Crossing the editor-author divide: from the germ of an idea to publication

What does it mean to publish as a practitioner? What can we learn from crossing the editor-author divide? So much. The story told by panellists Fiona Kelso, Alan Lounds, Kate Sotejeff-Wilson, and Theresa Truax-Gischler of their experience doing, writing, and publishing research together cultivated quite a few interconnected ideas.

Guided by Sally Burgess, unofficial project participant-observer, the four co-authors thoughtfully reflected on their research project (Practices in the translation and editing of humanities and social science texts for publication in English: A qualitative survey of language professionals). They discussed how it came about, how it unfolded step by step, and what it meant to them.

Throughout their discussion, the story of the research project really spoke to the collaborative power and potential of MET. The “germ of the idea” was seeded at METM18, watered by the late Susan M. DiGiacomo, and eventually grew out of a panel discussion in her honour at METM19. It also built on the groundwork of METM15 coordinated with PRISEAL.

While the origins were organic, the road to publication was not entirely smooth. The project began in person in 2019, but the final survey responses were received in March 2020. Therefore, the analysis took place during the pandemic, and the writing was done post-pandemic, being published in 2023.

The different authors took different roles at different stages; for instance, Theresa did the initial coding of survey responses, while Kate stepped in at the end to proofread and respond to peer review suggestions. But they all participated in the analysis. This dynamic and complementary collaboration, helped by the fact that all four co-authors are experienced editors, created an easy environment for give and take.

While there were technical challenges to communicating and collaborating via email and WhatsApp across continents and time zones, all the authors agreed that it was a rewarding and positive experience.

They talked about the boost of confidence they got from having done what they’ve been helping people do as well as the new perspective it provided them on writing. This project gave them a different depth of awareness for the authorial experience, reminding them of the emotional rollercoaster that is writing.

Thankfully, they weren’t on the rollercoaster alone, and the process of writing collaboratively seemed particularly impactful. Alan spoke about previous struggles writing alone, and Fiona expressed how writing collaboratively really helped to organize their ideas.

Additionally, this project provided an opportunity to share the perspectives of practitioners with the academic community. Theresa noted how important it was to use a qualitative approach, to get the voices of practitioners into the research through the inclusion of quotes, since the work of practitioners is still rather occluded in research on academic writing.

Moreover, this collaborative research project resonates deeply with the mission of MET. As noted by an attendee, the MET Charter includes the support of practitioner-led research and publication in its list of aims.

To this end, another attendee reminded us that MET provides research grants to its members. The panellists all echoed that the support of MET, especially in facilitating things like the HSS Hub, made this project and this conversation possible.

This METM24 panel was chronicled by Kelsey Brunasso.

Featured photo courtesy of MET.