Brascoe Publishing

The public profile of editing in Australia is not consistent between its national and local societies and organisations. This blog asks the question of whether a profession whose bodies contribute to a split public profile, could ever be considered an industry?

Editors seek greater recognition
As a person who has worked as an editor for a long time, in various capacities; and as one who has been involved at a semi-political level with her local Society of Editors, I know that there is a push for editing to gain greater recognition. This ideal of pushing for greater recognition is, at the local level, described on Google listings as an ‘organisation of editors in the publishing industry’; and states on its homepage a mission to promote editors and editing.

The Institute of Professional Editors (IPEd), however:

exists to advance the profession of editing, by planning and implementing national initiatives…

For those of you outside of the field, IPEd is the national body – formerly the Council of Australian Societies of Editors (CASE). The way it is run now is a bit odd. Whereas before CASE was comprised of people representing their various societies; IPEd is a company in its own right, and all members must act with IPEd‘s interests at heart, and not the societies from which its members originate.

Editing is certainly a profession – now
But the question I would like to ask is ‘is editing an industry?’. Certainly, now that editing has an accreditation exam it is certainly a profession – a paid occupation that involves prolonged training or a formal qualification. With the demise of on-the-job training that occurred a good number of years ago, and the absence of the accreditation exam or any formal qualifications necessary, one could easily argue that for a period of at least ten years (maybe more like fifteen years), editing wasn’t even a profession.

Editors work in other industries – not of and for their own
The Society of Editors (South Australia) also has clear boundaries about where its editors work. If on a Google search it is promoted as an ‘organisation of editors in the publishing industry’, then the society clearly has defined boundaries about what it considers an editor to be, and where it considers an editor to work. My arguments about these sorts of things can be found elsewhere.

In its commonly understood usage, the word ‘industry’ is perhaps best defined by the free online dictionary:

Noun. 1. Industry – the people or companies engaged in a particular kind of commercial enterprise; “each industry has its own trade publications”

According to this definition, therefore, editors are part of the people engaged in a particular kind of commercial enterprise. If editors work in the production of books, their commercial enterprise is publishing – and they therefore belong to that industry. If editors work for BHP Billiton helping to produce technical manuals, they therefore belong to the mining industry.

Editors are the mysterious ‘wordy’ people
Editors, it seems, can almost fit in anywhere. They might collectively belong to a profession of ‘editing’, but they do not have an homogenous or collective public profile. If my local society of editors and IPEd appear to have different reasons to exist (one which is an organisation of editors in the publishing industry, and the other to advance the profession of editing as a whole), then clearly even those within the profession itself are unsure as to why its organisations exist, and what they hope to achieve. On this score, I wouldn’t be surprised if IPEd, as a large and very well organised, well structured, and well defined organisation, gradually made smaller societies redundant.

The profession undervalues its own
Clearly, IPEd doesn’t see the various societies of editors as being essential to its existence, as it allows any organisation to become a member, provided that member supports IPEd. There is no mention of editing whatsoever:

Criteria for new members of IPEd

An organisation that applies to become a Member of IPEd must fulfil the following criteria:

• It must be able to demonstrate that its purposes, constitution and activities are fully consistent with and support those of the Institute.
• Its membership, reckoned in terms of financial members, at the time of application is to be no less than that of the smallest founding Member (c. 70).
• It must have been legally incorporated in an Australian state or territory as a not-for-profit entity for no less than four (4) years before the date of the application, and show reasonable expectation of continuing its existence in terms of steadily increasing paid-up membership over that period.
• It must be able to demonstrate its financial viability, keep financial records of its members’ subscriptions, and have its accounts audited annually.

If the primary body to represent editors doesn’t even mention ‘editing’ in its criteria for new members, that is a good reminder that the profession of editing is undervalued even by its own peak bodies.

So to answer my own question, It is my belief that editing is not an industry – could never be an industry, even if the divisions are somehow repaired or homogenised.

Advancement is hard on shaky foundations
Whether or not the apparent divisions and disagreements I’ve illustrated here are actual, the point is that this is an objective look at a profession’s presentation to the world. If in its public profile, editing in Australia has a shaky or unstable appearance, then advancing a profession to the point where editors gain greater respect is going to be incredibly difficult. Nobody knows what editors do – except for those that have used one. If you have used one, we’d be interested in what you look for in an editor.

An army marches on its feet, so they say – meaning, of course, that good foot health is integral to the health of an army. So, too, does a profession advance on the strong foundations of its supporting frameworks.