Institute of Professional Editors Limited

Why CASE is investigating accreditation

At its meeting in October 2001 the Council of Australian Societies of Editors (CASE) set up a working group on accreditation, comprising representatives from all the states and territories, and asked it - among other things - to set out why accreditation of editors is being investigated and the principles which should underlie any accreditation system. CASE wants to ensure that members of the societies throughout Australia are aware of the background to the accreditation issue and fully informed of its implications.

The group began its work early in 2002 with an appraisal of its complete mandate from CASE,¹ an overview of the available literature on accreditation, and a review of the recent history of this subject among the editing profession in the states and territories. It then drew up this issues paper, which, it hopes, will throw light on all aspects of the accreditation discussion for the benefit of editors of all kinds currently working in Australia, as well as individuals interested in entering the profession.

Open and informed discussion of all the factors set out below will help the membership arrive at a final decision that will be in the best interests of the editing profession in this country.

1. Potential benefits

1.1 Capitalising on the Standards

An accreditation system is a logical follow-up to establishment of the Australian Standards for Editing Practice recently hammered out by CASE and adopted by the members. For the first time the profession now has an agreed level of performance at which to aim, and an accreditation system would establish a recognised process to support that standard.

1.2 Quality assurance

An accreditation system will provide some assurance of a satisfactory level of performance. If the profession is open only to individuals who demonstrate a sufficient level of competence, it will be less exposed to the risk of shoddy work by practitioners, and much better equipped to ensure respect for accepted standards - the Standards. Employers will have some assurance that the people they hire can actually do the job.

1.3 Recognition and protection

Accreditation will raise the prestige of the profession in the publishing industry and more generally. If the perceived value of the editing process is enhanced, publishers

¹ The other components of that mandate are: to research how other organisations and professions handle accreditation; and to develop a series of possible models (probably two plus the option of no accreditation) to be put to members.

and writers are more likely to decide that the use of an editor is beneficial (if not indispensable) to a particular project - an important point at a time when cost-cutting in publishing is devaluing the editing process and serious editorial shortcomings are apparent in much published work.

It is common knowledge that virtually anyone can set up as a freelance editor and start looking for work. Many of these individuals have no way of ‘proving' their competence except word-of-mouth on the basis of jobs satisfactorily performed (assuming, that is, that they have been able to find any). Many people in publishing will be aware of incidents in recent years where individuals representing themselves as editors have been accused of incompetence against which - because of the unstructured, unregulated nature of the profession - no recourse was available to the client except not to use that person again. Accreditation can protect the profession against practitioners who might bring it into disrepute.

1.4 Remuneration

Accredited editors could expect improved rates of remuneration - rates genuinely commensurate with the skills deployed. Many individuals currently doing satisfactory work as editors are in fact unable to charge rates even close to that level.

2. Required principles

The CASE working group on accreditation believes that a bad accreditation system would be worse than no system. Should the membership decide to move towards accreditation, any system eventually adopted must satisfy the following criteria. They are discussed further under Issues.

2.1 Fair: The system must not only be objectively fair, but also be perceived to be fair by all parties, including both established editors and those seeking admission to the profession (see 3.4).

2.2 Transparent: The workings of the system must be clear and apparent to all; a systematic effort must be made to explain how it will operate (see 3.4).

2.3 Appropriate: It must recognise that editing is both an art and a craft, and allow for a variety of solutions to editorial problems (see 3.6).

2.4 Inclusive: It must cater for the needs of editors of all categories and in all genres (see 3.2, 3.5, 3.6).

2.5 Consistent: It must seek to uphold the Australian Standards for Editing Practice as representing the required level of competence for the profession of editor, and must produce similar results in similar cases (see 3.4).

2.6 Flexible: It must embody an appeals procedure for candidates who perceive that they have been unfairly treated, as well as a mechanism for periodic review to take account of factors such as technological change (see 3.8, 3.9).

2.7 Acceptable: It must seek, through a genuine consultative process, the broadest possible level of support among editors, the publishing industry as a whole, and all others who make use of editorial services (see 3.10).

2.8 Practical: It must be shown to be workable under all situations likely to be encountered in practice (see 3.3, 3.7).

2.9 Sustainable: The financial cost and professional commitment involved in setting up and operating the system must be able to be maintained in the long term. (see 3.7).

2.10 Accountable: It must embody procedures to handle complaints against accredited individuals (see 3.9).

2.11 Finally, the system must take account of the education and training available in editing nationally and in the states and territories (see 3.12).

3. Issues

The following points lay bare some assumptions made by the working group and identify challenges that a successful accreditation system must meet.

3.1 Terminology

The working group believes that, at least in this early stage of its work, the term accreditation should not be interpreted narrowly, but be understood to include any arrangement that might provide some formal recognition or other status to competent editors based on their experience, their academic or similar qualifications, their demonstrated skills, or a combination of those elements. Some other term such as registration or certification might eventually be chosen.

3.2 Who/what is being accredited?

The working group believes that the accreditation system should apply to individuals, rather than to courses or institutions.

