation for
professional interpreting practice. This paucity of thorough interpreting training
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
18
across Spanish T&I degrees may partially help explain why students’ initial
interest in interpreting (especially as a potential professional career path) often
declines as they advanced through the degree.
Not all students begin the degree with the intention of becoming
interpreters and some (30.4%) discover this vocation during the course,
especially when the subjects incorporate oral practice and applied content. In
this sense, bringing forward the introduction of interpreting to the second year
could promote a more solid acquisition of oral skills, regardless of mobility
preferences or international stays. Other ways to sustain this interest include
providing learning environments that reflect the current professional reality of
interpreting, where technology plays a central role (Ruiz Mezcua, 2012, 2019a,
2019b). In this regard, although the pedagogical relevance of digital tools in
interpreter training seems to be essential, their adoption in current teaching
practice remains partial. Along the survey, most students emphasised the need
to include support technologies (63.7%) and they also stated (54.4%) that the
current integration of computer-assisted interpreting (CAI) tools remains
uneven. Both, CAI and CAT (computer-assisted translation) tools have been
shown to improve terminology management, concentration and multitasking,
which are essential skills in both face-to-face and remote interpreting (cf.
Fantinuoli, 2018).
The qualitative responses of the participants provide additional information
for this discussion section. Some students expressed dissatisfaction with the
predominance of theoretical subjects and the lack of practical content geared
towards professional application, which coincides with the perception that the
practical workload is still insufficient:
“What else would you have liked to know before applying for the degree
programme?”
“That the load of theoretical subjects was bigger than expected.”
“What would you disagree with in the academic planning of the degree
programme?”
“It’s painful to spend so many years following this degree and to see that
only a handful of subjects are actually useful. There's a lot of fluff and
wasted hours […]; we have done dozens of tests of which we can barely
remember anything! There’s barely no practical skill component present.”
Regarding the demographic parameters of the survey, the gender
distribution of the survey participants (88.1% women vs. 11.9% men) faithfully
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
19
reflects the real imbalance in T&I programmes across Spanish public
universities. According to the most recent Statistical Report on University
Students 2024-2025 (Advance), published by the Spanish Ministry of Science,
Innovation and Universities (2025), Translation and Interpreting remains one of
the most highly feminised degrees in the Humanities, with the proportion of
female students ranging from approximately 69% to over 80%, depending on
the academic year and on the university. These figures are consistent with the
official datasets for the field of Translation and Interpreting, available through
the national higher education statistics portal. Therefore, the demographic
composition of our sample can be considered representative of the national
trend observed in T&I degrees in Spain. When contrasting the responses from
both genders in the survey, no significant differences were observed.
With regard to the variable of age, the analysis reveals interesting nuances
in students’ perceptions of interpreting training within the T&I curriculum.
Older students (aged 22 and above), often with prior academic or professional
experience, tended to display greater critical awareness of curricular limitations
while younger students (18-21) gradually discovered their interest in interpreting
as their studies progressed.
Finally, the emotional and motivational dimension of learning should be
highlighted. Students show interest in expanding their linguistic and
technological skills (36.9%) and recognise the usefulness of interpreting as a
professional tool in a globalised and multicultural world (47.8%). This positive
attitude reinforces the importance of promoting active methodologies and
teaching materials that integrate oral communication and culture as the
cornerstones of meaningful learning.
CONCLUSIONS
This study highlights the need to discuss the distribution and workload of
interpreting subjects within Translation and Interpreting degrees in Spain. The
research shows that, while current training offers a solid theoretical foundation,
the proportion devoted to interpreting practice remains limited. This situation
could hinder the development of the specific skills necessary for professional
practice, in modalities such as consecutive, bilateral or simultaneous interpreting.
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
20
The results from the survey hence show a clear demand for more practice,
technical training and a better balance between translation and interpreting in
the curriculum, which could be summarised in the following suggestions:
• Incorporate interpreting subjects from the early years of study,
encouraging a gradual progression of oral skills.
• Increase the number of compulsory credits in interpreting to
ensure more consistent training.
• Integrate CAI technologies and digital resources into training,
given their usefulness in concentration, terminology management and
multitasking.
• Encourage collaboration between teachers, students and
academic coordinators to align curricula with the real needs of students
and the market.
Regarding the limitations of this study, the curricular analysis of Spanish
T&I university degrees and the findings of the survey are only part of the picture,
so any proposal for reforming T&I curricula in Spain must undoubtedly consider
a broader range of contextual variables. While students’ feedback provides
valuable insight into perceived shortcomings —particularly the limited presence
and late introduction of interpreting subjects— curriculum planning can be
inevitably constrained by institutional and administrative factors, such as
resource allocation or accreditation frameworks derived from the Bologna
Process. Furthermore, the diversity of curricular structures across universities
underscores the need for caution when interpreting these results, as local
priorities and capacities differ significantly.
Another key element concerns access to the degree itself. Currently,
admission is based on general university entrance examinations that primarily
evaluate written skills without leaving margin to test the oral competence. This
limitation has direct pedagogical implications: beginning interpreting training
without a sufficient foundation in oral comprehension may hinder learning
outcomes. Therefore, curricular reform should aim to introduce interpreting
progressively, ensuring an equilibrium between early exposure and students’
initial linguistic proficiency. To achieve sustainable improvement, the
perspectives of academic institutions, programme coordinators and teaching
staff should be integrated into the discussion so that any recommendations are
both empirically grounded and realistically implementable.
