+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Date post: 01-Dec-2015
Category:
Upload: sem2u2
View: 80 times
Download: 6 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors
Popular Tags:
28
Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors Jocelyne Bisaillon Université Laval, Canada Identifying the approach used by those revision experts par excellence—that is, professional editors—should enable researchers to better grasp the revi- sion process. To further explore this hypothesis, the author conducted research among professional editors, six of whom she filmed as they engaged in their practice. An analysis of their work approach strategies showed their detection strategies to consist in anticipating errors and in comparing the author’s text with the editor’s knowledge, which appears in a range of states: certitude, uncertainty, and ignorance. Furthermore, the participating editors used problem-solving strategies to automatically solve more than half of the problems encountered in the text. Otherwise, they used immediate or post- poned strategies. This description of professional editors in action opens a number of avenues for the further research and development of in-class instruction of self-revision and professional editing. Keywords: revision process; detection strategies; problem-solving strategies in writing; authentic writing task; linear process R esearchers in Europe or North America whose area of study is editing and revision have rarely focused their attention on the professional forms of this activity. Thus, although there is a certain body of research con- cerning the editing/revision process by those who self-edit (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Butterfield, Hacker, & Albertson, 1996; Hayes, 2004; Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey, 1987), considerably less is known about the process used by professional editors; that is, those who have been trained to revise, edit, and proofread and who spend their work- ing days improving other people’s texts, whether on a one-to-one basis or on Written Communication Volume 24 Number 4 October 2007 295-322 © 2007 Sage Publications 10.1177/0741088307305977 http://wcx.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com 295 Author’s Note: I thank the editor and the two reviewers for their judicious comment, which helped considerably to improve my text. I also thank Donald Kellough for his pertinent comments on my text and his accurate translation of its meaning.
Transcript
Page 1: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Professional EditingStrategies Used bySix EditorsJocelyne BisaillonUniversité Laval, Canada

Identifying the approach used by those revision experts par excellence—thatis, professional editors—should enable researchers to better grasp the revi-sion process. To further explore this hypothesis, the author conductedresearch among professional editors, six of whom she filmed as they engagedin their practice. An analysis of their work approach strategies showed theirdetection strategies to consist in anticipating errors and in comparing theauthor’s text with the editor’s knowledge, which appears in a range of states:certitude, uncertainty, and ignorance. Furthermore, the participating editorsused problem-solving strategies to automatically solve more than half of theproblems encountered in the text. Otherwise, they used immediate or post-poned strategies. This description of professional editors in action opens anumber of avenues for the further research and development of in-classinstruction of self-revision and professional editing.

Keywords: revision process; detection strategies; problem-solving strategiesin writing; authentic writing task; linear process

Researchers in Europe or North America whose area of study is editingand revision have rarely focused their attention on the professional

forms of this activity. Thus, although there is a certain body of research con-cerning the editing/revision process by those who self-edit (Alamargot &Chanquoy, 2001; Butterfield, Hacker, & Albertson, 1996; Hayes, 2004;Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey, 1987), considerably less isknown about the process used by professional editors; that is, those whohave been trained to revise, edit, and proofread and who spend their work-ing days improving other people’s texts, whether on a one-to-one basis or on

Written CommunicationVolume 24 Number 4

October 2007 295-322© 2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/0741088307305977http://wcx.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

295

Author’s Note: I thank the editor and the two reviewers for their judicious comment, whichhelped considerably to improve my text. I also thank Donald Kellough for his pertinent commentson my text and his accurate translation of its meaning.

Page 2: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

behalf of businesses, governments, or not-for-profit organizations (Bisaillon,Fortier, & Préfontaine, 2003).

Even in some of the most recent works on editing and revision (Allal,Chanquoy, & Largy, 2004; Horning, 2002), no space at all is devoted toprofessional editing, their authors focusing instead on the revision processused by learners or by professional copywriters. Therefore, it is hardly sur-prising that most often researchers define revision in terms of a subprocessof writing (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Fitzgerald, 1987; Rijlaarsdam,Couzijn, & van den Bergh, 2004).

Even though professional editing presents numerous similarities withthe self-revision performed by copywriters, it nevertheless differs from thelatter on several points. As has been noted by Rijlaarsdam et al. (2004) andBisaillon (2004), professional editing is a process unto itself that occursindependently of writing, whereas self-revision is one of the three sub-processes of writing, the other two being planning and drafting.

Bisaillon’s (2005) definition of professional editing is, to my knowl-edge, the only one to have been developed specifically in relation to theworkplace forms of this activity. Seeking to enrich previous definitions byaccounting for the features specific to professional editing, she describesthis latter process as

an activity that consists in comprehending and evaluating a text written by agiven author and in making modifications to this text in accordance with theassignment or mandate given by a client. Such modifications may target aspectsof information, organization, or form with a view to improving the quality of thetext and enhancing its communicational effectiveness. (p. 4, translation)

The first major difference worth noting is that a professional editor per-forms his/her work on a text devised by another person, be s/he an authoror a client. The fact that someone else has penned the text in question willnecessarily have an impact on the editing process, on account of the limi-tations stemming from this relationship. For example, except under specialcircumstances, a professional editor will not intervene in the ideas of theauthor whose texts s/he is revising, no more than s/he will modify theauthor’s particular style. In principle, matters of personal taste will no beused as grounds for the modifications s/he makes to the texts s/he is revis-ing. Conversely, an author who self-revises is free to modify his/her text asmuch and as often as s/he likes, directing changes to either the ideas s/he isexpressing or the terms in which s/he chooses to couch them, simply forreasons of attractiveness or aesthetics. It is his/her text, after all.

296 Written Communication

Page 3: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

The second main difference consists in the fact that a professional editoris given a mandate to revise by a client. S/he must, accordingly, respect theterms of this mandate, thus effectively restricting the leeway with which (orthe extent to which) s/he may make changes to the text.

There are many other differences between professional editing and self-revision, as Laflamme (2007) has shown in her study comparing revisiontasks, texts for revising, social and physical environments, and editorsthemselves. All the same, Laflamme does not cover the work process ofprofessional editors in any great detail.

In view of the considerations set out above, I thus believe it is worth-while to carry forward with research conducted during the past 30-oddyears concerning self-revision, with a view to properly describing the revi-sion process as it is engaged in by professional editors. The additionalknowledge resulting from such a project might well provide researcherswith greater insight into the revision process and, in addition, might help toimprove education in editing and revision. What defines revision in a pro-fessional context? What approach is taken by those who make their livingrevising—that is, professional editors? Are their resemblances betweentheir strategies? How is their revision process influenced by the mandatethey receive, their conception of revision, and their experience? My previ-ous research into the revision process of six professional editors has pro-vided me with an initial response to these questions.

In this article, I will first explain the research method used by a team ofresearchers and research assistants, including myself.1 Thereafter, I willpresent the findings bearing on the approaches taken by the editors sur-veyed, with particular emphasis being laid on the strategies they resort to.

Method

To describe, just as accurately as possible, the processes used by editorsas they perform their work and to grasp the justifications underlying par-ticular modifications made to texts, we conducted a case study in a realwork environment.

