I want to do an empirical study on risk management by translation trainees for my MA thesis. Translation is an act full of decision-makings for rendering risky parts of the text. I want to interpret each decision the subjects make in their own context, and I believe the only tool I have to assess whether the decisions made are risk-averse or risk-taking is to interpret justifications they provide for the decisions they make (both when thinking out loud and in the interview I will have with them after the task). But I need a framework for the basis of such interpretations; I guess something that specifies A, B, and C types of arguments in their justifications show that their decision has been risk-taking, and X, Y, and Z arguments show that their decision has been risk-averse. Something that can be applied to each decision made, not an overall approach to the decision-maker's characteristics. Do you suggest any theoretical framework for such work?
P.S.: Risk in translation? Well, some believe risk is "The probability of a desired or an undesired outcome as a consequence of a (translational) action". Pym also argues that each text consists of high-risk, medium-risk, and low-risk items, e.g. the title in a letter is a high-risk item (very important in communication) but conjunctions are low-risk items. Pym also raises this idea that translators deal with 3 kinds of risks: credibility risk (keeping/losing the reputation as the translator), uncertainty risk (about HOW to translate items), and communicative risk (which is related to the text itself). On the other hand, some scholars believe that each element of a text can have political, economic, etc. type of risk within itself, but they do not raise this idea in a structured way.The latter group believes that for example if you are working for a Pan-X newspaper and translate the item Y in a way which is opposing the ideologies of the newspaper, you are taking a risk, because it can make you get fired. [Which sense you find reasonable, by the way?]