1

Author: Mohr, Petra M. Title: Feminist Practices in Editing: A Case Study of the Feminist Teacher

Collective

The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial

completion of the requirements for the

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Technical and Professional Communication

Research Adviser: Glenda Jones, Ph.D.

Submission Term/Year: Spring, 2012

Number of Pages: 41

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website

I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office.

My research adviser has approved the content and quality of this paper. STUDENT:

NAME Petra M. Mohr DATE: 3/13/2012

ADVISER: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem):

NAME Glenda Jones DATE: 3/13/2012

This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your adviser who is listed in the section above) 1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

3. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.

Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:

2

Mohr, Petra M. Feminist Practices in Editing: A Case Study of the Feminist Teacher

Collective

Abstract

For academics, publishing and editing texts is part of the profession; however, getting published

is not necessarily a simple and straightforward process. Indeed, the amount of existing literature

on editing and peer review suggests that many factors can influence editors’ and peer reviewers’

decisions on a given manuscript. Many academic publications use review processes that do not

foster communication between authors and editors and can even lead to the problem of

gatekeeping. In an effort to seek alternative practices to mainstream academic publishing, I

examined the editorial practices of Feminist Teacher. Results of personal interviews with

members of the Feminist Teacher Collective show that Collective members use feminist

practices in their editing of the Journal. Built on an ethics of care, pedagogy, communication,

and dialogue, the editorial practices of Feminist Teacher may offer a useful and empowering

alternative to the problematic practices of many other academic publications.

3

Acknowledgements

I owe my deepest thanks to KDM for taking on the “second shift” without hesitating and

to JEM for her spirit and creativity. In addition, I wish to express my gratitude to Gail Cohee and

Theresa Kemp for sharing their experiences of the Feminist Teacher Collective. I am indebted to

Theresa Kemp in particular for her unwavering support and gentle encouragement over the past

years. Lastly, my project would not have been possible without the guidance and efforts of

Glenda Jones; I could not have wished for a better advisor.

4

Table of Contents

....................................................................................................................................................Page

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

My Position as Feminist Researcher ................................................................................... 5

Methodology: Personal Interviews ..................................................................................... 7

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 8

The Publishing Context....................................................................................................... 8

Feminism and Publishing .................................................................................................... 9

Editors and Peer Reviewers as Gatekeepers ..................................................................... 11

Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 13

Editors and editing ................................................................................................ 13

Peer reviewers and peer review ............................................................................ 16

Feminist Teacher .......................................................................................................................... 20

Introduction and History ................................................................................................... 20

The Collective ................................................................................................................... 22

Feminist Practices in Editing ............................................................................................ 24

Ethics of care......................................................................................................... 24

Pedagogy ............................................................................................................... 26

Communication and dialogue. .............................................................................. 28

Challenges for Feminist Teacher ...................................................................................... 31

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 34

References ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A: Interview Questions for the Feminist Teacher (FT) Collective .............................. 41

5

Introduction

Believe it or not, the 1950s’ slogan “publish or perish” still rings true for most academics

in the United States. In fact, research and publication are considered key functions of academics

across institutions of higher education (Mwamwenda, 1994), so it is not surprising that most

researchers spend a significant part of their careers as writers. Furthermore, not only does an

academic’s own work get scrutinized and judged in an attempt to publish, but academics

frequently edit and review the writings of others as well. An ad hoc survey of scholars would

thus probably produce an array of responses in regard to what the editor-author relationship is

like. In existing literature on editing, for example, the editor-author relationship is all too often

characterized as adversarial and filled with tension (see Eaton, Brewer, Portweg, & Davidson,

2008; Grove, 1990). Although the context of editing in academic publishing varies greatly

between publications and disciplines, the work between editors and authors can be

transformative for the text, empowering for the author, and pedagogical for both.

My Position as Feminist Researcher

The first time I discovered my interest in the intersection of feminism and editing was

when I enrolled as a graduate student in a course titled “Editing Feminist Teacher Journal

Practicum.” As someone whose first language is German not English, I have always felt drawn

to the security of grammar rules, academic writing conventions, and style manuals, so my actual

passion and also need for proofreading probably stems from my experiences as a bilingual

student studying in the United States. My feminist view of life and the world at large on the other

hand did not manifest itself clearly until half-way through my undergraduate studies when I took

an introductory women’s studies class. Suddenly, I had words and theories to explain my

experiences as a woman, mother, sister, student, and so on; unsurprisingly, a minor in women’s

studies and four years later, I continue to view my life and scholarship through a feminist lens. In

6

other words, feminist theories and philosophies inform how I perceive and respond to the world

at large, including my interactions with others and my view of self. Through a feminist lens, I

can critically examine issues such as power, privilege, sexism, racism, heteronormativity, and

equality in a variety of contexts.

What really matters at this point though is that the seeds for the project you are about to

read were planted at the beginning of my graduate studies. Namely, the editing of accepted

manuscripts for publication in Feminist Teacher had a twofold effect on me. For one, I began to

develop an awareness of the intricate relationships between author, editor, and text. Barratt

(1993) emphasizes the figurative knapsacks editors bring to the table when she writes, “editing is

not an exercise in humility nor is it ever mindless: it is always inevitably informed by the

attitudes, assumptions, and preconceptions of the editor and his or her society” (p. 48). Secondly,

viewing my work through a feminist lens, I began to critically question my editing practices.

Most of all, I started to consider what implications my actions would have on the text and the

author’s voice. Was I suggesting a change or a revision because it would truly make it clearer to

the audience, or was I—albeit unconsciously—trying to make the text my own?1

Based on my experiences as a student during the course and later as the graduate intern

for the Feminist Teacher Collective, I decided to investigate the editorial practices of Feminist

Teacher. More specifically, I wondered if the practices of Feminist Teacher editors could be

defined as “feminist editing,” as different from other types of editing, and whether the

Collective’s editing approach could be a useful and empowering alternative to the problematic

practices of many other academic publications.

1 The types of changes and revisions I am referring to are beyond the simplicity of descriptive grammar rules and spelling conventions. However, this does not mean I am not aware of the feminist issues surrounding the privileging of standard English in academic writing; as hooks (1994) reminds us, “standard English is not the speech of exile . . . it is the language of conquest and domination” (p. 168), but assessing the implications of standard English as one of the “master’s tools” is beyond the scope of this project.

7

Methodology: Personal Interviews

The nature of this project invites a qualitative research approach. Instead of attempting to

measure editorial practices on a large scale, the personal interviews conducted for this project

lend themselves to the overarching project objective: investigating and describing alternative

editing practices in academic publishing. This is not to say that potential follow-up studies

should not consider a large-scale quantitative approach to investigate the editor-author

relationship and feminist practices in editing on a bigger scale and across disciplines. Rather than

following a quantitative approach and focusing my research on testing a theory or hypothesis,

this qualitative project utilizes the inductive model of thinking as discussed by Creswell (1994)

and begins by “gathering detailed information . . . or themes until a theory or pattern emerges”

(p. 95). Most importantly though, in the case of qualitative research design, the

Researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. Data are meditated

through this human instrument, rather than through inventories, questionnaires, or

machines. . . . Qualitative researchers are concerned primarily with process, rather than

outcomes or products . . . and are interested in meaning—how people make sense of their

lives, experiences, and their structures of the world. . . . Qualitative research is descriptive

in that the researcher is interested in process, meaning, and understanding gained through

words or pictures. (Creswell, 1994, p. 145)

Thus, the methodology utilized in this project is framed by the assumption that narrative inquiry,

including personal interviews, is a way to understand experience (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).