Participants and Their Conceptions of Revision

Six editors (two men and four women) participated in this project. We2

selected editors who make their living entirely or in part from their workediting. As half had little experience and the other half a significant amount,

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 297

Page 4: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

we placed them into two categories: Participants 1, 5, and 6 were placedin the “least experienced” category (2, 4, and 1.5 years, respectively) andParticipants 2, 3, and 4, in the “most experienced” category (18, 23, and 12years, respectively). Categorizing the editors in this manner enabled us todetermine whether their behavior varied with experience.

In addition, we used the interview data to divide the participants into twoother categories according to how they conceived of the task of revision—that is, from a normative or a communicational perspective. In the normativeconception, the editor’s main concern is to bring the text into line with lin-guistic rules—whether these apply to typography, spelling, grammar, vocab-ulary, syntax, spelling, or punctuation. One of the participants thus stated,

[Revision consists of] making corrections so as to improve the text. Not sup-planting the author, but really correcting Anglicisms [in French], errors ofsyntax, punctuation, agreement of past participles [in French], and so on andso forth. Uh, sometimes rephrasing something. (Editor 2)

In the communicational conception, the editor continues to be concernedabout the formal quality of the text yet also devotes his/her attention to theeffectiveness of the text from the viewpoint of communication with thereader. The emphasis is on the text-reader relationship. As one of the par-ticipants put it,

Revision is . . . making sure that the contents are clear through the form. Thatcontents consist of clear, precise sentences, that the language used is appro-priate for the target reader. [It’s] trying to prevent any mistakes from slippingthrough. Making sure the text is clear, that the appropriate level of languageuse is appropriate for the target reader, and that the form and the structure arecorrect. (Editor 1)

Participants 2 and 6 held a primarily normative conception; Participants 1,3, 4, and 5 tended to take the intended readership into greater consideration. Itis worth noting that although editors’ conceptions of revision had an influenceon the modifications made to texts, they did not, on the other hand, appear tohave an impact on the detection and problem-solving strategies used.

Observing Actual Revision Work

Research into editing and revision rarely takes into consideration the tasksas they are actually performed. Usually, the researchers design artificial tasksusing a text that they have altered or that they have themselves written

298 Written Communication

Page 5: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Table 1Comparison of Participating Editors, Years of Experience,

Conception of Revision, Type of Mandate Received,Type of Text Revised

Editor Experience Conception Mandate Type of Text

1 2 years Communicational Linguistic revision Land use plan focus

2 18 years Normative focus Linguistic revision Teacher’s guide3 More than Communicational Rewrite Article

23 years focus4 12 years Communicational Language and Mass market book

focus content5 Approximately Communicational Linguistic revision Report

4 years focus

6 1½ years Normative focus Linguistic revision Ecology guide

Note: In gray are the two editors who have a broader notion of revision than is indicated bythe type of work requested by the client.

(Broekkamp & van den Bergh, 1996; Hayes et al., 1987; Piolat, Roussey,Olive, & Amada, 2004). These artificial texts are what the participantsthen revise and what the researchers then use to study their participants’ self-revision process. Although the use of artificial tasks can produce worthwhileresults with respect to revision in an educational setting (see the modeldeveloped by Hayes et al., 1987) or for comparing two groups of revisers(beginners and experts), they are inadequate for the purpose of studyingprofessional editing. How can we come to understand what really happens ina situation involving revision when the texts used for research purposes aredistorted from the outset? Editors revise a genuine text so that it can be pub-lished for a real audience. This is the work that must be observed, analyzed,and understood. In an authentic writing task performance situation, time is ofthe essence—an editor is often paid an hourly wage or fee—just as the targetreader is of prime importance—it is for his/her sake that the text is beingpublished. Thus, modifications will necessarily reflect the weight of theseimperatives. However, for the purposes of our research, it was not necessaryto study a mandate in its entirety. Indeed, only one Editor 3 participating inour study was able to complete his/her revision tasks from beginning to end,and this was because s/he was revising an article.

If, as Hayes et al. (1987) have explained, the definition of the task of awriter who revises his/her own text corresponds to how s/he conceives of

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 299

Page 6: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

revision, that of the professional editor consists of the mandate given by theclient, combined with his/her own conception of revision. As Table 1 shows,this mandate usually consists of a linguistic (or “formal”) variety of revisionwork. The client would like the editor to concentrate on correcting errors ofspelling, grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. One client (4) wanted the editorto focus on the content as well, and another (3) mandated the editor to par-tially rewrite the text—written by a specialist on the subject matter—tomake it easier for readers to understand. Although the editor’s conception ofrevision is usually in line with the mandate given to him or her, it sometimesoccurs that the editor harbors a broader notion of revision than is indicatedby the type of work requested by the client (Editors 1 and 5). This kind ofeditor will thus do more than merely rid the target text of mechanical andgrammatical errors. In other words, while reading the text, his/her attentionwill not be focused exclusively on problems related to noncompliance withstandard rules.

Procedure

Protocol analysis, a tool developed by cognitive psychologists, has beenwidely used to understand the process underlying both writing and revision.Depending on the context of the research, researchers have used either con-current verbalization (Fortier & Préfontaine, 1994; Hayes et al., 1987) orretrospective verbalization (Gaunder, 1987; Magee, 1995; Préfontaine &Fortier, 1997).

We chose to use retrospective verbalization with this group of profes-sional editors because it does not interfere with their work. Professionaleditors aim to work with speed and efficiency, and nothing was to be gainedby slowing them down. Retrospective verbalization was the best method forrespecting the actual state of affairs, because it allowed the editors to com-plete their work before having to discuss it.

As with any scientific method, retrospective verbalization has its limita-tions. For one, the operation of retrieving can be fallible. “Since retrievalfor LTM may be an onerous task, even in situations where the informationis potentially retrievable, subjects may prefer to generate the informationinstead” (Eriksson & Simon, 1993, p. 20). In addition, participants mayhave forgotten the reasons that prompted them to carry out a particularaction, thus making for gaps in the information ultimately collected.

To prevent a given editor from either forgetting information or “cre-atively” reconstructing his/her past actions (Gufoni, 1996), retrospective ver-balization was engaged in a short time after s/he had completed his/her task.

300 Written Communication

Page 7: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

That way, s/he was given the opportunity to elicit his/her responses quickly.Likewise, by having his/her recently completed work close to hand, theparticipant was thus able to draw on “contextual indices” that readily broughtto mind the setting in which s/he had performed his/her revision work; theparticipant was also able to draw on “prompting or recovery” indicesenabling him or her to recall what s/he had been doing and what s/he hadbeen thinking about (Gufoni, 1996, p. 28). Furthermore, the participants wereentitled to forget, because we preferred having incomplete information ratherthan erroneous data. It is worth noting that forgetfulness occurred only rarely.

The 2-hour-long videotaping sessions took place in the editor’s homeor workplace while s/he revised a text for a client. After each session, theresearch assistant engaged the editor in retrospective verbalization. With theeditor sitting nearby, the assistant scrolled down through the text onscreen,stopping at each modification to ask the editor for the reasons justifyinghis/her choice of solution. This sometimes induced the editor to explainhis/her revision process and point out the difficulties encountered. The ver-balization was recorded on audio cassette. Finally, at the end of the verbal-ization session or on the following day, the editor answered a number ofquestions within the framework of a semistructured interview. This served togather information about him or her and his/her professional life as an edi-tor (education, experience, perspective on the process s/he used, etc.).

