There were 49 responses from editors and 33 from indexers. This report deals only with the responses from editors. Analysis of the part of the survey that covered indexers is available from the AusSI web site. Most survey forms were filled in at the conference, but since then, members of both professions who didn't attend the conference have sent in responses. This is not a large sample, it wasn't a scientifically controlled survey, and there were the usual problems of inconsistent form completion. All the same, the questionnaire results provide a benchmark that can be used as the basis for future investigation. They also give us some clear messages from an active proportion of national membership. To my knowledge this is the first national survey of editors. All states and territories are represented, although not in proportion to society membership.
It was a relief to find that we defy swift statistical categorisation. Here are some of the descriptive findings:
The matter of rates is worthy of separate discussion. The most glaring aspect is the range of charges. Average hourly rates were just under $50 ($49), with costs for some specific services higher (project management at $58 and document development at $57), while others were lower (proofreading $33 and indexing $41). But these averages cover huge variations, ranging from $15 to $130 an hour for similar services. In other parts of the survey, respondents commented on the need to tackle the issue of appropriate charges at a national level. Some commented bitterly about undercutting of professionals' rates by 'hobbyists'.
While the editors reported that they charge virtually the same average amount as indexers for indexing ($41 compared with $40), indexer respondents charge an average of $16 less per hour than editors when they undertake editing work. Given the significant overlap of services offered by editors and indexers, perhaps there is some scope for the professional societies to discuss together rates for editors who undertake indexing and vice versa.
Keeping abreast of technology was the most commonly listed challenge facing editors (32 checked this item, of whom 12 rated it as number one), followed by extending skills (24), maintaining and extending networks (21), finding interesting work (21) and increasing income (15). Changing direction as an editor was the next priority (13), with increasing working hours definitely the least popular challenge (2).
Quite a few other matters emerged in the comments that followed this question. Two people mentioned accreditation as their challenge in the coming two years (also see below). Other matters on people's minds were working more efficiently; finding suitably qualified and experienced freelance editors; changing the perception of editing; improving plain English in public sector and business documents; assessing junior staff; maintaining flexible hours; and not succumbing to the pressure (exerted by clients, aided and abetted by hobbyists and/or other freelancers who undercharge) to reduce rates to unsustainable levels.
The high interest in keeping up with technology and extending skills has implications for education and training, a topic that stood out in the next item. By far the most commonly listed future development people wanted to see tackled in the next two years was increased professional development programs through professional societies (30 checked this item, of whom 15 rated it as number one). It was followed by increased education and training provision in educational institutions (25), a greater advocacy role for societies (23) and more national activities for editors (17). Two people commented on the total lack of education and training options in educational institutions in their state (see also Renée Otmar's paper in Day 3 of the conference). It is interesting to note that indexers, too, overwhelmingly nominated professional development programs through professional societies as their highest priority.
Seven respondents added in the comments section 'accreditation' as the role they would like to see developed in the next two years, five of these listing it as their number one priority. Other comments included fostering a higher status for and better recognition of editors (3), better communication between editors (2), internships/nurturing new editors (2). Two respondents noted that all the issues listed are important, one of them also noting that if we first promote unity, accreditation and other national developments will follow. Agreed rates and active networking of up and coming activities were mentioned, as was 'fostering alliances between editors' (to share work/information/ideas etc. and combat client pressures to work for a pittance). There were two advocates for a national body to represent editors' interests vigorously and promote our image (presumably in addition to CASE). Other matters were raising community/industry awareness of ways in which editors can improve people's communications; bringing pressure to bear on contractors/publishers who would exploit the weak and vulnerable among us; and increased opportunities for professional development and recognition, particularly for editors in regional and remote areas. Image was the main concern of one respondent who felt there was a need to improve editors' 'fuddy duddy' image. This respondent remarked 'I would never employ people with some of the inflexible attitudes I have seen over the last few days'.
Subject areas covered by respondent editors were diverse, including all the items nominated on the questionnaire. The four most commonly checked subject areas were humanities (24), environment (19), education (19) and health (18). Subject areas that respondents added to the list provided included engineering, planning, agriculture, music, alternative lifestyles, sport and recreation, home and garden design, architecture, linguistics and management. Several responses noted that subject matter was not the most important issue; one respondent wrote 'anything that's not scientific or technical' while another was very broad indeed: 'I take anything on offer'.
Many respondents took the time to give detailed comments. These ranged over many topics and are summarised below. In-house training details would be useful; it's important to promote activities among societies; a national organisation with strong spokesperson cum lobbyist would greatly assist editors all over Australia. There seem to be few younger professionals at the conference…something the societies should consider; it's time for professional societies to (1) set rates (2) link freelancers and (3) settle the matter of registration/accreditation. Four respondents expressed thanks for the work involved in conducting the survey and one criticised the layout of the survey, the organisation of the conference and the conference participants ('you gotta stop whinging about the past glory days of the book'). There were two requests to distribute the results nationally. (This analysis will be sent to all societies.)
I would like to thank everyone who participated in the survey, whether at the conference, by mail or email. I thank Jean Norman, who helped analyse the indexers' section and the committee members who trialled the draft survey. I am keenly aware of the shortcomings of this survey, and not merely the formatting. Just the same, it's a start. If there is interest in running an improved survey again, perhaps in two years, I'd be happy to help or to hand on the lessons and data from this one. If anyone would like specific information not covered here, feel free to contact me on emend@cyberone.com.au.