The questions asked during the qualitative interview were designed by combining aspects of the

general interview approach and the standardized, open-ended approach (see Kvale, 1996; Kvale

& Brinkmann, 2008). This means participants were asked the same, predetermined questions

(see Appendix A) while maintaining a certain degree of freedom and flexibility during the

8

interview in order to ask follow-up questions.

Background

The Publishing Context

Publishing one’s research is a central part of professional academic life. On some level, it

is the publication of results that seems to bring forth the legitimization of ideas and findings, and

the transition from private to public knowledge includes a shift from what could be perceived as

personal opinion to something closer to “truth” (Spender, 1981). Without delving into a

discussion on objectivity, the production of knowledge, and the privileging of the printed word at

this point, one obviously cannot deny the significance of academic publishing for the scholarly

community. Moreover, publication also serves the academic community at large by adding

theories and discoveries to the public discourse and by holding researchers accountable to their

data and ideas (Curzan & Queen, 2006). It is not surprising then that numerous texts have been

written on the academic publishing and review processes, illustrating an acute interest in

investigating how texts are selected and whether existing methods such as peer review help

identify qualitative-sound research (see Mulligan, 2008; Bucholtz, 2010).

Similar to the mainstream publishing industry, academic publishing includes different

types of publications (e.g., books and journals), resulting in different review and production

approaches. Because academic journals make up a large section of academic publishing and are

often first venues of interest to both junior and senior researchers, examining this type of

publication offers a good starting point. While some features discussed in this section may be

specific to academic journals, others may also be relevant in relation to publications such as

textbooks, anthologies, or edited volumes.

Academic journals are typically the first site of interest for scholars who wish to

disseminate their findings. Although publication standards and expectations vary greatly across

9

disciplines and individual publications, many journals exhibit similar strategies in their review

and editing approaches. Indeed, submissions are frequently first assessed by an editor and then

reviewed by a panel of experts, the so-called peer reviewers, making both editors and peer

reviewers central and often initial characters encountered by scholars during their quest to

publish their research findings. However, what constitutes the job of editor or peer reviewer is

not necessarily clear-cut and obvious, so definitions of editor and peer reviewer can differ across

the board. Consequently, I begin by addressing some keywords for the purpose of this essay.

Feminism and Publishing

The intersection of feminism and publishing is not necessarily new. Feminism itself, in

its broadest sense, denotes a particular way of thinking and living, a figurative lens through

which one can make sense of the world and examine one’s place in it. hooks (2000) is more

specific when she defines feminism as a “movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and

oppression” (viii). In reality, however, feminism’s very own nature refuses to be stuffed into a

clear-cut category, so most feminists agree that feminism is difficult to define. In fact, feminism

has meant different things at different historical times to different people, and Tong (2009) draws

attention to this condition by identifying the varying feminist ways of thinking and theorizing as

“interdisciplinary, intersectional, and interlocking” (p.1).

Feminism is both a collection of theories and a philosophy of life. It incorporates

interdisciplinary academic discourses and social activism. It requires one to examine one’s own

privileges, to recognize and challenge all forms of oppression, and to embrace differences, even

contradictions. Feminism is about making space for the in-between of the either-or binary; it

seeks to give a voice to those individuals and social groups that have been living at the margin of

social consciousness for far too long. Feminism is at once political, personal, and transformative.

For the purpose of my project, feminism should thus be understood as a particular way of

10

knowing and thinking that is governed by feminist consciousness and subsequently guides one’s

decisions and actions.

The publishing industry, with its direct connection to the economy, education, and

culture, has often been just another patriarchal system of oppression for women and other

members of marginalized groups. Responding to mainstream cultural demands and upholding

social conventions, mass market publishers have in the past often hesitated, or even outright

rejected, texts and ideas that threatened to challenge the status quo and would not resonate well

with customers. Virginia Woolf, for example, felt rather limited by the traditional conventions of

commercial publishers that were not willing to take on her experimental writings and started her

own press in 1917 (Whitworth, 2010). With the founding of the Hogarth Press, Woolf entered a

new phase that gave her the freedom to do what she liked without having to deal with editors and

publishers (Whitworth, 2010). Building on the experiences of authors such as Woolf, women of

the 1960s and 1970s began to openly question the workings of the mainstream publishing

industry. Calling for the end of sex discrimination and equal rights, Second Wave feminists

started to investigate the publishing industry from a feminist perspective, unveiling layers of

sexism throughout many mainstream and academic publications (Steuben, 2007; see also, for

example, Feinberg & Vaughn, 1976; West, 1985). Thanks to authors such as Margret Atwood,

the status and treatment of women writers in the literary world have been brought to the

foreground. Atwood (1995) herself recalls ample instances in which she was told to write in a

way that would transcend her gender. Similarly, in a very informal survey of literary reviews,

Atwood (1985) and her students found sexual bias in reviewing; women writers were praised by

reviewers for “writing like a man,” but criticized for their “overemotionalism,” “solipsism,” or

called “a housewife” (pp. 151-152).

Indeed, an honest assessment of both implicit and explicit forms of discrimination within

11

the publishing industry has led to substantial growth of alternative, feminist presses. Yet,

growing numbers of feminist publishers and a heightened sensitivity to anti-feminist notions

within the publishing industry should not be mistaken for a successful overhaul of the publishing

complex. This is particularly true for the field of academic publishing where commercial success

may not be of primary concern but research and prestige (Ginsberg & Lennox, 1996). What is

pivotal about academic publishing is its obvious link to knowledge production: there is an

“intimate reciprocal relationship between the nature of what is published and the structures of

institutional learning within a society” (Chester, 2002, p. 201). This means that editors of

academic publications and academic presses in general hold powerful positions that can sanctify

or block new scholarship, thus essentially affecting what informs college classrooms and

textbooks across the country.

Editors and Peer Reviewers as Gatekeepers

Investigating the phenomenon of editors and peer reviewers as gatekeepers, Spender

(1981, 1989) highlights some of the more substantial problems involving favoritism, sexism,

anti-feminism, and review bias in publishing. Although several decades have passed since

Spender (1981, 1989) first voiced her concerns about gatekeepers in the academic publishing

industry, many scholars continue to find themselves in a no-win situation when it comes to

publishing their research findings. Because only published research is widely accepted as “true”

research, academics must find ways to disseminate results and take part in the discourse

surrounding their respective disciplines. Publishing one’s work with peer-reviewed journals is

thus a major component of the professional academic life and often a key requirement for

promotion and tenure across universities in the United States. However, as Spender (1981)

pointed out, getting published is not necessarily a fair process. Instead, scholars must negotiate a

problematic system that perpetuates hierarchies and guards both knowledge and people already

12

in places of power. At the same time as emerging researchers need to enter the world of

academic publishing, established scholars often occupy peer review positions for academic

journals and consequently have control over what research is deemed valuable to be

disseminated to the academic community at large. Yet, without getting published in widely-

accepted, authority-carrying publication venues, very few emerging scholars are able to earn the

recognition necessary to establish themselves as proper researchers. So new academics face a

particular dilemma: if their writing and research challenges existing conventions, ideas, and

beliefs, their work may be rejected—either consciously or unconsciously—by established

scholars who serve as peer reviewers and who wish to hold on to their position of power;

conversely, if emerging scholars choose to write and research in line with accepted views, they

may be more likely to get published and improve their own position on the hierarchy.