Coding the Strategies

A grid was developed for the purpose of describing the editors’ workprocess and identifying the strategies they used to detect and solveproblems while revising. To this end, three data sources were relied on:(a) viewing of the video in which each editor appeared in the process ofrevising, (b) a comparison of the original text with the modified version, and(c) protocol analysis of retrospective accounts. Every one of the editors’actions was noted down, including the strategies they resorted to.

For the purpose of classifying components of the revision process as wellas revision strategies proper, we built on the previous work of a number ofresearchers (Flower, Hayes, Carey, Schriver, & Stratman, 1986; Hacker,Plumb, Butterfield, Quathamer, & Heineken, 1994; Hayes, 1996, 2004;Hayes et al., 1987; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1983). In particular, these authorsstressed the important role of reading in the revision process, the detectionand correction of errors, and the revision strategies used by the writer in thecourse of his/her work. Below I shall seek to sketch out the main points oftheir contributions and to apply them to the situation of professional editing.

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 301

Page 8: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Reading

Whatever the mandate accorded by the client, the type of text to be revised,or the experience of the editor, reading is the main route of approach to revi-sion, just as it is for writers who revise their own texts (Hayes, 1996; Hayeset al., 1987). Just as the classroom context differs from the professional con-text, so too does the type of reading performed differ according to each settingin which this activity is conducted. Thus, in contrast with students, profes-sional editors will seldom have to read to grasp their assignment because theyalmost receive it orally from their clients. As concerns reading backgroundtexts (Hayes, 1996), the underlying objective is not to search for ideas but tovalidate the information contained in the text, if that indeed is a part of themandate. Moreover, as is also the case with copywriters who do revision, theyread both to comprehend and to evaluate (Hayes et al., 1987). And, as has alsobecome clear, they read to solve problems and to make checks.

Reading to comprehend. All the editors participating in our researchproject informed us that they did not read a text for revising all the waythrough, unless the text in question was short. If they wished to have an ideaof the contents, they would usually instead skim the document or examinethe table of contents, if there is one, as Editor 1 explained during the semi-structured interview. It comes as no great surprise, then, that among all ofthe participants, only Editor 3—whose mandate was to revise a magazinearticle—had read his text from start to finish. On the other hand, most ofthe editors observed started by reading an entire paragraph to grasp theoverall gist. Only Editor 2 skipped this phase and began with the evaluativereading. It is also important to point out that this experienced editor wasperforming a linguistic revision and that she held a normative conception ofher work. Such orientations were ill conducive to reading for comprehen-sion, given the editor’s single focus on form.

Reading to evaluate. Once all the editors—except Editor 2—had finishedreading the paragraph to grasp its meaning, they read it a second time todetect whatever may be improved in the text. For Editor 2, of course, theevaluative reading was her first reading. All of the editors then read the para-graph sentence by sentence looking for items that were incorrect (i.e., didnot accord with linguistic or textual conventions) or that could be improvedupon (i.e., did not serve to attain maximum communicational effectiveness[see Sperber & Wilson, 1995]). When such items were detected, the editorsusually sought solutions to correct the resulting problems. Once again, withthe exception of Editor 2, all the editors said that they had completed at least

302 Written Communication

Page 9: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

two evaluative readings. However, most of them have said that if an editorhad been given a very long text (e.g., 400 pages) and a very short amount oftime in which to revise it, s/he might well have made do with performingonly one evaluative reading.

Reading to solve problems. In addition to serving as a basis on which todetect problems, reading also represented a strategy of problem solvingused to varying degrees by all the editors.

Reading to check. After finishing the revision of a paragraph to which theyhad made many modifications, most of the editors reread to make sure thattheir modifications were correct and that they had not forgotten anything.Although reading is the route of approach to revision, the final read-throughconstitutes the “off-ramp”—the way out of the revision process.

Problem Detection

We wished to grasp how editors were able to detect the real or potentialproblems contained in a text. We thus began by examining the explanationsprovided by researchers whose work has preceded our own. Hayes et al. (1987)demonstrated that revision is a process that is performed consciously orunconsciously, depending on the moment or phase of work and on the typesof problems encountered. An editor will have in memory a list of problems,what these authors refer to as conditions, associated with a list of solutionsor actions to be carried out. When, during evaluative reading, a conditionon this list is detected in a text, the editor is able to associate it at once withthe corresponding solution. This is what happens whenever an editorapplies, for example, a grammar rule. However, not all the problems that awriter encounters in the text can be associated with predetermined actions.

Although it is generally admitted that revisers can detect a problem thatthey are also unable to remedy, Hacker et al. (1994, p. 75) have, based ontheir research findings, posited the opposite—that is, to be able to detect aproblem in a text, editors must have knowledge of error correction (i.e.,knowledge of how to correct). This conclusion is not corroborated byHayes (2004, pp. 15-16), who affirms that there are numerous occasionswhen one is able to detect an error without knowing how to correct it,whether it be detecting a spelling mistake or a poorly written phrase.

Whereas Scardamalia and Bereiter (1983) viewed detection as a processof comparing the text that the writer actually wrote with the one that s/heintended to write, in the case of professional editors, we instead perceive a

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 303

Page 10: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

contrast between the text written by an author and the editor’s knowledge.According to the data we gathered, it appears that detection most often resultsfrom comparison but that it may also occur as the result of anticipating aproblem. In cases of comparison, the trigger for detection is a unit or segmentof the text to be revised (e.g., a character, a word, or a group of words, etc.),whereas in the case of anticipation, the trigger is a situation, retrieved from abank of text-related problems “stored” in the editor’s memory and that is sup-plied with situations encountered throughout his/her experience of editingand revising. Such situations include, for example, figures, tables, and tablesof contents, which are all associated with problems of numbering or unifor-mity of headings. When given a book to revise, a professional editor willanticipate having to deal with this kind of problem before s/he even opens thebook. In short, whenever an editor relies on comparison, his/her starting pointfor detecting a real or potential problem is the text to be revised; whenevers/he resorts to anticipation, it means that s/he comes to the text to be revisedalready on the lookout for a potential problem.

We have, moreover, observed that when using comparison to detect prob-lems in a text, editors do not rely solely on whatever sure knowledge theyhave stored away in their memory. They may instead be prompted to detecta problem by imperfect—that is, vague or uncertain—knowledge or even alack of knowledge concerning particular units of the text to be revised.Indeed, it might be said that for any inventory of detection strategies to becomplete, it must also account for the editors’ hazy knowledge and eventheir lack of knowledge. Admittedly, it may seem counterintuitive, to say theleast, to posit the ability of editors to turn their ignorance into a trigger orlever for detecting a problem, but an analysis of the data shows this to beeffectively the case. One example of this situation occurs whenever editorsrun up against a word they are unfamiliar with. They might well decide tomove on, saying to themselves that the author was a skilled writer and knewhow to use the word correctly—or they might harbor doubts about thespelling of the word or the appropriateness of its use in the context at hand.As the result of their lack of knowledge, these types of editors would thus beprompted to look up the word to get answers to their questions.

