Book Review: Technical Editing: An Introduction to Editing in the Workplace by Cunningham,D.H.,Malone,E.A. & Rothschild,J.M.

Overview

“I believe that as we participate in the whirlwind evolution, we must remember where we came from” - Michelle Corbin (p. 1).

Organization

The most beneficial aspect of Technical Editing: An Introduction to Editing in the Workplace is the readability of the textbook. The contents are organized in a fashion which allows for easy access to topics/support. Each chapter begins with a brief overview and introductory framing and ends with expected learning objectives and example exercises. For those seeking quick answers to technical questions, the Table of Contents offers subsections which include common topics listed within each sub-section. For example, under “Chapter 17 Copyediting for Punctuation,” there are sub-titles such as “Uses of the Apostrophe” and “Uses of Brackets” for which there are various popular examples readily available such as “Reciprocal Pronoun” (under Uses of the Apostrophe) and “To Indicate an Obvious Error in a Quoted Passage” (under Uses of Brackets).

Chapters One through Three focus on the beginning stages of editing including a brief introduction to technical editing and tips for planning and preparedness. The authors take time to define key terms, such as understanding “technical” in technical communication as meaning specialized or practical, elaborating to make the claim that “communication is more likely to be technical if it occurs in the context of work rather than leisure activities” (p. 2). The chapters also provide insight into the shift from a majority of the economy being “based in manufacturing,” to a current economy based in “technology, knowledge, and information” (p. 1). In order to provide further insight, the authors include examples as support for their claims within each chapter. For example, when they write about the job responsibilities of a technical editor, the authors provide an example of a job description from 1959 versus 2018. This is particularly helpful for those interested in understanding the history of technical editing, as well as the generally accepted required skills, knowledge, training, and education.

Chapters Four through Eleven focus on types of editing: this includes editing for organization, navigation, completeness, accuracy, style, visuals, page design, and reuse. Readers can expect to learn about topics such as how to ensure content is organized including tips on how to identify, improve, and establish patterns of content organization. More importantly, the chapters in this section build on one another (though may still be assigned separately and not in consecutive order if you so choose), to create a thorough overview of ways to increase effectiveness in editing. Readers are able to put theory into practice by learning through examples, and then completing exercises intended to situate the reader in the position of a technical editor. Chapters Twelve through Seventeen focus on elements of copyediting, discussing principles and procedures, grammatical edits, and punctuation edits. From learning about navigation aids, appraising documents for completeness, evaluating stylistic choices, incorporating design principles for accessibility, and fact-checking documents, these chapters walk readers through the process of editing with attainable objectives and real-world applications.

Chapter Eighteen builds off the previous chapters to provide an important lesson for those interested in technical editing: the difference between proofreading and copyediting. Perhaps the most important part discussed throughout this range of chapters, besides the explicit and detailed levels of copyediting, is the “Focus on Ethics (12.1)” box on p. 286. This box details the shift in technical editing to “replace gender-specific with gender-neutral terms” (p. 286). The call by Cunningham, Malone, and Rothschild echoes the shift in technical editing to become more inclusive in editing styles (Amare et al., 2010; Lagon, 2000): this includes, as the authors note, editing for inclusivity unless the document calls for a target audience that is narrowly defined (p. 286). The authors also list resources to refer to when editing for inclusivity which urges copy editors to look for language in texts that may intentionally or unintentionally disparage readers on the basis of, “gender, race, age, marital status, ethnic or religious group, sexual orientation, physical attributes, health or disability status, or country of origin” (p. 286).

Throughout the chapters, the authors include ethical heuristics and professional experiences to help guide specific considerations for readers. The authors note the “diverse” primary and secondary audiences for this textbook as students preparing for technical communication careers, technical communicators, professionals in any field, and writers and managers (x). The authors also advise the audience to be “sensible and informed prescriptivist[s]” (p. 328) and refer to standard usage in American English differing “in spelling, word choice, and even grammar from standard usage in Canadian, Australian, South African, and New Zealand English, among others” (p. 293). Standard usages are defined as “the collective language habits of a population of speakers and writers” (p. 293). Considering this wide range of audiences, one critical component that is absent from the textbook are examples of usages outside of American English. Adding a diverse range of standard usages would ultimately help instructors address these issues in the classroom; assisting in the development of students becoming not just effective technical writers, but also effective in/aware of emerging issues in socio-cultural perspectives that have technical/practical implications. While the examples help explain the grammatical features being introduced, they also reflect a narrow lens outside of the privileged demographic. For example, the authors advise readers to correct phrases such as “Me and her responded to the call,” because “many people regard such grammatical errors as signs of low literacy” (p. 478). This example upholds the dominant narratives around low literacy learners and assumes readers understand exactly who “many people” are; this example could also be reimagined to reflect upon what it means to have “low literacy.” While Technical Editing acknowledges that it privileges American English, it could move toward being more inclusive of diverse languages by reflecting on the types of examples included in the text. Ultimately, examples matter just as much as the content we are writing. Technical editors have an obligation to social justice through not just recognizing but privileging non-standard dialects and usages. It is important to note that the authors acknowledge technical editors as those with “specialized knowledge and experience” that “make the information that readers or users seek easy for them to locate and understand” (ix). In doing so, despite the mention of inclusivity and ethical issues, the textbook continues to uphold standard American usage as the dominant grammatical structure, rather than inviting diverse standard usages.