What is truly significant about this no-win situation is that publication decisions

ultimately affect what becomes public knowledge. That is, whatever ideas, concepts, principles,

or findings are published eventually turn into tools for education and basis for knowledge. On

some level, those in power naturally want to avoid conceding their privileges, so they wish to

control what new knowledge enters the discourse realm, since it could potentially threaten their

status. However, to destabilize the decision-makers, one must be in a position of power, a

position one can only get to if one publishes in the right venues. Clearly, academic publishing for

yet un-established scholars can present itself as a vicious cycle.

Given the uneven distribution of power surrounding most review and editing processes in

academic publishing and because publishing decisions both directly and indirectly affect what

becomes public knowledge, a search for alternative and less patriarchal editing practices seems

warranted. In other words, if one agrees that the institution of academic publishing is flawed,

then the question arises as to what could be done to improve the situation and introduce editorial

13

practices—including peer review processes—that (1) acknowledge existing inequalities and

power hierarchies within the academic publishing context, (2) utilize strategies to ensure a fair

review process, and (3) consider the implications of review and editorial decisions.

Definition of Terms

Editors and editing. The word editor can describe numerous occupations depending on

the publishing context. For example, job duties of a production editor are different from those of

a developmental editor or a managing editor. Conversely, an acquisitions editor is more

concerned with the idea or topic presented by an author than with style or grammar. According

to the American Psychological Association (APA) (2010), a journal editor typically reviews

manuscripts to ensure that they “(a) contribute significantly to the content area covered by the

journal, (b) communicate with clarity and conciseness, and (c) follow style guidelines” (p. 226).

In addition, journal editors often have the power to accept or reject a manuscript outright even

without consulting additional reviewers, and they may be in charge of “communicating with an

author regarding acceptance, rejection, or required revisions of a manuscript” (APA, 2010, p.

226).

Beyond the field of academic journal publishing, however, an editor may simply be

“someone who improves other people’s writing” and makes “documents more understandable

for readers” (Bush & Campbell, 1995, p. 1), or a person who introduces, constructs, and

annotates an existing text such as Shakespeare’s As You Like It (Maguire, 2001). Both Bush and

Campbell’s (1995) and Maguire’s (2001) type of editor and editing falls outside of the kind of

editor of interest to my project. In other words, Bush and Campbell’s (1995) interest lies with

technical editing of internal and organizational-specific documents; while the editor in their case

edits texts, he or she does not make decisions on the relevance of a document and whether it

should be published. For Maguire (2001), editors move beyond working in the background and

14

become authors of some sense through transcribing, annotating, and framing of literary texts; this

type of editor and his or her editorial practices are connected to a growing field of scholarship in

literature (see, for example, Bornstein, 1996; Murphy, 2008). To simplify then, I prefer the

following characterization for the project at hand. An editor is a person who performs three

functions: (1) he or she decides whether to publish a given text, (2) he or she edits accepted texts

based on linguistic conventions, organizational standards, and its intended audience, and (3) he

or she communicates with the author.

But, what exactly do I mean by editing? When one sets out to define editing, the task at

hand seems rather simple. Indeed, most people probably have an answer when asked what an

editor’s job is and what editing may entail. However, it quickly becomes clear that the general

understanding of what counts as editing varies greatly. In an effort to examine the editing process

from the author’s point of view, Eaton, Brewer, Portewig, and Davidson (2008) identified three

types of editing—proofreading, copyediting, and comprehensive editing—and questioned over

400 authors in regard to their definition of editing. Only 26% of respondents defined editing in

terms of one of the three types identified by Eaton et al. (2008); a large number of authors

understood editing as having mixed components such as proofreading and copyediting. Because

even within existing literature on editing, scholars have introduced an array of definitions, often

depending on purposes and tasks, Eaton et al.’s (2008) three general categories serve as a good

starting point.

The term proofreading itself requires a brief clarification. Proofreading can mean one of

two things. For one, proofreading denotes the process of reading a document2 or text to identify

errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Proofreading typically does not include changes to

content or layout of the document. This meaning of proofreading is probably common among

2 In the context of my project, I use the terms text and document interchangeably.

15

groups such as college students and non-editors. For those working in the publishing industry

though, proofreading can also be understood as literally reading proofs, that is manuscripts and

documents that have been formatted and paged in the way they will appear in print (Judd, 2001).

At the point in the production process at which proofs are reviewed, changes to the document are

no longer easily made and require costly revisions and production of new proofs. While reading

of actual proofs also includes searching for spelling, punctuation, and grammar, proofreaders

assume that almost all errors have been noted and fixed during the copyediting phase that occurs

prior to the production of the proofs. While proofreading can thus be taken literal, both senses

share certain characteristics. The goal of proofreading is to discover grammar, spelling, and

punctuation errors; document content is of no concern.

The process of copyediting on the other hand requires one to “evaluate a sentence on

several levels at once, for content, grammar, and readability” (Judd, 2001, p. 16). Copyediting

entails varying aspects from consistency of in-text citations and headings to eliminating sexist

language and wordiness. In fact, Judd (2001) identifies three basic levels of copyediting that are

similar to Eaton et al.’s (2008) classification of types of editing: Light Editing (e.g., correcting

spelling errors and eliminating sexist language), Regular Editing (e.g., editing for consistency,

checking of footnotes and in-text citations, improving word choices and overall fluency), and

Heavy Editing (e.g., ensuring of coherency, logic, and organization of document; eliminating

sexist language and jargon; editing for appropriate tone and focus; and wordiness) (see Judd,

2001, pp. 16-17).

In all reality, what Judd (2001) calls heavy editing and Eaton et al. (2008) dub

comprehensive editing likely refers to the same type of editing. Namely, the type of editing that

is bound to be the most time-consuming and work-intense manner of reworking and improving a

text for both author and editor. Rude (2002) defines this editing , which centers on higher-order

16

concerns, as consisting of developing and revising a document based on its uses and purposes,

including the consideration of audience, content, layout, use of illustrations, and organization.

What may the most notable point about comprehensive editing is that its features are less

frequently associated with the basic definition of editing. Indeed, only 8% of respondents in

Eaton et al.’s (2008) study identified comprehensive editing for their definition of editing.

Since levels of editing and definitions can vary greatly, it is essential to come to a

consensus on what editing means for the purpose of this project. Recalling Judd’s (2001) sorting

of editing into light, regular, and heavy, editing should therefore be understood as the act of

revising and improving a document based on general linguistic conventions, organizational

standards, and its intended audience. A juxtaposition of regular and heavy editing, editing for my

purposes concerns both matters of content and rhetoric. In other words, editing is more than

proofreading but less than comprehensive editing because the latter would also include visual

design and use of illustrations.

Peer reviewers and peer review. Mulligan (2008) notes that “peer review is critical to

the exchange of scholarly information” and traces its history back to Aristotle’s time (p. 197).

The type of peer review central to academic publishing nowadays, however, has changed quite a

bit since ancient Greek times. The Modern Language Association of America (2009), for

example, describes the peer review process as the evaluation of a manuscript by expert readers

who recommend or reject the work for publication (p. 34). In other words, peer review is “the

assessment by an expert of material submitted for publication” (Olson, 1990, p. 356) and

generally results in three possible outcomes: (1) the manuscript is accepted for publication, (2)

the manuscript is rejected, or (3) the manuscript is rejected but will be reconsidered for

publication after revision (Bucholtz, 2010). The editor of an academic journal usually solicits

reviews of a manuscript from an existing group of scholars within the respective field, the peer

17

reviewers. Occasionally, publications also have editorial boards that review and evaluate

submissions. An editorial board may consist of scholars and/or professionals who oversee the

peer reviewers’ decisions or who may perform review duties in place of the traditional panel of

peers. Regardless of the organizational structure implemented by a given publication,

submissions for academic publication undergo a thorough evaluation process to assure high-

quality scholarship.

