Shannon Wilkins, PhD
By the time you have gotten to an editor, you have already overcome many challenges to achieving a complete draft. As a solitary writer, the potential obstacles are many—procrastination, technological problems, difficulty with the actual analysis of data, and so on. If solitary writers encounter problems in the process, coauthors, perhaps, witness a host of others in addition. Collaborative writing can be a contentious process, plagued with the politics of professional seniority, shifting priorities, disparate interpretations of data, and more. Beyond these problems, the resulting text can seem disjointed. One benefit of turning to an editor to unify the authors’ voices is that, as someone who is not a named author, the editor can provide impartial feedback because the editor is interested only in a clearly communicated document, not ownership of ideas.
Many professionals are expected to produce written work in collaboration with others. Federal grant proposals often require that multiple agencies collaborate. Thus, the proposals are written with the involvement of more than one party. Professors and academic researchers are frequently expected to work with others on their research. Whereas many working in the humanities pursue individual research agendas, others in the academy depend on the resources that come only with the input of others. Still, many humanities professors collaborate in their research. Although the reader can look at the byline to detect that a piece of writing is the result of joint effort, the reader still expects that the text will look like a unified body and that it will read with one voice.
Formatting is the easiest component of a document to align. If authors have not agreed upon the formatting to be used in the document, the text that goes to the editor might be a collection of myriad font types and sizes. The citation style might not be consistent throughout. These are very simple facets for an editor to change, but if the authors are interested in reducing the editing time, they might agree upon these details before they embark on the next collaborative writing project.
When I edit a document that has been collaboratively written, I look for varying degrees of emotional expression in the text. Rightfully, professional writers should be devoted to their work and the evidence of that work that is exemplified in their writing. However, overt emotional appeals have no place in reports, article manuscripts, and scholarly books. For instance, instead of stating that a policy is “shameful,” show the data that support this position instead. If a change in public policy has led to food restrictions for the elderly, show data on food access before the change and food access after the change. Make a statement about the effect this has had without an emotive adjective like “shameful.” The text of collaboratively written documents sometimes swings from a quite moderate stance to a very passionate one. The reader would be uncomfortable in this kind of pendulum swing. It is best to edit the document in favor of the more moderate position.
Also, because of the politics sometimes inherent in collaborative writing, one author’s position or program might carry more weight in the text. With the goal of the document in mind, the editor can ask questions about the balance of ideas in the document. This gets the junior writer off the hook for questioning the domination of certain ideas over others.
When I edit a document, I look for the grammar and spelling inconsistencies that all editors seek. However, I am also very sensitive to voice, ensuring that it is consistent throughout. For the writer who writes in collaboration with others, maintaining one voice is one of the hardest parts of the writing endeavor. Templates exist to help writers to get the right structure. Coauthors work together to be sure that they have the right content. An editor can help to convey the right voice.
About the Author
Shannon Wilkins – PhD in Professional Writing (medical communication emphasis); Social Sciences, Engineering, Humanities
Shannon’s editing services focus on business writing, government documents, and academic writing.
Before focusing her energies on a freelance editing career, Shannon was a staff editor at Mayo Clinic, which has the largest in-house editorial service at a medical institution. In this role, she edited whatever manuscript came down the pike, whether it was about cardiology or dermatology. Such demands required her to be nimble in her approach to editing and to have a firm grasp of the medical resources necessary to assist authors in creating credible, cohesive documents.
After going through the process of working with her own thesis and dissertation committees, Shannon can anticipate many of the questions that advisors might have about the claims made in a dissertation. With Shannon, you get an editor who knows the demands of APA style but who also knows the expectations of the academic community. Academic writers rarely need only style consultation. Her editing complements the scholarly work that writers have done to position them as credible sources within their fields.