This upholding of dominant narratives continues in Chapter Sixteen, where the authors discuss pronoun references. The classification system refers to singular personal pronouns as the following: “I, me, you, he, him, she, her, it”; while plural pronouns are referred to as “we, us, you, they, and them” (p. 418). The authors acknowledge that the practice of using masculine pronouns (he/him/his) as the common pronoun is “sexist” because it “assumes by default that the student is male rather than either female or male” (p. 423). Despite this acknowledgment, the authors continue to reiterate hegemonic language by upholding “female” and “male” as the only appropriate genders. In doing so, the textbook offers usage of “his or her” or “she or he” in replacement of plural pronouns such as “they,” when this is an inaccurate representation of the many bodies who identify as other than “she” or “he.” The authors also state that the, “use of they/them/their as a common singular pronoun is not a good solution to the problem of sexist language because it sacrifices accuracy in number for accuracy in gender” (p. 423). The singular pronoun, “they,” has been officially recognized by citation styles such as the Associated Press, Chicago Manual of Style, and American Psychological Association (Purdue Owl, 2020). Purdue Owl (2020) notes that “they” refers to individuals whose gender is neither male nor female, for example, nonbinary, gender non-conforming, and genderfluid individuals (though this list is not exhaustive). Future technical editing textbooks should acknowledge the wide-range of personal pronouns other than he/she in an effort to remain inclusive, which includes a guide to understanding the pronoun “they” as an accepted singular personal pronoun.

Usability

As a graduate student and current instructor, one of the unique features of this textbook that appealed to me were the set of exercises within each chapter. The exercises enable readers to practice their editing skills, solve editorial problems, and demonstrate understanding of key concepts. This feature is especially helpful as a means for formative assessment of student work and could also be utilized as practice assessment questions.

What is particularly useful is the structure of the textbook. Instructors and practitioners need not read through each chapter in consecutive order. This textbook is rather a practical resource for the classroom that allows for individual chapters to be assigned as instructors see fit. Perhaps instructors may be teaching a course involving a unit on Technical Editing, or a Document Design course. Assigning the chapters individually provides students/professionals with multiple takeaways:

Readers will be able to quickly browse through learning objectives to determine the intended takeaways of each chapter.

Broader Implications

More generally, the textbook does an exceptional job of stressing that a technical editor must comprehend the objectives and purposes of the organization in which they are editing for. Because technical editors must “understand the complexities of the rhetorical situation into which they are thrust,” it is refreshing to read throughout each chapter the examples of rhetorical situations regarding various technologies, ethical dilemmas, and so forth (ix). The authors briefly acknowledge important societal conversations by integrating boxed headlines within the chapters titled, “Focus on Technology,” “Focus on Ethics,” “Focus on Global Issues,” “Focus on History,” and so forth. In doing so, this textbook provides real-world implications for the topics covered in each chapter. For example, when the authors discuss the work environment and types of documents technical editors can expect to work with in Chapter One, they simultaneously offer a timeline explaining the chronology of technical editing (see p. 7), as well as specific ethical dilemmas that have occurred when technical editors either have not been alert for fraud and/or incompetence in documents or have partaken in “accidental collusion” (p. 14).

Overall, the inclusion of diverse voices from the field creates a more holistic view for students and professionals alike to read from quoted, relevant texts. Considering the future of technical editing requires an understanding of the past in technical editing: what have scholars written before; what information was valued and/or privileged; how has this changed; where are we headed within the field? Cunningham, Malone, and Rothschild cleverly integrate what could be a monotonous reading of history in an interactive way, providing insight through not just their rendition, but also those who have paved a foundation for the field (see Doebler, 1969; Koski & Mann, 1974; and Miller, 1990 as cited on p. 17).

The “On the Contrary” boxes dispersed throughout the textbook are intended to provide opposing viewpoints. This meta-analysis gives readers an opportunity to engage in rhetoric that seeks to provide insight that is a potential area of contention. For example, the authors include an example explaining a scenario where formal audience analysis is not helpful nor necessary in technical editing (p. 29). Of course, the pages leading up to this point have explored the rhetorical situation and have asked readers to consider audience in their documents: who are the primary and secondary audiences; what information do the audiences already have and still need/want about the subject; what expectations and preferences do the audiences already have for the document; and so on (p. 28). In this opposing scenario, readers are asked to contemplate what it means to write and edit without a formal audience analysis, which may be standard in some workplaces (p. 30).

One of the textbook's aims is to provide an up-to-date view of the field (x); however, the question of who is privileged in technical editing, which students are seeking these careers, and how the field may consider including historically excluded forms and styles of editing are vital to continue researching. It is also important to continue defining what the role is of a technical editor, even if the job description or title does not specifically state that you are one. Further discussion into the role of social justice in technical editing as the authors refer to on p. 33 is also needed within technical editing texts (see also Jones, 2016; Walton et al., 2019). In the discussion of social justice, Cunningham, Malone, and Rothschild briefly urge technical editors to be aware of documents that may be discriminatory, including “text and images that are either explicitly or implicitly racist, sexist, and ageist” (p. 33). In order to be an effective technical communicator, and in turn an effective technical editor, training needs to go beyond ethical considerations; the role implies “a responsibility, primarily for honesty in representation of information” (Bowdon, 2004, p. 326). This representation has to include an awareness of the ways in which documents are considered bias as well as how, “wealth, privilege, and status” (p. 33) and the possible reaffirming of social, political, and economic discrimination may be “alienating” and impacting a primary or secondary audience (Katz, 1992; Miller, 1979). As the field, and description, of technical editors grows and changes, consideration of the documents we help to write and edit, as well as the ethical and legal issues that must be considered (see also Hannah, 2010) must be researched further. Overall, the textbook aims and succeeds in assisting students and professionals who are looking to brush-up on their skills with learning how to edit documents effectively.