Although one can argue that peer reviewers and editors are two entities working different

aspects of the publication process, I propose that peer reviewers are “editors-by-proxy.” It is true

that some peer reviewers never have direct contact with authors or do not copyedit accepted

submissions based on linguistic conventions and organizational-standards, but peer reviewers are

almost always agents in the decision-making process of whether or not to publish a manuscript.

Regardless of the level of involvement of peer reviewers in other parts of the processes that lead

up to the actual publication of a text, peer reviewers and editors both hold privileged positions

within the publishing context because they either directly make publishing decisions or do so

indirectly by recommending or rejecting a manuscript for publication. Considering that peer

reviewers are not only stable fixtures of the academic publishing industry but also share such an

important characteristic with editors, I argue that an investigation of editorial practices in the

realm of academic journals should include editors and peer reviewers alike.

While the structure and processes of peer review may not be equal across the board, a

2005 study of peer reviewers shows a shared consensus on the basic components constituting

peer review. Reviewers identified the features of peer review as assessing the originality of the

research, ensuring the proper use of methodology, making sure that existing scholarship on the

topic is appropriately acknowledged, and preventing authors from overstating claims based on

minimal data (Mulligan, 2008, p. 198).

18

What counts as peer review in scholarship and academic publishing often takes one of

two widely accepted forms. The single-blind peer review is, according to Mulligan (2008), likely

the most commonly used practice to assess manuscripts and allows reviewers to remain

anonymous while knowing the author’s identity. Undoubtedly, this method raises questions of

fairness and bias on behalf of the reviewer, but simultaneously offers the anonymous reviewers

the opportunity to be honest in their evaluation of the manuscript (Mulligan, 2008). Equally

popular within the academic publishing industry is the double-blind peer review process. In this

case, neither reviewer nor author know of the other’s identity, an approach that is frequently

though to avoid bias and provide sincere feedback. In a survey of peer reviewers, Mulligan

(2008) discovered that both single- and double-blind peer reviews were favored by participants3,

alluding to the prevalence of these practices within the field of scholarly publishing. A third

alternative review process, however, the open review was not popular among survey participants.

As a relatively new approach, the open review form aims to challenge and improve peer

assessment procedures so that authors may receive an honest but fair review of their work. Open

peer review “is where the reviewers’ names and authors’ names are known to one another, and

often also to the public at large” (Mulligan, 2008, p. 202). Pöschel and Koop (2008) suggest the

open review method emerged out of a need to ensure “efficient communication and quality

assurance in today’s highly diverse and rapidly developing world of science” (p. 105). Yet, in

their effort to advocate alternative peer review processes, Pöschel and Koop (2008) move beyond

reviewers and authors knowing each other’s identity; they call for a collaborative peer review

that combines open review, technology, and elements of traditional peer review. For example,

some academic journals such as Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics utilize a two-stage

3 Sixty percent of participants found single-blind peer review attractive, and 61% of participants found double-blind peer review attractive (Mulligan, 2008, p. 203).

19

publication process for their review. During the first phase, manuscripts are published as

“discussion papers” on the journal’s website, providing reviewers and fellow researchers an

opportunity to comment and assess the proposed manuscript (Pöschel & Kopp, 2008). Following

this open discussion amongst scholars in which authors have the option to reply to posted

comments, the manuscript undergoes non-published rounds of revisions and further peer reviews

before the final text is published in the main journal4. New methods such as the open and

collaborative method of peer review continue to develop, suggesting that existing, and more

traditional, review processes may no longer meet the ethical and practical needs of expert

reviewers and academic scholars.

Although review practices such as the open access method may not become widely

popular overnight, some existing publications are already trying to find new ways to conduct

peer reviews. In the case of Feminist Teacher, an interdisciplinary academic journal, editors act

as peer reviewers and frame their editing practices in feminist and pedagogical terms, illustrating

how feminist practices in editing can offer useful alternatives to existing processes in mainstream

academic publishing. Rather than to act as privileged gatekeepers of their publication, members

of the Feminist Teacher Collective employ feminist practices such as open dialogue and ethics of

care to create a feminist space of transformation for the text and its author. Since editing and

publishing plays a major role for scholars across the academy, an investigation of the editorial

practices of Feminist Teacher may shed light not only on the problematic practices of peer

review and anxiety-filled interactions between editors and authors but also invite further research

on the use of feminist practices in editing.

4 For a more detailed discussion on the interactive open access journal concept of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, see Pöschel and Kopp (2008). For a discussion on the use of web tools for peer review, see Akerman (2008).

20

Feminist Teacher

Introduction and History

After nearly three decades as a publication, Feminist Teacher can take pride in its long

history and its pivotal role in shaping the field of feminist pedagogy. Recognizing the need for a

publication that would address feminist pedagogy and offer educators across all academic

disciplines a way to take part in a larger discourse, graduate students at the Indiana University-

Bloomington first published Feminist Teacher in 1984. What started as a small publication to

provide “bathtub reading for tired feminist teachers” is now one of the leading scholarly

publications on feminist pedagogy (G. Cohee, personal communication, November 29, 2011).

Since its beginnings in 1984, Feminist Teacher has obviously undergone some major

transformations. Advances in technology for one have eliminated the literal need to cut and paste

and to typeset, but the changes of Feminist Teacher reach beyond the production process. The

journal’s size and use of pictures has also changed with the years; what was a more magazine-

looking publication in the 1980s eventually shifted to a more formal appearance without pictures

and is now published by the University of Illinois Press. In addition, as one of the Feminist

Teacher Collective members Theresa Kemp points out, Feminist Teacher initially included and

encouraged submissions from a broad range of educators (i.e., primary, secondary, and post-

secondary teachers), but the journal’s gradual move to a more theory-driven publication resulted

in an increase of scholarly articles by teachers in higher education (personal communication,

December 1, 2011). The first issue of Feminist Teacher explained that “Feminist Teacher aims to

create a network of feminists who teach in a variety of disciplines and on all grade levels—

preschool to graduate school. We ask authors to keep the diversity of this audience in mind and

to avoid technical or abstract language in their writing” (Krebs, Lafky, Ledger, & Runzo, 1984 ,

p. 2).

21

In contrast, the University of Illinois Press (2011) nowadays advertises Feminist Teacher

as an academic journal that “provides discussions of such topics as multiculturalism,

interdisciplinarity, and distance education within a feminist context” and functions “as a medium

in which educators can describe strategies that have worked in their classrooms, institutions, or

non-traditional settings” (“Feminist Teacher”). And although Feminist Teacher continues to ask

authors to keep the diversity of the audience in mind and to stay clear of abstract language and/or

technical jargon, it now seeks “well-written and accessible essays, articles, course descriptions,

and annotated bibliographies from a variety of feminist viewpoints” (University of Illinois Press,

2011, “Feminist Teacher—Guidelines for Authors Submitting Articles”).

