As I went through the instructional materials for Modules 1 and 2, I encountered many new ideas which surprised, delighted, and disappointed me.
Schemes for Categorizing Levels of Edit
I was both surprised and disappointed when I read about the variety of conflicting schemes for categorizing the levels of edit. I expected the levels of edit to be standard across the industry. The lack of consistency in titles for different levels of edit makes it difficult to understand the specific level being referred to.
While I thought there would be one standard scheme for level edits, thinking deeper, I can see why they vary between organizations. Different organizations create schemes that work for their individual needs. These organizations have little incentive to standardize with each other. This is still disappointing because it makes communicating about levels of edit difficult.
Revising for Paragraph Unity and Cohesion
The guidelines in Revising Professional Writing for revising paragraph unity and cohesion pleasantly surprised me. I thought of these concepts as too vague to codify in any sort of detail. It delighted me to read about concrete methods to improve these aspects of a text. One could improve any text by making sure that paragraphs start with a controlling idea and grouping details into units that support that idea. While less universally applicable, the AB:BC and AB:AC informational pattern consistently presents information clearly. I found these guidelines to be delightfully clear and applicable.
Technical Editing as Quality Assurance
The framing of technical editing as a form of QA presented in Corbin et al (2002) and Dr. Kim’s video lecture delighted me. I deeply understand the importance of QA because my mother has worked as a quality engineer for most of my life. The connection between QA and technical editing deepened my appreciation for the value of editing. I hadn’t previously made this connection in my mind.
The idea of technical editing as quality assurance was most meaningful to my career goals. Based on Dr. Kim’s Module 2 video lecture, I think justifying the value of editing will be important to my career goals. The value of editing, and especially structural editing, can seem abstract. In contrast, the value of QA is easy to quantify. Framing technical editing as a form of QA makes it easier to explain its value.
The idea of technical editing as a form of QA also makes its process and purpose easier for me to understand. This framework clarifies the broader purposes of editing beyond copyediting. Technical editing and substantive editing ensure that products meet design goals. These design goals obviously extend beyond mechanical accuracy. Technical editing ensures that the text meets all quality standards, including content and organization. Viewing technical editing as QA clarified its importance in my career goals and industry.
Connections and Conclusion
The instructional material’s emphasis on revising for paragraph unity and cohesion, and its inclusion of the concept of technical editing as a form of QA, pleasantly surprised me. In contrast, reading about conflicting schemes for the levels of edit negatively surprised me.
The idea of technical editing as a form of QA was most meaningful to my career goals. This idea helped me understand the value and purpose of technical editing.
Overall, I was surprised and delighted when I found more information than I expected, but disappointed when I found labels conflicted between sources.