Institute of Professional Editors Limited

Background

The Council of Australian Societies of Editors (CASE) established the Accreditation Working Group (AWG) in December 2001 to set out why accreditation for editors is being investigated, research how other organisations and professions handle accreditation, develop the principles that should underlie any accreditation scheme and establish possible models for accreditation to be put to members.

After some initial research the AWG developed an Issues Paper, which was circulated to all societies of editors and industry stakeholders in mid-2002.¹ The AWG used the resulting feedback to prepare a Draft Report, presenting two options for an accreditation scheme, which was circulated in mid-2003.² Again, members and others responded with much thoughtful comment and criticism, which the AWG has used in preparing this final report.

How this proposal differs from the Draft Report

The feedback on the Draft Report raised several main concerns:

• Many respondents felt that all applicants should submit a portfolio, i.e. evidence of their editing work.
• The proposed points system - in particular the allocation of points for various
  formal qualifications - was shown to be flawed.

• The assessors' workload appeared excessive and lacking in reward.
• There was a need for more safeguards concerning the assessors' objectivity and possible conflicts of interest.

The AWG has redrafted Option 1 from the Draft Report to take account of these and other concerns. The major changes are to the application and assessment process; the proposals concerning administration of the scheme are substantially the same as in the Draft Report.

Although some of the feedback expressed a preference for Option 2, accreditation by examination, there were no suggestions on how to overcome the practical objections to an examination that were listed in the Draft Report. Moreover, the revised proposal

¹ ‘Accreditation Issues Paper', CASE Working Group on Accreditation, June 2002; see www.caseeditors.org.

  ‘Accreditation Draft Report', CASE Working Group on Accreditation, June 2003; see www.caseeditors.org.

responds to many of the concerns of those who favoured an examination. For these reasons, the AWG has not pursued that possibility.

The aim of the revised scheme is to accredit editors who satisfy an assessment panel that they possess the knowledge and skills set out in each of the five Standards contained in the Australian Standards for Editing Practice.³ It is not in the interests of the profession to make the achievement of accreditation either absurdly easy or impossibly hard. The expectation is that most working editors will be able to satisfy the requirements.

The scheme as proposed places the editing profession itself in control of accreditation. It gives applicants the opportunity to demonstrate how their particular background, experience and editing practice satisfy the Standards. The AWG believes that the proposal meets the demanding criteria listed in the Issues Paper, being fair, transparent, appropriate, inclusive, consistent, flexible, acceptable, practical, sustainable and accountable, and recognising the education and training available in editing in Australia and elsewhere.

In the revised proposal, several changes make the accreditation scheme more objective and more consistent. First, evaluation is based entirely on the Standards, the industry benchmark for editorial knowledge. Because the Standards are reviewed periodically, the accreditation scheme will remain up to date in the knowledge it requires. Second, applications are evaluated by a panel of assessors rather than one assessor acting alone. The introduction of a panel reduces the assessors' workload; the responsibility for decisions is shared and the task of assessment becomes collegial. Third, because any accredited editor is eligible to be an assessor, the revised scheme avoids the appearance of being run by an exclusive group.

PROPOSED ACCREDITATION SCHEME

▼

Because this scheme is set up by CASE on behalf of the eight Australian societies of editors, only full members of the societies, as defined in their respective constitutions, are eligible for accreditation.

Application

The application is in three parts - a completed form, a portfolio of evidence and an explanatory statement - as described below.

Applicants may demonstrate that they meet the Standards in many ways. The assessors will look for evidence that the applicant possesses the appropriate transferable knowledge and skills to match the criteria explicit and implicit in the Standards. The onus is on the applicant to make the case.

In the application, the applicant is expected to demonstrate editorial skills: the assessors will consider the organisation and language of the application as evidence of the applicant's ability to present information clearly to a target audience. Some of the evidence may apply to more than one Standard: brevity is a virtue and cross-referencing is encouraged.

³ CASE, 2001.

Applicants will be required to submit with their application a signed and witnessed statement that the information they provide in their application is accurate and that the work they have submitted as evidence is their own. Professional confidentiality and the requirements of privacy legislation will be observed when collecting, using and storing material and information supplied by applicants.