In addition to changes at this level of the publication, the production of Feminist Teacher

also changed. During the early years, Feminist Teacher was self-published; graduate students

came together in their rare free time to manually assemble pages, proofread articles, and stuff

envelopes (T. Kemp, personal communication, December 1, 2011). With time, Feminist Teacher

grew in size and the Collective members eventually decided to outsource the production of its

publication. While the University of Illinois Press is not its first publisher, Feminist Teacher in

its current format is probably the furthest removed from its beginning looks in 1984. The words

of the original Feminist Teacher Collective members Paula Krebs, Sue Lafky, Diane Ledger, and

Sandra Runzo (1984) may thus actually not be too surprising. In their “Letter from the

Collective,” they noted, “Feminist Teacher will change and grow in whatever ways readers and

contributors direct it. Because the magazine is reader-developed, we rely on other feminist

teachers to let us know what will be useful and of interest” (Krebs, et al. 1984, p. 4). Perhaps it is

the publication and the Collective member’s commitment over the years to both inform and

reflect trends, issues, and practices concerning feminist pedagogy that has made Feminist

Teacher a stable yet changing figure in academic publishing.

22

Indeed, as a publication, both in terms of its history and its subject matter, Feminist

Teacher seems to be one of a kind in the field of academic journal publishing. In the case of

Feminist Teacher, the commitment to feminism and pedagogy extends beyond the final product;

rather, it begins with the editorial practices of the Feminist Teacher Collective. More so, I argue

that the editors of Feminist Teacher apply feminist practices to their editing; their work is

characterized by an ethics of care, communication, dialogue, and pedagogy. Data collected

through personal interviews with two Feminist Teacher editors suggests not only that feminist

practices can inform editing practices but that doing so may also provide some preliminary

insight into alternative editorial practices that could help transform the mainstream peer review

processes in academic journal publishing.

The Collective

In its broadest sense, the Feminist Teacher Collective is a group of editors who work

together towards a shared goal, the reviewing and subsequent publishing of academic articles. In

reality though, a closer look shows that the Feminist Teacher Collective transcends the average

definition of the term collective because its members have shared interests beyond their work as

editors and identify as feminists. Not only do the Feminist Teacher Collective members share the

work, and thus work collectively, but they also recognize and respect each other as full human

beings; they genuinely care about one another, their editorial work and their lives beyond the

realm of Feminist Teacher:

We [the Collective] make decisions by consensus. It takes time; we persuade each other.

It is hard to get one of us to be in charge, and I think that is feminist. We take turns being

in charge, and we know what is going on in our lives. We think about each other as whole

people, which I think is feminist, and we try and care for each other in a certain way. (T.

Kemp, personal communication, December 1, 2011).

23

Editorial collectives among academic publications are few and far between. Coming to a shared

consensus on review decisions takes time and typically requires more flexibility for meetings and

discussions than a standardized score sheet would. Gail Cohee, another Collective member,

explains

[that] other boards also don’t get together as often as we do. They may see each other a

couple of times a year but . . . they have much bigger editorial boards, so things are less

personal in a lot of ways. I think it is harder for big journals to work as a collective. (G.

Cohee, personal communication, November 29, 2011)

For the current Feminist Teacher Collective members, this generally means joining each other

via conference call every other week or so to discuss the future of new submissions or to re-

evaluate revised material. Different editorial and Collective duties, such as corresponding with

authors and negotiating with the current publisher, the University of Illinois Press (UIP), are not

necessarily performed by only one of the Collective’s members but are shared among them all.5

For example, Theresa Kemp may write to an author about some necessary revisions one day, but

issue a check for UIP another day, while Gail Cohee administers the submissions and deals with

the UIP production manager. Although editorial duties among Collective members are at times

exchangeable, Feminist Teacher as a publication has typically had an editorial office at a campus

of one of the Collective members. After the early years of stuffing large numbers of envelopes

by hand and keeping subscribers’ addresses up to date, the Collective shifted from self-

publishing to being published, freeing up time for selecting articles and making an issue (T.

Kemp, personal communication, December 1, 2011). Undoubtedly, the publication history of

Feminist Teacher is unique, but so is its organizational structure and the way in which its

5 It is important to clarify that Feminist Teacher’s current publisher, UIP, is only responsible for the production, the advertisement, and subscription management; the Collective handles the submissions and reviews. In contrast to some other publications, Feminist Teacher continues to be “owned” by the Collective members.

24

Collective members work.

Feminist Practices in Editing

At the beginning of my inquiry into the editorial practices of the Feminist Teacher

Collective, I had set out to find answers to the following questions: “Is there feminist editing?”

and “If so, what does feminist editing look like?” Unsurprisingly, as it often happens with initial

ideas and questions, after reviewing existing materials and collecting information through the

interviews with two of the current Feminist Teacher editors, it is necessary to reframe these

earlier questions. Rather than looking at feminist editing as a single, identifiable form of editing,

interview responses suggest that the Feminist Teacher Collective members utilize feminist

practices in their editorial work for the publication. The questions to ponder, therefore, are “Do

the editorial practices of the Feminist Teacher Collective include feminist practices?” and “If so,

what do these feminist practices in editing look like?”

Before delving into a discussion of some of the themes that emerged during the

interviews though, it is important to remember that my findings are not intended as universal

claims applicable to other situations. The discussion that follows merely aims to draw out

similarities among the Collective members’ editorial practices and how these practices are

potentially situated in and informed by feminism. In other words, neither do I wish to claim that

what I refer to as feminist practices are stable categories, nor do I wish to suggest that my peruse

of these practices are valid or appropriate in other kinds of contexts at this point in time.

Ethics of care. A look at the decision-making and author correspondence of Feminist

Teacher shows that the editors practice an ethics of care both in terms of the editor-author

relationship and each other. Although ethics of care, in this case, should not be taken as

synonymous with the work of Carol Gilligan and Nel Nodding, there are similarities in the way

in which editors make publication decisions and correspond with authors. For the Feminist

25

Teacher editors, a manuscript is more than pages filled with words; each piece of writing comes

with its own complicated context, involving the author and its potential audience, and warranting

individual care, not a one-size-fits-all approach. Gail Cohee’s quote offers an example of this

ethics of care:

We take more care with our authors than almost anybody else I’ve seen. . . . We don’t

know who we are reading until it comes time to either turn somebody down or accept the

article or ask for revisions, [and once] we find out what level somebody is . . . we actually

treat that differently. . . . So if it is a new professor or a graduate student, we take a lot of

time to try to sort of help them along into what it is like to write a scholarly article. If it is

a full professor, we don’t spend really the time with it. . . . I think we actually take the

whole idea of nurturing a piece of writing along much more seriously than most journals.

(G. Cohee, personal communication, November 29, 2011).

Just like Feminist Teacher Collective members recognize each other as complete human beings,

they acknowledge the need for respect and care when it comes to their interactions with the

authors of submissions. Mirroring Nel Noddings’ idea that “real care requires an active

encounter with specific individuals” (Tong, 2007, p. 168), members of the Feminist Teacher

Collective strive to be aware of their own position in relation to authors and the impact their

editorial actions may have on them. Theresa Kemp draws attention to the complexities involved

in the editor-author relationship when she speaks of intersectionality:

This is really about intersectionality, right? Something that we demand from the content

[of articles and] we [often] request that writers situate their text more contextually. Who

are they [the authors] talking about? When are they talking about? Where are they talking

about? [And] who are these people? . . . People aren’t always the same everywhere no

matter who you are talking about. Those relationships of power and oppression shift all

26

the time, so on the one hand, we are a tiny little journal that doesn’t have a lot of money,

and yet in some ways, over certain individuals, we have a lot of power. . . [over whether

an author gets] published or not, . . . something which can have an impact on their

careers. So we have to be mindful of that . . . and at the same time insist that authors also

be mindful of us in the kind of things they may expect of us. . . . [Things which are

sometimes] kind of unreasonable. . . . [Authors] should know that we are not getting paid

lots of money to do this work. They shouldn’t be sloppy in their own editing. They

should put their manuscripts in good shape. (T. Kemp, personal communication,

December 1, 2011)

As the latter part of this quote shows, Feminist Teacher editors are also aware that their

ethics of care requires a certain degree of reciprocity. Rather than just taking care of the needs of

the authors, Feminist Teacher Collective members view the editor-author relationship in

pedagogical terms. Editorial duties such as decision-making, corresponding, and copyediting are

viewed as pedagogical in nature, informing the matter and degree of interaction between editor

and author: “They [authors] are also teaching us stuff sometimes too” (T. Kemp, personal

communication, December 1, 2011) and “there are lots of teachable moments, . . . particularly

for new writers” (G. Cohee, personal communication, November 29, 2011). For the Collective

members of Feminist Teacher, an ethics of care then seems to translate into a commitment to

helping authors grow as writers and professionals, an awareness of the implications of one’s

editorial actions, and a genuine respect for other people, their circumstances, and their work.