While reading, editors may draw on a range of material means to aidthem in detecting problems. For example, as a way of slowing their readingspeed, editors may work their way through a text manually; that is, followthe line of argument or presentation with their finger or a pencil. Many ofthem flip through the text to corroborate or invalidate their initial impressionof having uncovered a genuine problem, or even mark the text in somefashion to indicate where a particular problem is located.

304 Written Communication

Page 11: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

The outcome of using a strategy founded on certain knowledge is todetect a genuine problem, or one that is perceived as such. The outcome ofusing a strategy founded on uncertain knowledge or a lack of knowledge isto detect a potential problem.

Table 2 displays the descriptions devised for each of the categories andthat were used to classify the various detection strategies observed.

Problem-Solving Strategies and the SolutionsAdopted as a Result (by type)

Once editors have detected what appears to be a problem, they can correctit automatically or select a strategy to decide what to do after the problemhas been detected.

When correcting automatically, editors do not use a strategy. As soon asthe problem is detected, they solve it without having to reread the text,reflect, or undertake a search. They draw on knowledge in their memory:

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 305

Table 2Description of Detection Strategies

Detection Strategy Description

Operation of Based on his/her previous knowledge or experience, the editoranticipation of a anticipates that there may be an error in a unit or segment of text.potential problem Prior even to beginning to revise, the editor knows that s/he will

have to devote special attention to the section of the text where agiven type of problem is anticipated.

Operation of Comparison is a memory-based retrieval of knowledge appearing incomparison a range of states: certitude, uncertainty, and lack of knowledge.between an item The editor pauses over a unit or segment of the text andin the text and compares it with some item taken from his/her store ofknowledge stored knowledge. At that point, one of three characteristic situationsin memory will come into play.

1. Certain knowledge Certain of his/her own knowledge, the editor does not hesitate todeem the detected unit of text as running counter to what isnormal or expected.

2. Uncertain The editor is unable to determine whether the unit or segment ofknowledge text in question would normally be flagged in this context,

because s/he is unsure of his/her knowledge.3. Lack of knowledge The editor is unable to identify the anomalous character of a given

unit of text because it triggers no recollection of a similar item inhis/her store of knowledge. s/he is, in short, not cognizant inrespect of the problem at hand.

Page 12: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

The correction is made simultaneously with detection or immediately after-ward. Automatic correction is most often used to solve spelling, grammar,and punctuation problems, but occasionally for other problems as well. Forinstance, Editor 1 automatically corrected, among other things, certainAnglicisms and vocabulary frequently misused by the author (e.g., fairemention instead of traiter [comparable in English to the misuse of aggra-vate to mean irritate]). Editor 3 also corrects certain problems of syntax,such as overlong sentences, the irrelevant use of impersonal pronouns andstructures (e.g., il faut, il existe [comparable to the unnecessary couching ofa statement in the passive voice]). As often as possible, he eliminatesgerunds that [in French] “thwart the forward drive of the sentence [. . .] andthus cramp the stylistic effect.” With experience, he has developed a wholeseries of problems and/or solutions into automatisms that would otherwiserequire reflection on the part of less experienced editors. Hayes et al. (1987)have noted that a vast repertory of procedures (condition/action) enableseditors both to work quickly, as the association is automatic, and to free uptheir working memory for cases that require reflection.

Situations involving editors who are unable to correct a problem automat-ically generally stem from their having to reread the text often to comprehendit. Reflection and judgment are required both: They reflect, draw on theirknowledge of the topic at hand, and decide on the appropriate manner inwhich to improve clarity, for example. In such situations, a conscious processof problem solving is brought into play involving strategies whose exactnumber has not been established. For their part, Hayes et al. (1987) haveidentified five such strategies. Writers or revisers can choose to ignore theproblem if they are unable to determine the nature of the problem. At thatpoint, they will decide that the reader will not be misled or confused by theproblem or that solving it will require too much effort or effort that cannotreasonably be justified (Hayes et al., 1987, p. 224). Alternately, they candecide to delay action until a later time (Hayes et al., 1987, pp. 224-225). Thisstrategy may be used for various reasons, but the primary one is being unableto find the solution on the spot. They may decide to look for more informa-tion to produce a more accurate diagnosis. Finally, writers can revise the textor rewrite a portion of it. In the first case, they will stay as close as possibleto the original text: In their view, the greater portion of the text can be leftintact. However, if they take the idea contained in a given sentence and refor-mulate it in their own words, this is rewriting. This strategy is most often usedwhen too many problems have been encountered.

The findings of our research have enabled us to view certain strategiesfrom a new perspective and indeed to notice new strategies altogether.

306 Written Communication

Page 13: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Problem-solving strategy is a single strategy or multistrategy that is performedin conjunction with various resources for the purpose of solving the problemsdetected. Editors devise a strategy for solving them immediately (rereading,reflection, immediate search) or postpone searching for the solution or

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 307

Table 3Description of Problem-Solving Strategies

Problem-Solving Strategy Description

No strategy When correcting automatically, the editor does not use a strategy.As soon as the problem is detected, s/he solves it without havingto reread the text, reflect, or undertake a search.

Immediate strategy1. Rereading The editor rereads a sentence or paragraph because the meaning is

not clear. To correct a given segment of text, s/he must understand its meaning—a thing s/he is unable to accomplish afteronly a single reading. In this case, we are no longer dealing withan evaluative reading to detect a problem, as the problem hasalready been detected. Instead, this type of reading is performedto help him or her to find the solution.

2. Reflection The editor does not arrive at a solution quickly. S/he considersvarious possible solutions, often in combination with rereading.

3. Immediate search The editor performs an immediate search to find a solution or,sometimes, to make a more accurate diagnosis, as Hayes, Flower,Schriver, Stratman, and Carey (1987) have indicated. S/hesearches for the answer in a tool, such as a dictionary or theInternet, or in the text itself; or, s/he addresses an inquiry to theauthor or some other person.

4. Postponement of The editor lacks knowledge about something and it would take himsolution or her too much time to find a solution at that moment. For

example, arriving at a solution might require doing searches onthe Internet or contacting the author or another resource person.Postponement will also, obviously, be an alternative of choicewhen, despite the editor’s best efforts to devise and implementproblem-solving strategies, his/her searches have failed to turnup anything useful—at least in the short term.

5. Tentative solution The editor makes an initial modification. Although nonfinal, thewording leaves him or her somewhat dissatisfied, but it at leastallows him or her set down his/her ideas in some form or other.s/he will come back to this point at some later time. The tentativesolution is different from the suggestion (see below), in that theformer refers to a situation in which it is the editor who makes anote to return with a definitive formulation later on, whereas thelatter refers to a note made to the author proposing one or moresolutions for him or her to choose between.

Page 14: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

applying the solution itself later in this stage of revision period or until asubsequent stage altogether (postponement of solution). When solving theproblem is postponed, editors may formulate a tentative solution that theywill reconsider later, they may make a suggestion to the author who willhave the last word, or they may have no solution. Problem-solving strate-gies result in an immediate or postponed solution to the problem. There arethree forms of an immediate solution: no modification, revision, and rewriting.The definitions for each of the components figuring in the new categoriza-tion are set out in Tables 3 and 4.