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
21
In summary, this research provides a curricular analysis of Spanish T&I
programmes regarding the proportion of interpreting modules and a
representative view of students’ perceptions of interpreting teaching in order to
contribute to a constructive debate on the modernisation of T&I training in
Spain. The evidence obtained can serve as a basis for future curriculum
improvement initiatives aimed at promoting more balanced, practical learning
that is adapted to the demands of a constantly evolving professional and
technological environment.
REFERENCES
Calvo Encinas, E. (2009). Análisis curricular de los estudios de traducción e interpretación en
España: perspectiva del estudiantado [Doctoral thesis, University of Granada]. Digibug.
http://hdl.handle.net/10481/3488
European Ministers of Education. (2001). Prague Communiqué: Towards the European Higher
Education Area. European Higher Education Area.
https://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2001_Prague_Com
munique_English_553442.pdf
European Ministers of Education. (2003). Berlin Communiqué: Realising the European Higher
Education Area. European Higher Education Area.
https://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2003_Berlin_
Communique_English_577284.pdf
European Ministers of Education. (2005). Bergen Communiqué: The European Higher
Education Area – Achieving the Goals. European Higher Education Area.
https://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2005_Bergen
_Communique_English_580520.pdf
European Ministers of Education. (2007). London Communiqué: Towards the European
Higher Education Area – Responding to Challenges in a Globalised World. European Higher
Education Area.
https://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2007_Londo
n_Communique_English_588697.pdf
European Higher Education Area. (2018). Paris Communiqué: The European Higher
Education Area in a New Global Context. European Higher Education Area.
https://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/EHEAParis2
018_Communique_final_952771.pdf
Marina Rueda-Martin, Carlos Manuel Hidalgo-Ternero
22
Fantinuoli, C. (2018). Interpreting and technology: The upcoming technological turn.
In C. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and technology (Translation and Multilingual Natural
Language Processing 11) (pp. 1-12). Language Science Press.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1493281
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Google. (2023). Google Colaboratory [Computer software]. Used for statistical processing
and data visualisation. Retrieved on 8th May 2025 from
https://colab.research.google.com
Google. (2024). Google Forms [Computer software]. Retrieved on 17th January 2025 from
https://forms.google.com
Hurtado Albir, A. (2007). Competence-based curriculum design for training translators.
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(2), 163-195.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798757
Kreutzer, M. & Neunzig, W. (1997). ¿Traductores especializados o especialistas en traducción?
Reflexiones en torno a la futura formación de traductores e intérpretes en el ámbito europeo. In
Actes del II Congrés Internacional sobre Traducció. Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona (pp. 105-113).
https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/caplli/1997/240631/coninttra_a1994p105.pdf
Microsoft. (2024). Microsoft Excel [Computer software]. Retrieved on 8th May 2025 from
https://www.microsoft.com
Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades. (October 22, 2025). Estadística de
estudiantes universitarios. Curso 2024-2025 (avance).
https://www.ciencia.gob.es/Ministerio/Estadisticas/SIIU/Estudiantes.html
OECD. (2024). Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy: Promoting a Thriving Learning
Environment. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eccbbac2-en
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. Routledge.
Ruiz Mezcua, A. (2012). Principales herramientas técnicas para formar intérpretes de
simultánea en el panorama universitario español. In J. L. Martí Ferriol & A. Muñoz
Miquel (Eds.), Estudios de traducción e interpretación: Entornos de especialidad. V Congreso
Internacional de la AIETI: Universitat Jaume I, 2, 319-327.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/EstudisTraduccio.2012.18.2
Ruiz Mezcua, A. (2019a). Competencia digital y TIC en interpretación: «renovarse o
morir». EDMETIC, Revista de Educación Mediática y TIC, 8(1), 55-71.
https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v8i1.11062
Lost in interpreting? Analysing the marginalisation of interpreting in Spanish university degrees
23
Ruiz Mezcua, A. (2019b). El triple reto de la interpretación a distancia: tecnológico,
profesional y didáctico. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación, 11, 243-262.
https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2019.11.9
Sawyer, D. (2004). Fundamental aspects of interpreter education: Curriculum and assessment. John
Benjamins.
Valdivia Campos, C. (1995). La interpretación. Anales de Filología Francesa, 7, 175-181.
https://revistas.um.es/analesff/article/view/17761
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was carried out within the framework of several research projects (ref.
PID2020-112818GB-I00, ProyExcel_00540, HUM106-G-FEDER and JA.A1.3-06) at
University of Malaga (Spain) and at Research Institute of Multilingual Language
Technologies (IUITLM).
It is the result of a collaborative academic effort focused on the current challenges
and future directions of interpreting education in Spanish university programmes. We
would like to thank all the students from the various public faculties of Translation and
Interpreting in Spain who generously participated in the survey and shared their honest
and thoughtful feedback.
We are also grateful to the administrative staff and faculty members who facilitated
the distribution of the questionnaire and supported this research at different stages, with
special mention to Pablo de Olavide University.
Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to Transletters: International Journal
of Translation and Interpreting for providing a platform that fosters dialogue and reflection
on issues of relevance to the academic and professional communities in our field.