Part A

Part A is a form on which the applicant lists membership of a society of editors, qualifications and employment, representative projects and other professional details, including referees, as in Appendix 1.

This information provides background for the assessors in deciding which parts of the Standards are relevant to the applicant's work. For instance, an applicant who works only in print would not be expected to satisfy Standard E1.3, the need to test screen-based publications; an applicant who has never taken a managerial role would not have to satisfy Standard B1.5, how to find and engage the members of the publishing team (see also ‘Assessment' below).

Part B

Part B consists of evidence that the applicant complies with the Standards, in the form of successive stages of a project or projects, correspondence, project documentation etc., as in Appendix 2.

• The emphasis in evaluating the evidence will be on whether the applicant has understood the editorial problems of the project and proposed workable solutions within the constraints of the project.
• An editorial suggestion that has been rejected may be evidence of compliance with a particular Standard; for instance, advice to an author or publisher to include an index would demonstrate compliance with Standard E1.1(c), whether or not the author or publisher followed the advice.
• The assessors will give due weight to experience. Senior editors who have taken on a management role will not be disadvantaged by the lack of recent hands-on editing experience.
• Supervision of other editors undertaking specific tasks may be evidence of
  compliance with a particular Standard.

• For substantial projects, representative samples of the work will be acceptable.

Part C

Part C is a statement explaining how the evidence in Part B demonstrates compliance with each Standard, so that the claim can be assessed in relation to the work provided. The AWG envisages a statement of no more than 1000 words. It should identify any constraints that applied to the project(s), such as a tight schedule, a small budget or a limited editorial brief. It should be detailed, identifying examples of compliance with a particular Standard by means of a reference such as a page number in the appropriate document.

Assessment

The assessors will evaluate the evidence against each of the five Standards in three grades: does not meet the Standard, meets the Standard, exceeds the Standard. To gain accreditation, applicants must demonstrate that they satisfy each section of each Standard, but in assessing compliance with particular subsections assessors will be guided by their understanding of the nature of the applicant's work, as set out in Part A of the application.

Assessment panel

The AWG envisages that the Accreditation Board (described below) will establish a pool of accredited editors who have agreed to act as assessors. Assessment of individual applications will be carried out by a representative panel of three to five members drawn from this pool.

Among them the panel members will represent more than one state or territory and will have a range of skills, including accreditation at the level of ‘exceeds the Standard' on all five Standards and educational qualifications relevant to the assessment task. Where specialist skills are needed for a particular genre or medium, the panel will seek them among the pool of accredited editors who have agreed to serve as assessors.

Before the panel meets, one assessor will make a preliminary evaluation of each application. At the meeting assessors will speak to the applications, and the panel will discuss and moderate borderline cases. Each panel member will be paid a sitting fee to cover preparatory work and attendance at the meeting.

The letter informing successful applicants that they have gained accreditation will invite them to indicate their willingness to serve on an assessment panel.

To minimise costs the timing and location of panel meetings will be coordinated with events such as CASE conferences. The AWG envisages that, after the establishment phase, the panel will meet twice a year. The panel meetings, besides providing a solid basis for assessing applications, will create collegiality that will ease the assessors' load and contribute to the cohesion of the profession.

In the establishment phase of the scheme, the Accreditation Board, in consultation with each state and territory society, will set up an interim pool of assessors comprising distinguished editors acceptable to their peers. After this initial phase, any accredited editor will be eligible to be appointed as an assessor. The aim is to ensure that the profession as a whole regulates itself, and that accreditation is not controlled by a small and possibly unrepresentative group.

Assessors' conflicts of interest

Perceived conflicts of interest may arise where, for instance, an assessor knows an applicant personally or shares clients with an applicant. In the case of a perceived conflict of interest, panel members will exclude themselves. The Accreditation Board will direct an assessor's exclusion from consideration of a particular application if it becomes aware of a conflict of interest.

Fees and funding

The AWG envisages that the application fee (covering five years' accreditation; see ‘Duration and renewal' below) will be approximately $250 to cover the cost of administering the accreditation scheme. See the indicative budget in Appendix 3.