Results

Use of Detection Strategies

As the findings of our research show, the six participating editors useddetection strategies that involve comparison (97.48%) to a much greater

308 Written Communication

Table 4Description of Solutions Adopted (by type)

Solution Type Description

Immediate solution1. No modification The editor may realize that what was perceived as presenting a

potential problem has no basis in fact.2. Revision The editor solves the problem by making only slight modifications

and closely adheres to the original text (Hayes, Flower, Schriver,Stratman, & Carey, 1987).

3. Rewriting The editor expands the scope of modification, reformulating theauthor’s idea in his/her own words; s/he preserves the essence ofthe text, but not its original wording or form. The extent of themodification may vary from a single sentence to a lengthier sectionof the text (Hayes et al., 1987). Rewording may consist ofoverhauling the sentence as a whole or, instead, making severaldiscrete modifications within it.

Postponed solution1. No solution The editor has failed to hit on the solution for the time being and

makes no modification to the text.2. Suggestion to The revised text bears no trace of any definitive modification. The

author reviser may, however, put forward a suggestion to the author,penciling in his/her proposal even. Whenever it is a suggestionthat is being offered, the decision whether to make a modificationrests with the author.

Page 15: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

extent than strategies based on anticipation (2.52%). From the outset, itshould be pointed out that such apparently lopsided results are, in fact,rather predictable, given that the use of anticipation strategies is restrictedto editing/revision situations encountered only in connection with certaintypes of texts. As might be expected, comparison drew mostly on certainknowledge previously stored in memory (84.82%). Nonetheless, the editorswere also able to detect problems on the basis of uncertain knowledge oreven a lack of knowledge about a particular point or problem. Uncertainknowledge could trigger detection of problems in the author’s text (8.60%)or in modifications made by the editor (1.90%). In the latter case, the edi-tor was unsure about the accuracy of his/her modification. Strategiesinvolving lack of knowledge about an item in the text were the leastcommon (2.11%), with such ignorance most often relating to information-related aspects. Doubt was the key to detection in all cases. Table 5 sum-marizes the differences appearing between the editors with respect to thestrategies used.

All the editors used anticipation and comparison strategies, exceptEditor 4, who did not draw on anticipation or lack of knowledge. Perhaps thiscan be explained by the fact that he did not encounter typical anticipation

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 309

Table 5Detection Strategies Used by Six Editors

Comparison

Lack of Editor Anticipation Certainty Uncertainty Knowledge Total

1 5.16% 77.42% 11.61% 5.81% 1558 120 18 9

2 1.03% 89.38% 8.90% 0.68% 2923 261 26 2

3 0.63% 90.79% 7.30% 1.27% 3152 286 23 4

4 — 94.29% 5.71% — 245231 14

5 7.48% 65.99% 23.81% 2.72% 14711 97 35 4

6 8.98% 64.10% 17.95% 8.97% 787 50 14 7

Note: N = 1,232 instances of strategy use. The gray background indicates the more experi-enced editors.

Page 16: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

situations (tables, figures, table of contents, etc.) and that he specializes ina particular subject matter, which gives him the requisite knowledge aboutthe information in the text he was assigned to revise.

There were broad variations between editors with regard to percentage useof a given strategy. For instance, the difference between the editor who workedfrom a basis in certainty most (Editor 4) and she who did so the least (Editor6) was 30% (Table 5). These results are in keeping with the different levels ofprofessional experience characterizing the two, with the former having con-siderable experience and the latter being the least experienced of the six.

However, when the editors are grouped according to their experience,similar behaviors emerge. When editors had more experience (gray back-ground in Table 5), they also based more of their comparisons on certainknowledge than did less experienced editors (91.31% vs. 71.25%). It fol-lows that the latter group worked more often from uncertain knowledge(15.79% vs. 5.40%). Furthermore, experienced editors almost never basedtheir comparisons on a lack of knowledge, whereas less experienced editorsdid so occasionally (0.70% vs. 5.26%). Patterns of anticipation by the twogroups produce a similar parallel. It remains to be seen whether this obser-vation holds constant among experienced editors or whether it depends onthe context of revision. There does not appear to be any correlation betweennormative versus communicational conceptions of revision, on the one hand,and the strategies used by the revisers, on the other.

Use of Problem-Solving Strategies

Analysis of the behavior of the editors under study reveals that theysolved, automatically or immediately, a little more than half of the prob-lems encountered in the text (56.77%). In these cases, editors did not usea strategy but instead relied on their knowledge of conditions and/oractions. This knowledge is a boon to the editor’s work; as Flower et al.(1986) have explained: “It helps us stop automatically at red lights, hit thecarriage return without thinking, and detect many problems in texts withlittle demand on our attention” (p. 34). However, as is shown in Table 6,the individual editors’ level of experience affected their use of strategieswhen solving problems. Editors with more experience relied relativelylittle on problem-solving strategies, considering that 74.55% of the timethey solved the problem automatically, whereas less experienced editorswere able to do this less than half the time. This makes for an enormousdifference, but given the small sample size, the question remains open as towhether this always holds true between more and less experienced editors.

310 Written Communication

Page 17: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

These results will have to be validated at some point in the future. Amongall the editors, Editor 2 was the one who most often corrected mistakeswithout resorting to any strategies: 81.67% of the time, she produced acorrection practically at the same instant she detected a problem. It isworth noting that this editor held a normative conception of revision andhad herself been given a mandate to perform linguistic revision—a type ofrevision that draws on the activation of stored knowledge more than onreflection. Most interestingly, as the results pertaining to Editor 2 alsoshow, she was also the editor who used a problem-solving strategy basedon reflection the least often among our cohort of six.

Overall, the problem-solving strategy most often used was the immediatesearch for a solution (22.24%). This being said, immediate search wasused relatively often (35.55%) by less experienced editors but was littleused (7.05%) by more experienced editors, who preferred reflection. Itwas sometimes used in isolation, such as when an editor was trying tothink of a synonym, but was often associated with a rereading of a passage(4.68%) that was unclear or for which rewording was in order.

At this point, it is crucial to make an important qualification, namely, thatin response to taped images of them pausing for a moment, the editors often

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 311

Table 6Problem-Solving Strategies of Six Editors

Strategies

No Immediate Reported TentativeEditor strategy Rereading Reflection Search Search de Solution Total

1 56.91% 4.97% 11.60% 14.92% 11.60% — 187 103 9 21 27 21

2 81.67% 1.61% 5.14% 7.72% 3.86% — 311254 5 16 24 12

3 77.19% 3% 12.21% 5.30% 1.15% 1.15% 434335 13 53 23 5 5

4 64.81% 9.41% 22.30% 3.48% — — 287186 27 64 10

5 31.97% 4.92% 6.56 53.28% 3.28% — 40939 6 8 65 4

6 28.09% 6.72% 10.92 48.74% 4.30% 2.52% 11932 8 13 58 5 3

Average 56.77% 5.1% 9.95% 22.24% 4.03% 0.61%

Note: N = 1,446 instances of strategy use. The gray background indicates more experiencededitors.

