Abstract
This study explores how the application of practice-based research in the production of an editorial letter can enhance our understanding of structural editing. It presents an overview of structural editing practices; a case study demonstrating how practice-based research can be used as a method of investigation in the field of Editing Studies; and an example of a contemporary editorial letter—something scarcely found in the literature. In doing so, it highlights the validity of practice-based research in Editing Studies and encourages other researchers to engage in similar methods of investigation in the future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kroll J, Harper G, editors. Research methods in creative writing. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2012.
Batty C, Kerrigan S, editors. Screen production research: creative practice as a mode of enquiry. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018.
Bolt B. The magic is in handling. In: Barrett E, Bolt B, editors. Practice as research: Approaches to creative arts enquiry. New York: I.B. Tauris; 2010. p. 27–34.
Greenberg SL. A poetics on editing. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018.
Ginna P. What editors do: the art, craft, and business of book editing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2017.
Angus A, “Creative imaginations: The future of creative practice research” (unpublished manuscript, November 30, 2021).
Haseman B. Rupture and recognition: identifying the performative research paradigm. In: Barrett E, Bolt B, editors. Practice as research: approaches to creative arts enquiry. New York: I.B. Tauris; 2010. p. 147–57.
Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2015.
Schön D. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.
Candy L, Edmonds E. Practice-based research in the creative arts: foundations and futures from the frontline. Leonardo. 2018;51(1):63–9.
Kerrigan S. A ‘logical’ explanation of screen production as method-led research. In: Batty C, Kerrigan S, editors. Screen production research: creative practice as a mode of enquiry. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. p. 11–27.
Dunbar L. Using real manuscripts to teach professional editing. Teach Engl Two Year Coll. 2017;44(3):306–14.
Greenberg SL, editor. talk about editing: insights for readers, writers and publishers. New York: Peter Lang; 2015.
Bell S. The artful edit: on the practice of editing yourself. New York: WW Norton & Company; 2008.
Flann E, Hill B, Wang L. The Australian editing handbook. 3rd ed. Queensland: Wiley; 2014.
Miller N. The book’s journey. In: Ginna P, editor. What editors do: the art, craft & business of book editing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2017. p. 59–68.
Witte G. This just needs a little work: on line editing. In: Ginna P, editor. What editors do: the art, craft & business of book editing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2017. p. 96–105.
Williams AD. What is an editor? In: Gross G, editor. Editors on editing: what writers need to know about what editors do. New York: Grove Press; 1993. p. 3–9.
Gross G. Editors on editing: what writers need to know about what editors do. New York: Grove Press; 1993.
Wheelock JH. Editor to author: the letters of Maxwell E. Perkins. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1950.
Marcus LS. Dear genius: the letters of Ursula Nordstrom. New York: HarperCollins; 1998.
Grundy A. Author, editing fiction: three case studies in postwar Australia (Cambridge: Cambridge Elements, forthcoming).
Goldman S. How to be in charge (and make authors do what you tell them): An examination of editorial authority in letters written by trade fiction and nonfiction editors [Master’s thesis]. [Portland, OR]: Portland State University; 2016.
Norton S. Developmental editing: a handbook for freelancers, authors, and publishers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2009.
Mackiewicz J, Riley K. The technical editor as diplomat: linguistic strategies for balancing clarity and politeness. Technical Communication. 2003;50(1):83–94.
Brown P, Levinson SC. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987.
Abshire GM, Culberson D. Editing is editing is editing or, by any other name, the smell is sweet. J Tech Writ Commun. 1985;15(3):279–82.
Eaton A, Brewer PE, Portewig TC, Davidson CR. Examining editing in the workplace from the author’s point of view: results of an online survey. Tech Commun. 2008;55(2):111–39.
Dukes EP. The simple joys of editing. Tech Commun. 1972;19(3):7–8.
Greenberg SL. When the editor disappears, does editing disappear? Convergence. 2010;16(1):7–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856509347695.
Albers M, Marsella J. An analysis of student comments in comprehensive editing. Tech Commun. 2011;58(1):52–67.
Funding
The research for this article was completed with the support of a Curtin University Summer Research Scholarship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sundac, I. Structural Editing and Practice-Based Research. Pub Res Q 38, 423–434 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09873-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09873-6