Pedagogy. Although already mentioned briefly in the preceding section, the intersection

of editing and pedagogy warrants a discussion of its own. In terms of the editing practices of the

Feminist Teacher Collective, pedagogy plays a central role. While it may be in part due to the

publication’s focus on feminist pedagogy, Collective members are quite clear about recognizing

27

a connection between their editing and pedagogy. Indeed, this connection becomes visible on

several levels at once, that is, not only does it show in their editor-author relationship but in the

overall functioning of the Collective.

In their anthology on feminist pedagogy, Crabtree, Sapp, and Licona (2009) position the

practice of feminist pedagogy amidst several characteristics. Although, Crabtree et al.’s (2009)

analysis does not perfectly fit the practices and doings of the Feminist Teacher Collective, it does

invite one to view it in relation to feminist pedagogy. At the same time, the analogy of editor-

author and teacher-student ought to be taken lightly and in the sense of a learning-and-teaching

relationship among peers that goes both ways. That is, editors and authors learn from and with

each other. Gail Cohee expresses the pedagogical relationship as “sort of like a dissertation

director . . . [and] advanced graduate student. . . . Not always, but it could be a bit . . . particularly

for new writers” (G. Cohee, personal communication, November 29, 2011). Similarly, Theresa

Kemp notes that it is a “kind of a feminist pedagogy of sorts with our peers” (T. Kemp, personal

communication, December 1, 2011).

Moreover, several of the characteristics of feminist pedagogy identified by Crabtree, et

al. (2009) stand out: “feminist teaching uses an ethic of care,” feminist teachers demonstrate

concern for their students as people and as learners,” and “feminist pedagogy is marked by the

development of nonhierarchical relationships among teachers and students and reflexivity about

power relations” (pp. 4-5). Indeed, Feminist Teacher Collective members seem to incorporate

these pedagogical features into their editorial practices, including their editor-author relationship.

Rather than turning a blind eye to the power relations and implications at play in academic

publishing, Collective members strive to view and respond to the underlying social hierarchies

and political dimensions playing out in the background of their editor-author and text

interactions.

28

Communication and dialogue. While communication and dialogue in the editor-author

relationship may not be unique feminist practices per se, the ways in which the Feminist Teacher

Collective interacts with authors seem to illustrate not only their respect for the authors and their

texts but also their desire to establish a dialogue. Effective communication is clearly central to

editing. In fact, there is an existing body of literature that addresses numerous communication

aspects between editors and authors, particularly in regard to the phrasing of editorial comments

necessary for revisions. Mackiewicz and Riley (2003), for example, differentiate between direct

and indirect strategies aimed at phrasing editorial comments most effectively and politely

without compromising a positive editor-author relationship. Bostian (1986), furthermore,

advocates that editors express their comments in question form to “make them more palatable to

authors” (Eaton, et al., 2008, p. 112). Yet, regardless of what strategies editors employ to

effectively communicate with authors, scholars widely agree that how editors approach their

interactions with authors has a significant impact on the editing experience and final product.

Even though the editors of Feminist Teacher may not spend much time on following the

ongoing discourses in editing literature addressing editorial comments, they do utilize certain

indirect, non-confrontational communication strategies in their work with authors. Perfectly

aware of the need to preserve authors’ voices in their texts, Collective members pay special

attention to what changes and revisions they may ask for and how they go about communicating

suggestions to authors. The Feminist Teacher editors clearly understand that “text-production is

a collaborative effort in which different yet similar talents are used in the service of a common

goal” (Speck, 1991). Rather than through direct confrontation, Feminist Teacher editors may

phrase a comment in such a way that the authors are left with a choice, that they have the

opportunity to disagree, and that they understand the reasoning behind the suggestions. For

example, an editor may write, “Did you mean to write oppression instead of opposition here? If

29

you meant opposition, the reader may find it hard to follow your argument, so you may wish to

clarify your position on opposition in this section.” Gail Cohee actually connects the Collective’s

sensitive approach to editing with feminism when she explains,

I think the biggest thing is being careful of people’s voices. I think that may be the most

feminist thing we do . . . when that light editing comes up. . . . [It is about letting]

somebody’s voice speak true . . . instead of making everything in the Journal sound

alike. In fact, that is one of things we all probably really like about Feminist Teacher.

Everybody has a pretty distinct voice who writes in there. So I think that is certainly what

I would think about the feminist editing part of it. Let people speak in the voice they want

to. (G. Cohee, personal communication, November 29, 2011)

Interestingly enough, some older aspects of dialogic editing discussed by Briggs (1975)

seem to signal an, albeit early, feminist approach to the editor-author relationship. Working with

an I-it and I-thou distinction based on Martin Buber’s philosophy of dialogue (see Buber, 1971),

Briggs (1975) differentiates between two types of editors. One type, the I-it, perceives him or

herself as an ideal and objective observer who is responsible for the unforgiving examination and

correction of the written word (Briggs, 1971). The I-thou type of editor, on the other hand, offers

a first glimpse at what could be understood as a feminist editor, as someone who utilizes feminist

practices in his or her editorial work. Briggs (1971) describes the I-thou editor as one “who is

concerned with a person (not a piece of paper); with subject matter (the audience emerges only

as a secondary consideration); with improvements (rather than corrections); and with mutuality of

author and editor (rather than the domination of one by the other)” (p. 58). Considering these

features of the I-thou editor, it may not be too difficult to draw parallels to the editorial practices

of the Feminist Teacher Collective and how they manage their editor-author relationships; their

editor-author interactions and communications are founded on mutual respect, open dialogue,

30

and collaboration.

In addition, what probably highlights the Collective’s communicational strategies as

feminist practice even better is the manner in which they respond to submissions. A rejection

letter from the editor, if one even receives one, is often in form of a standardized, impersonal

reply. In contrast, Feminist Teacher editors aim to be respectful and personal even in their

rejection letters. Frequently, Feminist Teacher includes suggestions and feedback for the author,

even if Feminist Teacher itself will not publish an article. Gail Cohee and Theresa Kemp both

express the need for more kindness and respect in light of editor-author communication. Gail

Cohee exerts that

[Academic journals] tend to be a lot like professors at research 1 universities. . . . They

tend to act like dissertation directors . . . [and] you get these kind of snarky quick

responses to your writing. I think most dissertation directors could be kinder than they

are, and I think journal editors could be too. People could treat people’s writing with

more respect . . . what we do is really pretty thorough next to what other people do. I

think editors . . . and this goes to editors and dissertation directors . . . really should think

about their own pedagogy more thoroughly. They should think about what they are trying

to do. Are they just trying to put people into shape? (G. Cohee, personal communication,

November 29, 2011).