Page 18: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

stated (in the verbalizations) that they were rereading or reflecting, but theydid not always think to mention this fact. Thus, it is difficult to accuratelyquantify use of these two strategies with the data-gathering tools we hadavailable to us. These strategies are undoubtedly used more frequently thaninitially appears to be the case. On this point, additional research using moreaccurate instruments will be required.

Postponing the search (4.03%) was not often used by any of the editorsunder study, and even less so by those having more experience. In a fewcases, an editor would venture a tentative solution and make a mental noteto come back to this point some time later. In short, this solution consistedof an initial modification to the text that was intended to be a provisionalmeasure only. Although not entirely satisfactory to the editor, it neverthe-less enabled him to set down his/her ideas. This strategy was used espe-cially when the editor was going to correct the text on the computerafterward, and s/he was aware that later on s/he would have the opportunityto reconsidering formulations that s/he found momentarily to be wanting.Finally, considering the six editors as a whole, only very rarely (0.61 %) didthey propose a tentative solution that they planned to rework later.

Solutions Adopted (by type)

Given our interest in both problem-solving proper and in the effectivenessof problem-solving strategies, we divided solutions to problems into imme-diate solutions and postponed solutions. After adding up all the immediatesolutions (no modification, revision, and rewriting), it becomes clear that theeditors are able to solve the problems detected most of the time. On this score,skill grows with experience. Editor 6, the least skilful of the six, is also theeditor having the least experience: She managed to solve 53.73% of the prob-lems encountered. Editor 3, the most skilful of the group, was also the editorhaving the greatest experience: He managed to solve 94.1% of the problems.

Table 7 presents a breakdown of the types of solutions adopted by theeditors. In 6.23% of cases, there were no grounds for doubt on the part ofthe editor, which explains why s/he did not then modify the text. “No solu-tion” was thus the approach adopted by the editors 2.26% to 11.66% of thetime. All made some use of revision and rewriting, although the extent to whichsuch solutions were used varied considerably from one editor to another. Asthe mandates given by the clients aimed primarily at obtaining linguisticrevision, revision (61.55%) was used far more frequently than rewriting(5.94%) as a solution to problems. In a different context, the opposite mighthave held true.

312 Written Communication

Page 19: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Table 7Immediate and Postponed Solutions Used by Six Editors

Immediate Solutions Postponed Solutions

No Modification No Author’s Tentative Editor (false alarm) Revision Rewriting Solution Suggestion Solution

1 6.98% 65.59% 2.15 % 23.11% 2.15%13 122 4 43 4 186

2 2.26% 86.73% — 8.09% 2.91%7 268 25 9 309

3 10.53% 64.25% 19.32% 8.69 2.41%11 133 40 18 5 207

4 4.83% 64.51% 6.45% 24.19% —3 40 4 15 62

5 11.66% 50.83% 2.50% 35% — 14 61 3 42 120

6 11.13% 37.39% 5.21% 45.21% .87%13 43 6 52 1 115

Average 6.23% 61.55% 5.94% 24.05 1.39%

Note: N = 1,006 solutions. The gray background indicates more experienced editors.

These professional editors were unable to solve all the problems theydetected in the texts. As they could not authorize themselves to alter the author’sideas, they thus postponed correction of passages that lacked clarity. Theymight then make a suggestion to the author (1.39%) or write nothing at all(24.05%). They proceeded to make modifications once they had obtainingthe author’s explanation. When faced with a difficult problem, they mightalso write in a tentative solution and return to it later.

We also wanted to know whether certain strategies were more effectivethan others. Therefore, we examined the results of using the immediatesolution and postponed solution problem-solving strategies. Figure 1 dis-plays the results.

Automatic correction without recourse to a strategy was as effective asit gets. Whenever the editor detected a problem and did not use a strategyto solve it, it was overwhelmingly (98.22%) because s/he immediately per-ceived the solution and made the necessary modification. In less than 2%of cases did s/he detect a problem without also immediately perceiving thesolution. The solution was, at that point, postponed (with or without a sug-gestion being made to the author).

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 313

Page 20: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Among strategies, reflection and rereading were the most effective, pro-ducing an immediate solution to the problem in 76.37% and 69.23% of thecases, respectively. In comparison, immediate search did not necessarilyresult in immediate solutions, as only 52.89% of the time did it produce thedesired results. Moreover, nearly half the time, the editor only confirmedthat the author’s choice was the right one, meaning that there had been noproblem to begin with.

It is only logical that when a search was postponed, the solution was alsopostponed. This strategy was used primarily to solve problems of form(54.86%) and problems related to information (40.28%). Only rarely weresolutions to organization problems postponed (4.86%). I noted that editorswho were more focused on form tended to postpone problems related toinformation slightly more often than did the other editors. The effectivenessof this strategy varied among the editors, and experience did not seem toplay a role on this score.

314 Written Communication

Figure 1Results of Problem-Solving Strategies for All Six Editors

98.2276.37 69.23

52.89

00

20

40

60

80

100

120

No Stra

tegy

Reflec

tion

Rerea

ding

Imm

ediat

e Sea

rch

Postp

oned

Sea

rch

Postponed Solution Immediate Solution

Page 21: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Discussion

Authentic Writing Tasks Versus Artificial Tasks

The case study analyzed in this article prompts me to elaborate on theneed to use an authentic writing task in certain research projects. To beginwith, as the result of the kind of research project we conducted, we wereable to bring out the interrelationships between the multiple facets of therevision process engaged in by professionals—dimensions that an artificialtask would not have allowed us to perceive. In particular, we would not havebeen able to grasp the relationship between the mandate and the editor’sconception of revision, nor, for that matter, such aspects as the influence ofthe client or the author, the editor’s experience working with a particularclient or author, time limitations (including deadlines), or the type of text tobe revised. In the discussion below, I will not again take up the impact ofthe mandate–conception of revision relationship (having already dealt withthis subject) but will devote some remarks to the other aspects just listed.

By observing revision as it is actually performed in the workplace, wewere able to observe how the client has an impact on this process not onlybecause of his/her role as mandate giver but also because of the values thats/he wishes to communicate. Thus, for example, Editor 3, whose mandateconsisted of revising and/or rewriting an article to be published in a maga-zine dedicated to heritage, had to perform his/her revisions (mandate) in amanner mindful of the magazine’s mission, which is to defend heritage(values). As it so happens, this mission was reflected by certain of his/hermodifications that highlighted the conservation and restoration of heritageas opposed to the replacement of the latter.

Behind every client there is an author, who most often will have the lastword on the revised text. The various revision situations encounteredshowed us that the author could be very close to the editor and respondimmediately to the latter’s questions, or, as was more often the case, be atconsiderable remove from the editor yet able to reply to the questions putto him. Thus, whereas professional writers must solve all the problems thatthey may run into as they revise their own text, such is not the case withprofessional editors, who are not always able to grasp the author’s intendedmeaning.