3.3 Scope

Editors' job descriptions vary. Some have a comprehensive role, covering all the skills described in the Standards, but an individual who never ventures into project management may still be a competent editor. Similarly, editors who work exclusively on electronic publications do not need the skills required for print. Accreditation of specialist editors (fiction, science) may also have particular requirements. A tiered system, with different grades or categories, might be one way of dealing with this.

3.4 Who guards the guardians?

The perceived legitimacy of any accreditation body is crucial, both within the profession and in the eyes of the outside world. A system of accreditation based on a combination of tests, experience and completion of educational courses will carry with it the need to assess the relative weight and worth of all elements.

In particular, any assessment conducted by the accreditation body will need to stand up to the scrutiny of the general membership of societies around Australia. Members will need to be confident that the system assesses what it purports to assess, and of the skills of the individuals involved in the process, especially over time.

3.5 New entrants and established editors

At present individuals come to editing in a variety of ways, some of them more or less random: they serve an informal ‘apprenticeship' in a publishing house, and/or they complete a university or TAFE course, or they simply come to editing from areas such as teaching or journalism. An accreditation system must allow for the entry of people of diverse backgrounds and recognise prior learning in other fields. Again, a tiered system could accommodate differences.

Editors with established professional reputations have a right to expect that they will be accredited with a minimum of fuss. The system will assess competence, not excellence.

3.6 The difficulties of measuring higher-level skills

Because many aspects of editing are subjective, there is great scope for disagreement about what is acceptable and what is not. While it is relatively simple to assess the rate of correction of typographical errors and the correct use of editors' marks, structural or substantive editing has much greater scope for creative solutions to complex problems in a lengthy text. A fair accreditation system would need to ensure an appropriate weighting and evaluation of skills across a wide range of genres, perhaps incorporating associated skills such as client liaison, knowledge of the production process and ability to meet deadlines.

3.7 Set-up and operating costs

A minimal accreditation system would amount to little more than ticking boxes to identify aspects of editing that a candidate had undertaken, or courses completed. A more rigorous system would require much broader functions, possibly necessitating a permanent secretariat. The responsible body would need to devise a set of accreditation procedures, meet regularly, convene assessment panels and the like, liaise with other professional bodies, investigate the changing landscape of courses within Australia, and deal with the question of international equivalence.

Even assuming a user-pays component, the cost of such a system would be considerable. A satisfactory method of funding will be needed. As well as the cost in money terms, the members involved might have to commit time and effort that could be better spent in other areas of the profession.

3.8 Responding to change

The publishing industry has undergone enormous and rapid change in recent years. The set of skills that equipped a competent editor 20 years ago is unlikely to meet the needs of the profession today. Boundaries between editors, designers and typesetters are shifting, and this process is likely to accelerate. Should an accreditation system confine itself to core skills or embrace emerging needs, especially those heralded by technological changes? Similarly, the assessors must be alert to changes in acceptable grammar and usage.

3.9 Complaints and appeals

An accreditation system will need to provide mechanisms to adjudicate complaints about editing services and to enable aggrieved parties to seek remedies against poor performance. Legal action could result from clients who engaged the services of an accredited editor and were not happy with the quality of work provided, or from a complaint by a candidate unsuccessful in gaining accreditation. Decisions will be needed on how high the bar should be set, and how the accreditation body will deal with such disputes.

3.10 Industry acceptance

Some editors do not see any need to develop an accreditation system, as indicated in a recent report summarising members' attitudes in three recent surveys.² If a national accreditation system is to become a useful part of the services offered by Australian societies of editors, it will need to gain broad acceptance among editors. The system will also need to be widely promoted among those who use editorial services, a major task in itself.

3.11 Membership of societies

The working group assumes that accredited status will not be linked to membership of the state/territory editors' societies. The societies will continue to determine eligibility for membership according to their constitutions.

3.12 Education and training

Without a parallel education and training framework, an accreditation system is seriously handicapped. Applicants who fail to meet the standards put forward by any accreditation body have a right to ask what they should do to meet those standards.

The acceptance and fairness of an accreditation system faces three obstacles in the area of education: the absence of a nationally available set of courses at entry, professional and advanced levels; the drift away from in-house training; and the proliferation of tertiary courses in media and professional writing that cover editing in a superficial fashion. An accreditation system will need to link accreditation appropriately to education and continuing professional development for editors.

Prepared by the CASE Working Group on Accreditation: Vic: Janet Mackenzie (convenor); jmack@mansfield.net.au; 03 5775 2988 Canberra: Maureen Wright; Maureen.Wright@aph.gov.au NSW: Pamela Hewitt; emend@cyberone.com.au NT: Gail Warman; gail.warman@octa4.net.au Qld: Robert Byrnes; robertobyrnes@excite.com; 07 3369 0707 SA: Gina Inverarity; gina@doeskin.com Tas: Sheila Allison; sheila.allison@utas.edu.au; 03 6226 2591 (BH) WA: Betty Durston; bdurston@cygnus.uwa.edu.au

² Ann Milligan, National Notes, The Canberra Editor, Volume 11, No. 2, February 2002.