Similarly, Theresa Kemp notes that

the letters we get back from people . . . [feel like] more than just a simple ‘I want to thank

the anonymous reader of Feminist Teacher’. . . . The way that an editor writing to an

author can convey respect partly has to do with being specific. . . . A good letter should

be respectful but in a personable way, not too businesslike. Not respectful in that sort of

formal, detached, cold kind of way. . . . [A letter] also needs to be very clear in what it is

31

telling [the authors] and what it is telling them to do. . . . If it was asking for revisions [it

needs to] be very clear. . . . [It has to do] with a concrete engagement with what the

person has written because that signals you have actually read their work. . . . I do think

that is different. . . . It is not writing to justify why you are not taking it but rather, [you

are saying,] here are the ideas that we thought would be useful to our readers. . . . So I

think that is a kind of a feminist pedagogy of sorts with our peers. (T. Kemp, personal

communication, December 1, 2011)

Even if it is not possible to argue that the communication strategies of Feminist Teacher

are uniquely feminist practices in editing at this point, the interview responses do support the

idea that the Feminist Teacher Collective transcends common mainstream ways of

communicating with authors and embraces a personalized, caring, and non-authoritative

approach to their editor-author relationships. Indeed, the ways in which the Collective handles

communications with authors, and thus the editor-author relationship at large, may actually

reflect how pedagogy informs their editing practices.

Challenges for Feminist Teacher

Despite its uniqueness, the publication of Feminist Teacher and its editorial Collective

also face certain challenges and limitations. For one, while the decision to move from self-

publication to being published resulted in less hassle with administrative work for the Collective

members, it also brought forth a significant increase in spending, almost quadrupling the

Journal’s annual budget (T. Kemp, personal communication, December 1, 2011). In addition,

online databases and other technological changes affecting subscribers’ behaviors (e.g.,

institutional budget cuts) make it difficult for Feminist Teacher as a business to keep production

and publication of new issues afloat. Both Theresa Kemp and Gail Cohee recall the bittersweet

consequence of not being responsible for production on the one hand but having to pay a

32

publisher, such as the UIP, for its services.

[Theresa Kemp] and I also really remember what it was like when we were doing it all

ourselves, . . . sending it out for printing and all of those kind of things. . . .[It would

have] cost us less money probably in the long run to do it that kind of way, . . . but it was

a lot of work. . . [and] having gone to UIP [is] limiting in that it’s costing us so much

money. . . . But I’m not really sure we would have the time to do either . . . I feel we have

all just gotten busier, [and] I can’t see any of us taking on the whole thing anymore. (G.

Cohee, personal communication, November 29, 2011)

In Theresa Kemp’s mind, the change has brought both advantages and drawbacks:

[It] has been really wonderful that we are not stuffing envelopes and dealing with

subscribers. . . . We carry a different weight when we can say we are published by UIP

rather than self-published . . . [but] certainly money is a challenge. (T. Kemp, personal

communication, December 1, 2011)

Secondly, besides finance-related challenges, Collective members find themselves limited by a

lack of time. None of the Collective members are paid for their work, and they volunteer their

time on top of their professional and personal responsibilities. Theresa Kemp explains that

time is a challenge. . . . [It] worked when we were all grad students . . . [but] I don’t think

anybody had kids . . . [and] we were younger, so most people’s parents weren’t aging. . . .

[When] you are younger, you have more time. . . . I think time and money to buy time are

a challenge. (T. Kemp, personal communication, December 1, 2011)

Yet, while money and time are certainly big challenges for Feminist Teacher, the

Collective members furthermore recognize their own organizational limitations, namely, the lack

of new, younger Collective members and diversity. Three of the current Collective members

have a background in English; one comes from the field of political science and another from

33

sociology. But a bigger concern beyond their academic disciplines may be the need to bring

additional members to the Collective to ensure Feminist Teacher continues on in its quest to

inform and reflect trends and practices in feminist pedagogy. Both Theresa Kemp and Gail

Cohee explicitly recognize the compositional limitations of the current Collective. Gail Cohee

elaborates:

I think the challenges always are finding new people. Because it is the kind of bind of not

wanting the Collective to get very large, because it is hard to work with a large collective,

but really needing new people involved in the Collective. So I think the biggest challenge

is to have a balance [between] keeping . . . the Collective at a reasonable number while

opening it up to new people and new voices. (G. Cohee, personal communication,

November 29, 2011)

For Theresa Kemp, the Collective’s limitations take on a slightly different form. She notes that

the makeup of the Collective

. . . is a little limited sometimes. . . . Getting younger people, getting people of color is

hard. . . . [And the] challenge for [previous Collective members of color] often times is

the pressure on people of color in academia, and certainly in other places in the world,

but I’m just going to speak for the academy, [because] they get asked to do so much of

the representative work . . . like they get asked to be the person of color on all

committees. . . . [So] I think in some ways, their time is even more strained than perhaps

someone like me, and so it is difficult to find people who can fit it in. . . . [Yet] we

certainly publish substantial numbers of voices of people of color . . . but it is hard when

time is limited, how you get those contacts. (T. Kemp, personal communication,

December 1, 2011)

By resisting the surrender of their autonomy in terms of copyright and budgeting, the Feminist

34

Teacher Collective continues to nurture a more independent status among academic publications,

a position that clearly comes with its own consequences.

Conclusion

What may be the most appealing aspect about the project at hand is probably also its

biggest limitation. Predominantly descriptive in nature and with only a small number of

interviews, results do not permit any sort of generalization beyond the context of the Feminist

Teacher Collective. Rather, it presents a snapshot of how one small academic publication strives

to maintain its feminist roots and autonomy in a publishing world that is not necessarily driven

by fairness but by promising profits and potential gatekeepers. The question remains as to how

the organizational structure and the editing practices of Feminist Teacher could apply to other

publications in an attempt to offer alternative ways to peer review and editing in mainstream

academic publishing. It is unclear how larger publications could implement some or all of the

ways in which Feminist Teacher editors work collectively on whether or not to accept an article

and how they ultimately interact with authors and their texts. Furthermore, in its current state, the

project lacks a comparative component. That is, while it may illustrate how Feminist Teacher

functions as an academic publication, it does not offer insight into other publications that would

allow one to compare and contrast the editorial practices of the Feminist Teacher Collective.

Existing literature on gatekeeping and peer review suggests that aspects surrounding

academic publishing continue to be of interest across disciplines in the academy. Likewise,

numerous studies on editing practices or on the editor-author relationship already exist and

probably continue to emerge, but what seems to be missing is scholarship that examines the

intersection of feminism and editing6 in practical and theoretical terms.

6 Again, editing, in this case, must be understood as different from that of scholars who work and revise older, existing texts of authors such as Shakespeare or Socrates.

35

Among several, interesting future research projects, three initial questions seem

particularly promising: (1) Does a feminist automatically apply feminist practices in an editing

situation? Or, in other words, do editors who do not identify as feminist utilize feminist practices

in their editing work? (2) Is the editor-author relationship truly pedagogical in nature? If so, do

feminist teachers then apply feminist pedagogical strategies to their editing practices? and (3)

What is the author experience in the feminist editing context? Namely, how do authors who work

with editors using feminist editing practices perceive the editor-author relationship and the

editing of their work?

Yet, regardless of the actual research questions, what would be most beneficial is to

extend any kind of research on feminism and editing to the greater realm of publishing. To

investigate the intersection of feminism and editing, one must move beyond the case of Feminist

Teacher and solicit new, and perhaps even contradicting, perspectives to the present project and

the scholarship at large.