Observing actual revision tasks being performed provides a basis for fullyappreciating the value of the time allotted to the editor. Thus, for example,Editor 2, who was determined to turn to fullest account the 2 hours duringwhich she was observed, operated according to her custom. Given the little

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 315

Page 22: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

time made available to her for completing her work, she tended to refer thesolving of the various problems she detected back to the author, whereas shecould have searched for the solution herself. This work method thus enabledher to revise the requisite number of pages assigned to her and meet herdeadline too. If this editor had been given an artificial text to work with,undoubtedly she would have taken all the time necessary to coming up withthe answers instead of making do with forwarding her questions to the authorfor the latter to solve as best s/he may.

To sum up, using authentic writing tasks aided us in identifying simi-larities between the various strategies used in the performance of revisionwork—but also a number of differences. For example, anticipation isassociated with certain sections of the text such as the table of contents,tables, figures, and so on. Now, if we had given all the editors a singlearticle to work with, the use of this strategy would have likely failed toemerge in our observations.

Using authentic writing tasks enabled us to describe as accurately aspossible the work process of professional editors; on the other hand, usingan artificial task would have enabled other researchers to see how a groupof editors reacted toward the same text. Would the members of this groupdetect the same errors or weak points in their text? Would they all adopt thesame measures and strategies to correct these errors or weak points? Nowthat we have a better idea of the strategies used by professional editors, itwould be instructive to see how editors behaved in relation to the same text.Such an approach would no doubt give us insight into what types of prob-lems are considered to be weak points by some editors but not as such byother editors and whether there were any similarities between the varioussolutions they put forward.

Similarities and Differences of Strategy

This case study provided us with an in-depth view of the strategies usedby professional editors. We found that although our participants all usedpractically the same strategies for detecting and solving problems, whetherreal or potential, they did not resort to the same in like proportion. Thesedifferences thus provided a basis for identifying profiles (or processtypes) of professional editors in terms of reading, detection, and correction(Bisaillon, 2006). Take reading, for example. Based on a set of behaviorsobserved by Bisaillon, it is possible to distinguish three main editor’s read-ing profiles: the “speed” editor, the moderate editor, and the perfectionist.“Speed” editors do not have the time to read for comprehension or to check

316 Written Communication

Page 23: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

the modifications they have made. They are in a rush and only perform anevaluative reading. The emphasis is on the quality of the text and not onthe intended reader’s comprehension (as with Editor 2, for example).Moderate editors go beyond “speed” editors’ single reading, but not as faras perfectionists. They read to comprehend a paragraph, and they performone or two evaluations. Reading to check is performed on occasion, butthis is not part of their usual behavior (as with Editor 1, for example). Finally,perfectionist editors perform at least three readings: one to comprehend,one to evaluate, and one to check. Usually, they will perform two evalua-tive readings (as with Editor 3, for example). There is a need to performfurther research to validate such sets of behavior not only among profes-sional editors but also among professional writers who revise. In the caseof professional editors, it would no doubt be useful to correlate typicaleditor profiles with the mandates and the experience of professionaleditors. I am personally inclined to think that a mandate of linguisticrevision performed on behalf of a publishing house will match up with areading profile typical of a “speed” editor, whereas a mandate of rewritingmight well be associated with the habits and behavior of a perfectionisteditor. Furthermore, assuming that the same mandate of linguistic revisionhad been assigned to a novice editor, the resulting profile might well bethat of the moderate editor.

Detection Strategies

Several researchers have claimed that the revision process is triggered bythe errors contained in a text. Hayes (2004, p. 11), on the other hand, hasqualified these assertions, noting that a reviser or editor may be promptedto find a better way to say what was said—that is, to eliminate or alleviateweak points. Thus, detection may flow out of either errors or perceivedweaknesses. Moreover, as the findings of our research have shown quiteclearly, detection of the problems in a text is triggered both by real prob-lems and by potential (or apprehended) problems. Whereas a detectionstrategy based on an editor’s sure knowledge is linked to the detection ofreal problems, all the other detection strategies are associated with thedetection of potential problems. Figuring among the latter variety is thestrategy of anticipation whereby the editor is prompted to read a text insearch of certain types of problems that are anticipated ahead of encoun-tering any actual instance of them. Our research has also confirmed thateditors do not need to know how to correct a problem to be able to detectit, for they use detection strategies that are based on uncertain knowledge

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 317

Page 24: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

or even a lack of knowledge. These findings thus stand in contradictionwith those reported by Hacker et al. (1994).

Problem-Solving Strategies and the Solutions Adopted

While studying the problem-solving strategies used by the six partici-pating editors, we also examined whether or not these strategies resultedin a solution. As a result of this analysis, we have been led to view suchstrategies in a different light than that of Hayes et al. (1987). In the viewof this group, there were five main strategies: ignore the problem, delayaction, search for information, revising, and rewriting. We did not observeany of the professional editors in the study ignoring problems they hadmanaged to detect in the 2 hours during which each was taped. When theyencountered a problem that required too much effort to solve, rather thanignoring it, they either postponed solving it or called it to the attention ofthe author. However, this does not mean that the professional editors didnot ignore any problems. During the interviews, two of the six editorsstated that they did not modify a passage in the text that was problematicbecause the time required to correct the passage was too great in relationto the potential overall improvement of the text. The editors postponedboth solving a problem, when this would take a significant amount of time,and searching for a solution. Finally, in our view, revision and rewritingare not problem-solving strategies but rather solutions to problems. Weconsider that when performed by an editor, revising and rewriting bothconstitute means for correcting a given problem. Among the other poten-tial solutions, there was that of making no modification whatsoever. Thesearch for a solution ultimately led the editor to observe that the authorwas right and that s/he had been reacting to a false alarm. This type of sit-uation occurred very slightly more often than did rewriting among the sixparticipating editors (6.23% vs. 5.94%). Thus, we are unable to concurwith Fitzgerald (1987), who stated that “revision means making anychanges at any point in the writing process” (p. 484), because revisingdoes not always imply modifying the text.

Conclusion

The findings of our research bring out the strategies used by professionaleditors in greater detail; they also deepen our understanding of the realitiesof professional editing, which to date have been described only rather

318 Written Communication

Page 25: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

sketchily. As such, they also yield a number of answers to the questions wehad raised prior to undertaking this project. To begin with, we may assert,on the basis of the editors whom we had the opportunity to observe, thatprofessional editing is a linear process. The subprocesses of evaluativereading, detection, and correction are always performed in the same orderas the editor advances through the text line by line. Occasionally, s/he looksback to check something in relation either to what s/he has just read or to achange that s/he has just made, but this does not occur frequently. The edi-tors observed only looked back through the text a total of six times. In 12hours of work, this is not much. The work observed shows that revision isa linear process from the beginning of the text to the end. Professional edit-ing is thus different from revision as practiced in the context of professionalwriting, where it is part of a recursive process.

Furthermore, even for professionals, revision is not an automatic process.Often the editor must reflect to understand the meaning of a passage or rereadthe passage more than once. However, although it is not always possibleto perform detection and correction automatically, I believe that with expe-rience, certain aspects of the revision do become if not automatic at the veryleast second nature. At present, I have only partial answers to questionssuch as: Which operations are automatic from the start? Which onesbecome automatic with practice? and Which ones will always requirereflection and judgment? Further research will be required to delve deeperinto such automatic operations and how they develop, and into aspects thatnever become automatic simply because, by the very nature of revision,editors will always have to use their (best) judgment: “It seems unlikely thatthe activity of editing as a whole would ever become completely automaticeven in highly practiced individuals” (Hayes, 2004, p. 10).