The Accreditation Board will determine whether any amount will be refunded to unsuccessful applicants, and the fee for renewal of accreditation.

Complaints

The granting of accreditation confirms only that the applicant has demonstrated the ability to meet the Standards; it does not guarantee the applicant's level of performance on any future projects. The scheme will be accompanied by a disclaimer to this effect, and no complaints will be accepted concerning allegedly unsatisfactory work by an accredited editor.

Appeals

Notice of rejection of an application will be accompanied by a statement explaining in what ways the applicant did not meet the Standards. An applicant who is not granted accreditation may submit a new application after six months.

Where an application falls just short of meeting the Standards, the assessors will explain what is needed and the applicant will have the opportunity to remedy minor deficiencies or provide more supporting material within a specified time.

Where an applicant who does not gain accreditation appeals against the decision, CASE will take all reasonable steps to resolve the appeal quickly and to the satisfaction of all parties. Appeals will be conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, treating all parties reasonably and fairly. The Accreditation Board will draw up guidelines for timely resolution of appeals.

In the first instance the appeal will be discussed informally between the applicant and the assessment panel, with a focus on conciliation. If the panel cannot resolve the dispute within a specified time, the applicant may appeal to the Accreditation Board. The board will then attempt to resolve the dispute with the applicant, drawing as necessary on additional expertise.

If the Accreditation Board cannot resolve the dispute within a specified time, the applicant may appeal to CASE. CASE will then convene an appeal panel, comprising senior editors and a person who is not a working editor, such as a senior publisher, a mediator or a person with experience in dispute resolution. The appeal panel will make a recommendation to CASE, and CASE's decision will be final.

Accreditation Board

Each state or territory society of editors will nominate one person (as well as an alternate member, if the society wishes) to serve on the national Accreditation Board. The membership of the board will also include a representative of CASE and a representative of the assessors. The usual term of board members will be three years, except that half the positions on the first Accreditation Board will be for two years to ensure that there are always experienced members on the board.

The role of the Accreditation Board will be to set up and administer the scheme, grant accreditation (taking into account recommendations from the assessment panels), resolve appeals, and refer unresolved appeals to CASE. It will usually convene by email and will appoint an accreditation secretariat to take charge of the day-to-day running of the scheme. The board will determine the secretariat's duties and remuneration.

The Accreditation Board will appoint assessors, maintaining a pool that collectively possesses all necessary skills, and direct the assessment panels to meet as needed. After an assessment panel has met, it will make recommendations to the board for granting accreditation. The board will also maintain detailed records of the scheme and a list of accredited editors. It will report annually to CASE.

To set up the scheme, initial tasks of the Accreditation Board will include:

• working out how to work: setting up administrative procedures, financial
  management and measures to ensure professional confidentiality

• writing a brief for the accreditation secretariat, calling for tenders, and selecting and appointing the successful applicant
• developing documentation for the accreditation process, and publishing
  instructions and guidelines for assessors and applicants

• establishing shared understandings among assessors of what constitutes
  competence according to the Standards

• making arrangements for training of assessors, where necessary
• considering approved postnominal initials to mark accredited status
• calling for applications for accreditation.

As time goes on, the Accreditation Board will develop established precedents to cover specific circumstances.

Duration and renewal

Accreditation will be for five years, and the fee will be determined by the Accreditation Board to cover the costs of the scheme. (See indicative budget in Appendix 3.)

To renew their accreditation, applicants must submit evidence of continuing engagement in editing, professional development and/or participation in the profession. This could include the titles of publications edited, attendance at courses and conferences, authorship of newsletter articles, participation in e-lists on language and other editorial topics, and service on the committee of a society of editors.

Recommendations to CASE

_• That CASE seek a decision by the members of the societies of editors on the accreditation scheme proposed in this report, supplying each member with a copy.

If the members approve the scheme:

• That CASE organise its affairs so that it has the legal capacity to administer the accreditation scheme.
• That CASE devise consistent national criteria for society membership and, after full consultation, ask all societies to incorporate them in their constitutions.
• That CASE set up an Accreditation Board to administer the accreditation scheme as detailed in this report.
• That CASE, through a website and other means, promote the accreditation scheme to editors, the public and potential clients, informing them about the operation of the scheme and its value to the industry.
• That CASE establish a process for handling possible appeals against denial of
  accreditation.

