Institute of Professional Editors Limited

Introduction

The accreditation system forged by CASE (2003-4) is a landmark in the history of the profession, and a benchmark for future development. Only because things have come this far is it now possible to debate the capacity of the proposed system to evaluate editorial competencies, and to support the professional development of editors. The comparability of editorial accreditation with that of other professions is something we can now examine; and there is scope for discussing the role of editors with outside parties such as typical employers. The issues outlined below are by way of suggestions to develop and enhance the accreditation system, so that its design will further the interests of the profession into the future.

The accredited editor

The criteria detailed in the Accreditation Final Report do seem to privilege the senior editor, because of the emphasis on skills acquired through experience, and devaluing of skills learned in formal training. This point is made both by those who voted for and against the proposal. The accredited editor would be a veteran of multiple publishing projects with plenty to show for it, and experience of various editorial roles. There is no place for the aspiring novice with base-line skills, but little to demonstrate her/his competence.

Many professional societies and institutions (e.g. in architecture and engineering) allow for more than one kind of member, embracing two (or three) levels: associate (or graduate) members, and full (or registered) members who can show sustained experience. A further (third) level of fellow is established in some professions. In the proposed Institute of Professional Editors (IPE), all three levels could have their place, and provide for the development of the profession as well as individual professional growth. The proposed accreditation scheme seems to concentrate on defining the second tier (= full members) as composites of editorial experience, but with little consideration of how younger editors might gain it, or what experienced editors might still aspire to by way of special recognition.

Some provision for entry level membership seems vital to entice younger talents into the profession, based on their commitment to formal training. Recognition of formal training, at least for associate members, would redress the extraordinary disregard for it shown in the proposed system. Every other educated profession you could name starts with formal training. The fact that senior editors do not have it is no reason for denying its value for younger editors. It could be a benchmark for entry to associate membership, without precluding more experienced editors' passage to full membership by portfolio etc. The profile for associate members might then be something like formal training plus some experience of MS editing in a particular field of publishing; whereas full members might be expected to show experience of project management in multiple fields. The status of fellow is naturally reserved for the kinds of editors envisaged by CASE as the first group of assessors in each state society.

Formal training

Training in editing is presently provided by a considerable range of institutions, in courses of variable size and contents. As an early priority, the IPE would do well to undertake a comprehensive survey the range of editing/publishing courses offered by Australian institutions, so as to decide which ones might be a component of associate member accreditation. There are obvious parameters, in terms of :

• (a) length of course (from 6 weeks to 2 years or more)
• (b) level of course (TAFE, university)
• (c) contents: units all dedicated to editing/publishing, or diluted with units in professional writing, journalism etc.

The IPE itself could challenge institutions offering editing/publishing courses to show their quality and substance, and their capacity to meet training criteria such as (a), (b) and (c) above. Graduation from such training courses would provide the IPE with benchmarks guaranteed by other institutions, and relieve it of much of the burden of assessing the credentials of applicants for associate membership.

Editorial standards

The CASE standards cover a remarkable range of editorial knowledge and skills. The emphasis nevertheless seems to be on print-based skills associated with publishing-house projects; and the importance of web-editing skills used in other kinds of institutions (government and industry) is underplayed. Web document design underplayed, as are the graphic elements of editorial work, as if printed text is still the unspoken staple of all editorial work. In revising the standards, it would be useful to separate "Language" from "Illustration", thus giving more attention to language and style, as well as creating a separate focus on all aspects of graphic design and web document design.

Amid all the standards' emphasis on particular knowledge and skills, the capacity to integrate them is left unspoken, and that all-important editorial judgement and discretion that goes over and beyond any particular decision. Perhaps this could form an introduction to a revised version of the standards - a section on the editorial role. It could also address the issue of working with authors, diplomatic skills etc., which are absent from the existing document.

Consultation

As part of further work on the standards and accreditation, consultation with employers seems to me all important. Many editors now work within corporations or government departments, or on contracts to them, and the editorial demands on them are not really explored in the standards - or the expectations that their employers hold of them. It would be timely for IPE to develop a questionnaire to distribute among such employers, to discover their view of editors and the value of their work, so that this information too could be built into the revised standards.

Professor Pam Peters Department of Linguistics Macquarie University Director, Postgraduate Program in Editing and Publishing