Four principles for writing across the divide

In my last newsletter, I introduced the concept of transcreation, the art of simultaneously translating, reframing, and ultimately transforming a text for a new audience. In contrast with basic translation or editing, transcreation requires one to identify underlying assumptions, adjust the tone of delivery, and make judgments about what should or should not be said.

The principle is not new, nor is it unique to the written word. I first encountered a version of it as a music historian, working on scholarly editions of early music. Much early music notation appears incomplete to the modern eye: it assumes an understanding of performance practice that any trained musician of the era would have simply known. The job of the modern editor is to restore what had been left off the page: not just phrasing and articulation, but even adjustments to rhythm and pitch.

Transcreation works on the same principle. The original text isn’t wrong. But it was written for a reader who may no longer be in the room.

Understand both cultures

Effective transcreation requires that you understand not only your original text and its context, but also the world your target reader inhabits.

For example, many years ago I was the lead author and sole American working on a UNESCO handbook on gender equality in sport. One of my co-authors did not understand the central role of Title IX until I explained to her that the US has no explicit constitutional guarantee of gender equality. (Title IX, which mandates equal opportunity in federally funded education, is the primary federal tool advocates have.) For my colleague, that was a revelation. Yet for any American gender equality advocate, this was common knowledge. I needed to adjust my language to clarify the context for an international audience.

That moment of recognizing what each side takes for granted? That’s where transcreation begins.

Prioritize connection over comprehensiveness

This recommendation runs counter to some instincts, especially for those working in academe. I find that most researchers want to maximize the amount of information they provide, qualify carefully, and demonstrate rigor.

When you’re writing for specialist peers who share your training and tolerance for complexity, you can reasonably expect them to work through your text. That audience is willing to sit with an argument they disagree with or don’t quite understand.

Yet very few readers are true insiders. When they lose the thread—through unfamiliar terminology, an untested assumption, or a leap in logic—they stop reading.

Connection with the reader isn’t a soft goal or “nice to have.” It is the entire point. You can have the most important ideas in the world. But if the reader has stopped paying attention, those ideas go nowhere.

Collaborate with people who know the target context

Even if you are doing the writing yourself, this work benefits tremendously from outside input. Seek out readers who inhabit the target context, whether it is a different country, academic discipline, or professional background. Ask them to read critically—not just for comprehension, but for connection.

When it comes to writing reports or proposals, that insider perspective is more impactful than any style guide or translation tool.

When the stakes are higher

Transcreation is an inherently human skill. It requires cultural awareness and the ability to shift perspective across contexts. These are skills that take years to develop and depend on exposure, empathy, and curiosity about the people and places you’re trying to understand.

Sometimes the stakes are higher than tone or terminology. In 2022, I worked with the G7 Gender Equality Advisory Council, an expert panel comparing metrics of gender equality across member countries. The data showed clearly that the US maternal mortality rate was significantly higher than that of every other G7 nation. My European colleagues had the numbers but knew less about their context or their political charge in the US. I lobbied for a paragraph that named the gap directly and connected it to existing international recommendations on reproductive health. It made it in.

That experience is a reminder that transcreation isn’t only about finding the right words. Sometimes it’s about knowing which issues need to be elevated—and having the standing to do so.

What we risk losing

As more people turn to AI to write, edit, and translate, I worry that we are allowing our cultural fluency, perspective taking, and contextual judgment to atrophy. And I think that the rise of global remote work—which, overall, is a positive development!—has made it easier to collaborate internationally while remaining insulated from the contexts and circumstances of the people we’re working with and writing for.

We share documents. But do we share understanding?

I don’t think the answer is to reject those tools or limit ourselves to local, in-person work. But I do think that transcreation, done with care and collaboration, is one place where human judgment still matters in ways that are hard to automate. That, to me, seems worth protecting.