• That CASE review the accreditation scheme after five years' operation.

Appendix 1: Application, Part A

This preliminary statement shows the nature of the applicant's editing practice. The information provided may be verified.

Name:

Contact details:

Current membership of an Australian society of editors:

Qualifications: list both specialist editing qualifications and other. Provide original academic record or certified copy.

Employment and experience: state length and nature of experience, areas of work (freelance, in-house, supervisory role), any specialties in subject, genre or medium.

Representative projects: list not more than ten, briefly describing your role in each.

Selected achievements: for example, papers presented at conferences, courses developed and presented, awards or prizes for editing, service on the committee of a society of editors.

Professional development: list short courses undertaken in editing or in specialist subject, genre or medium, participation in e-lists, etc.

Referees: Two.

Appendix 2: Application, Part B

Applicants may supply evidence from one or more projects in order to provide a representative picture of their work. The AWG envisages that the evidence will consist of correspondence (including email), project documentation, samples of edited manuscript on paper or in electronic form, samples of corrected proofs and so on, as listed in the table below. The list is not exhaustive. Applicants are invited to supply whatever evidence they think is appropriate, and explain its relevance to the Standards in Part C of their application. As already said, brevity is a virtue and cross-referencing is encouraged. The Accreditation Board may set a maximum for the total amount of evidence, which the AWG expects should not exceed 100 pages.

Australian Standards for Editing Practice may be downloaded from the CASE website, www.case-editors.org, and is also available as a booklet from state and territory societies of editors.

Appendix 3: Indicative Budget

This budget is based on assumptions that the AWG thinks are reasonable. Obviously members want to minimise costs, but over-reliance on volunteer labour could jeopardise the scheme. This budget is indicative, demonstrating that the scheme is feasible; it is not intended to bind the Accreditation Board or CASE.⁴

Establishment year _________________________________________

Expenditure projected:

CASE development and promotion of scheme $ 6,000 (tele conferences, board meeting, promo material, etc.) Secretary or secretariat 16,000 (based on $40,000 p.a. 2 days p.w.) On-costs (18% of salary) 2,880 Office/postage/handling 5,000  (based on 200 x $20 + ph. & consumables) Assessors' sitting fees ($500 x 3 x 3 p.a.) 4,500 Air fares/accommodation (3 x $450 x 3) 4,050

TOTAL $38,430

Year 2 ____________________________________________________

Income projected:

50 applications x $250 $12,500 (Projected carryover from establishment year) 26,570

TOTAL $39,070

Expenditure projected:

CASE board meetings, etc. $ 2,000 Secretary or secretariat 12,000

(based on $40,000 p.a. 1.5 days p.w.) On-costs (18% of salary) 2,160 Office/postage/handling

  (based on 50 x $20 + ph. & consumables) 2,000 Assessors' sitting fees ($500 x 3 x 2 p.a.) 3,000 Air fares/accommodation (3 x $450 x 2) 2,700

TOTAL $23,860

  The AWG is pursuing avenues for funding to reduce the financial burden of establishing an accreditation scheme for members. Discussions are in progress with the Literature Board of the Australia Council, as well as state and territory arts bodies, publishing industry organisations and client groups.

Year 3 _____________________________________________________

On these figures the scheme is financially viable until the end of the fourth year. By that time it will be necessary to review the costs before renewals are offered and the scheme continues with whatever cost adjustments are necessary.

CASE Accreditation Working Group, 2001-2004

Janet Mackenzie, convenor (Victoria)
Maureen Wright, Ed Highley, Janet Salisbury (Canberra)
Pamela Hewitt, Deborah Edwards (New South Wales)
Gail Warman (Northern Territory)
Jennifer Wright, Robert Byrnes (Queensland)
Gina Inverarity, Rosemary Luke (South Australia)
Sheila Allison (Tasmania)
Betty Durston (Western Australia)