The research I have directed concerning the revision process of profes-sional editors opens up new avenues for further research on professionalediting. Certain aspects must be validated, whereas others have yet to bediscovered. One avenue worth exploring, for example, is to observe theways in which word processing can be integrated into editing (e.g., is itabsent from the editing process? Does it constitute a major component oreven the main support of an editor’s work process?) (Bisaillon, 2007a,2007b). Research must also be performed in various contexts—such aspublishing houses, government offices, et cetera. Only then will we have aproper description of the realities of the profession in all their fullness andcomplexity.

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 319

Page 26: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

AppendixThe Professional Editor’s Revision Process: A Linear Model

Process Strategies Results

1. Readinga paragraph for

comprehensiona sentence for

evaluation purposes

2. Detection of a) Anticipation of aproblems potential problem Potential problem

b) Comparison betweenan item in the text andknowledge stored inmemory- certain knowledge Genuine problem- uncertain knowledge Potential problem- lack of knowledge Potential problem

3. Problem solving a) No strategyb) Immediate strategy Immediate solution

1. Rereading operation 1. No modification2. Reflection operation 2. Revision3. Immediate search 3. Rewriting

operationc) Postponed strategy Postponed solution

1. No solution2. Suggestion to author3. Tentative solution

4. Rereadinga paragraph to make

checksthe entire text to

make checks

Notes

1. This research project was made possible through a grant from the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC 2001-2004). Coresearchers on this projectwere G. Fortier and C. Préfontaine, both at the Université du Québec à Montréal; researchassistants were C. Laflamme and S. Leclerc.

2. In the article, when I use “we,” I refer to the team or researchers and assistant researchers,and “I,” to me only, the author.

320 Written Communication

Page 27: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

References

Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy L. (2001). General introduction. A definition of writing and a pre-sentation of the main models. In D. Alamargot & L. Chanquoy (Eds.), Through the modelsof writing (pp. 1-29). College Studies in Writing. Boston/Dordrecht, Netherlands/New York/London: Kluwer.

Allal, L., Chanquoy, L., & Largy, P. (Eds.). (2004). Revision. Cognitive and instructionalprocesses. Boston/Dordrecht, Netherlands/New York/London: Kluwer.

Bisaillon (2005). Réviser: Un travail qui s’apprend [Editing: A work we can learn].Unpublished manuscript, Université Laval at Québec, Canada.

Bisaillon, J. (2006, September). Towards editors profiles. Paper presented at the 10thInternational Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group on Writing (Sig-writing),University of Antwerp, Belgium.

Bisaillon, J. (2007a). Professional editing: Emphasis on the quality of a text and its commu-nicative effectiveness. In D. Alamargot, D. P. Terrier, & J.-M. Cellier (Eds.), Improving theproduction and understanding of written documents in the workplace (pp. 77-93). NewYork: Kluwer.

Bisaillon, J. (Ed.) (2007b). La révision professionnelle: Processus, stratégies et pratiques[Professional editing: Process, strategies, and practice]. Québec, Canada: Éditions Nota Bene.

Bisaillon, J., Fortier, G., & Préfontaine, C. (2003, January). Le processus de révision deréviseurs professionnels: Problématique et méthodologie [Editing process of professionaleditors: Problematics of revision, and research methodology]. Paper presented at Les sémi-naires du CIRAL, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.

Broekkamp, H., & van den Bergh, H. (1996). Attention strategies in revising a foreign languagetext. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Writing research: Theories,models and methodology (pp. 170-181). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Butterfield, E., Douglas, C., Hacker, J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitiveand metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. EducationalPsychological Review, 8(3), 239-297.

Eriksson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research in revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4),481-506.

Flower, L. S., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, Karen S., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diag-nosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16-55.

Fortier, G., & Préfontaine, C. (1994). Pauses et processus d’écriture [Pauses, and writingprocess]. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, XX(2), 209-226.

Gaunder, E. P. (1987). Revision using the word processor: Three case studies of experiencestudent writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Gufoni, V. (1996). Les protocoles verbaux comme méthode d’étude de la production écrite:Approche critique [Think aloud protocols to study written production: A critical review].Études de linguistique appliquée, 101, 20-32.

Hacker, D. J., Plumb, C., Butterfield, E. C., Quathamer, D., & Heineken, E. (1994). Text revi-sion: Detection and correction of errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 65-78.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. InC. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing. Theories, methods and indi-vidual differences and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bisaillon / Professional Editing Strategies 321

Page 28: Bisaillon, Jocelyne - Professional Editing Strategies Used by Six Editors

Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy, Revision.Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9-20). Boston: Kluwer.

Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. S., Schriver, K. S., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processesin revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writ-ing, and language processing (pp. 176-240). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Horning, A. (2002). Revision revisited. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Laflamme, C. (2007). L’autorévision et la révision professionnelle: Un regard sur les contextes

de production de l’activité révisionnelle [Self-editing and professional editing: A look atthe contexts of production in revision]. In J. Bisaillon (Ed.), La révision professionnelle:Processus, stratégies et pratiques. Québec City, Canada: Éditions Nota Bene.

Magee, J. M. (1995). Grace under pressure: A qualitative and quantitative case study of therevision process of a corporation president. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, IndianaUniversity of Pennsylvania.

Piolat, A., Roussey, J. R., Olive, T., & Amada M. (2004). Processing time and cognitive effort inrevision: Effects of error type and of working memory capacity. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, &P. Largy (Eds.), Revision. Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 21-38). Boston/Dordrecht,Netherlands/New York/London: Kluwer.

Préfontaine, C., & Fortier, G. (1997). Utilisation de la verbalisation dans des situations derecherche sur la production écrite [Verbalization in research studies of writing]. In J.-Y. Boyer& L. Savoie-Zajc, Didactique du français. Méthodes de recherche (pp. 219-228). Montréal:Les Éditions Logiques.

Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., & van den Bergh, H. (2004). The study of revision as a writing processand as a learning-to-write-process. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision.Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 189-207). Boston/Dordrecht, Netherlands/New York/London: Kluwer.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and reme-dial capabilities in children’s composing. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of writtenlanguage: Development of educational perspectives (pp. 67-95). London: Wiley.

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.).Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Jocelyne Bisaillon is a full professor at Université Laval in Québec City, Canada, whereshe teaches professional editing. As a researcher, for many years she devoted her work to thepractice and teaching of revision in the classroom. Her most recent article on this theme istitled “Effects of the Teaching of Revision Strategies in a Computer-Based Environment,” whichappeared in Writing in an Electronic Medium: Research With Language Learners (Houston,TX: Athelstan, 1999). Since that time, she has become interested in professional editing and,specifically, the editing process, about which she has written several soon-to-be-publishedtexts, including “Professional Editing” in Improving the Production and Understanding ofWritten Documents in the Workplace (New York: Kluwer, 2007). She also recently served aseditor of a book titled La révision professionnelle: Processus, stratégies et pratiques (Québec:Éditions Nota Bene, 2007).

322 Written Communication


Recommended