Although the primary goal of Feminist Teacher is to publish scholarship that informs and

reflects current trends, practices, and issues concerning feminist pedagogy, it becomes clear that

the editorial practices of the Collective equally reflect the overall publication’s feminist nature.

Challenging power hierarchies and fostering a climate of mutual respect between editors and

authors, Collective members aim to frame their editing actions in a feminist philosophy that

challenges otherwise often unquestioned customs in academic publishing. The Collective does

not vote or complete a score sheet to come to a manuscript decision; instead, through

collaboration, respect, and listening, they come to a consensus which involves not only the

Collective members and the publication at large but also the individual text and its author. Even

if members disagree with one another on whether a manuscript should be published, they are

willing to hear each other’s arguments and reconsider their assessment of a particular piece.

36

Moreover, in some instances, the Collective may even decide to publish an author whose topic or

voice does not resonate amongst its members so that its publication can stimulate responses and

exchange with the Feminist Teacher readership in general. The decision-making process of the

Collective and their editor-author interactions suggest that Feminist Teacher editors utilize

feminist practices in the form of pedagogy, dialogue, communication, and an ethics of care to

perform their editorial duties. While feminist editing per se may not be the best phrase to

describe these feminist practices, an examination of the editorial practices of Feminist Teacher

does offer valuable insight into alternative ways for peer review and editing in the context of

academic publishing. Even if other academic publications do not follow suit and adjust their

editorial and peer review practices, recognizing that problems such as biases, hierarchies, and

gatekeeping exist may be a first step towards bringing feminist practices in editing from the

margin to the center. Although Feminist Teacher’s history and practices may be unique, taking a

closer look at the Collective’s editorial practices can open a new space for dialogue and research

in academic publishing.

37

References

Akerman, R. (2008). Web tools for peer reviewers . . . and everyone. Information Services &

Uses, 28, 205-207.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological

Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Atwood, M. (1985). Sexual bias in reviewing. In A. Dybikowski, V. Freeman, D. Marlatt, B.

Pulling, & B. Warland (Eds.), In the feminine: Women and words (pp. 151-152).

Edmonton, Canada: Longspoon Press.

Atwood, M. (1995). If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. Meanjin, 54(2),

197-209.

Barratt, A. (1993). Feminist editing: Cooking the books. Journal of Australasian Universities

Modern Language Association, 79, 45-57.

Bornstein, G. (1996). Teaching editorial theory to non-editors: What? Why? How? Text:

Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship, 9, 144-160.

Bostian, L. R. (1986). Working with writers. Scholarly Publishing, 17, 119-126.

Briggs, N. A. (1975). Editing by dialogue. In L. M. Zook (Ed.), Technical editing: Principles

and practices (pp. 56-61). Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication).

Buber, M. (1971). I and thou. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Bucholtz, M. (2010). In the profession: Peer review in academic publishing. Journal of English

Linguistics, 38(1), 88-93.

Bush, D. W., & Campbell, C. P. (1995). How to edit technical documents. Phoenix, AZ: Orynx

Press.

Chester, G., (2002). The anthology as medium for feminist debate in the UK. Women’s Studies

International Forum, 25(2), 193-208.

38

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in

qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Crabtree, R. D., Sapp, D. A., & Licona, A. C. (2009). Feminist pedagogy: Looking back to move

forward. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Curzan, A., & Queen, R. (2006). In the profession: Academic publication. Journal of English

Linguistics, 34(4), 367-372.

Eaton, A., Estes Brewer, P., Craft Portewig, T., & Davidson, C. R. (2008). Examining editing in

the workplace from the author’s point of view: Results of an online survey. Technical

Communication, 55(2), 111-139.

Feinberg, R., & Vaughn, S. (1976). Feminist publishing: An exploration. Library Journal,

101(11), 1263-1265.

Ginsberg, E., & Lennox, S. (1996). Antifeminism in scholarship and publishing. In V. Clark, S.

Nelson Garner, M. Higonnet, & K. H. Katrak (Eds.), Antifeminism in the academy (pp.

169-200). New York, NY: Routledge.

Grove, L. K. (1990). The editor as ally. Technical Communication, 37, 235-328.

hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge, MA: South End

Press.

Judd, K. (2001). Copyediting: A practical guide (3rd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Learning.

Krebs, P. M., Lafky, S., Ledger, D., & Runzo, S. (1984). Feminist Teacher, 1(1), 2.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research

39

interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mackiewicz, J. & Riley, K. (2003). The technical editor as diplomat: Linguistic strategies for

balancing clarity and politeness. Technical Communication, 50, 83-94.

Maquire, L. E. (2001). Feminist editing and the body of the text. In D. Callaghan (Ed.), A

feminist companion to Shakespeare (pp. 59-79). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Mwamwenda, T. S. (1994). Academics' stance on the slogan `publish or perish'. Assessment and

Evaluation In Higher Education, 19(2), 99.

Modern Language Association of America. (2009). MLA handbook for writers of research

papers (7th ed.). New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America.

Mulligan, A. (2008). Quality, certification and peer review. Information Services & Use, 28,

197-214.

Murphy, J. S. (2008). The death of the editor. Essays in Criticism, 58(4), 289-310.

Olson, C. M. (1990). Peer review of the biomedical literature. American Journal of Emergency

Medicine, 8(4), 356-358.

Pöschl, U., & Koop, T. (2008). Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review

for improved scientific communication and quality assurance. Information Services &

Use, 28, 105-107.

Rude, C. (2002). Technical editing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Speck, B. W. (1991). Editorial authority in the author-editor relationship. Technical

Communication, 38, 300-315.

Spender, D. (1981). The gatekeepers: A feminist critique of academic publishing. In H. Roberts

(Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 186-202). Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Spender, D. (1989). The writing or the sex? Or why you don’t have to read women’s writing to

know it’s no good. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

40

Steuben, M. L. (2007). Voices of CALYX: Narratives of feminist publishing activism, 1976-2006

(Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/

Tong, R. (2009). Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

University of Illinois Press (2011). Feminist Teacher. Retrieved January 16, 2012, from

University of Illinois Press website: http://www.press.uillinois.edu/journals/ft.html

West, C. (Ed.). (1985). Words in our pockets: The Feminist Writers' Guild handbook on how to

gain power, get published & get paid. San Francisco, CA: Booklegger Press.

Whitworth, M. H. (2010). Virginia Woolf, modernism, and modernity. In S. Sellers (Ed.), The

Cambridge companion to Virginia Woolf (pp. 107-123) (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

41

Appendix A: Interview Questions for the Feminist Teacher (FT) Collective

Do you have a personal philosophy or theory that informs your editing practices?

Why were you drawn to be part of the FT Collective?

Are there challenges and/or limitations to the FT Collective and the publication of

Feminist Teacher at large? If so, what are these challenges/limitations? Have they

changed over time?

Do you think there is a practice that is uniquely “feminist editing”? If so, what

characterizes “feminist editing,” and how is it different from other forms of editing?

Do you see the editorial practices of the FT Collective as uniquely feminist? If so, what

aspects set it apart as feminist?

How does the FT Collective come to a decision on a manuscript? Do you consider the

decision making process to be influenced by feminism?

Do you see FT as being different from other academic journals? If so, in what ways is FT

unlike other journals?

How do you determine what feminist pedagogy is?

What is the purpose or mission of the journal?

Considering your work on the FT Collective and the overall publication of FT, do you see

yourself as informing the field of feminist pedagogy or as reflecting trends, issues, and

practices concerning feminist pedagogy?