Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article presents survey data from a study on trends in technical and professional editing that focuses specifically on inclusive and accessible editing practices in the workplace and in the classroom. Scholarship focusing on inclusive communication and design practices is growing, but the role of technical and professional editing, though not excluded, remains underdeveloped. Frameworks for developing and maintaining editorial guidance must be designed to more explicitly incorporate concerns for accessible and inclusive content. Although editing instructors and researchers often look to the industry for such answers, this is an opportunity for them to take the lead.

Keywords

accessibility editing inclusive content technical editing style guides

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ACES: The Society for Editing. (2024). Diversity and inclusion resources. https://aceseditors.org/resources/editing-resources/diversity-inclusion-resources

Acharya

K. R.

(2022). Promoting social justice through usability in technical communication: An integrative literature review. Technical Communication, 69(1), 6–26. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc584938

Acrolinx. (2023). The state of inclusive language 2023 . https://www.acrolinx.com/resources/the-state-of-inclusive-language-2023/

Adhya

(2015). Key elements of an effective style guide in the new age. Technical Communication, 62(3), 183–192. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26464421

Agboka

G. Y.

Dorpenyo

I. K.

(2022). Curricular efforts in technical communication after the social justice turn. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 36(1), 38–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519211044195

Agboka

G. Y.

Matveeva

(Eds.) (2018). Citizenship and advocacy in technical communication: Scholarly and pedagogical perspectives. Routledge.

American Psychological Association. (2023a). Brief guide to bias-free and inclusive language. https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/inclusive-language.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2023b). Inclusive language guide (2nd ed.). https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf

Baker

M. J.

Nightingale

E. M.

Bills

(2021). An editing process for blind or visually impaired editors. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 64(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2021.3090722

10.

Benjamin

Schreiber

(2021). Updating technical editing models for accessibility and advocacy. In the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 26–30). Association for Computing Machinery. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3472714.3473619

11.

Bennett

K. C.

Hannah

M. A.

(2022). Transforming the rights-based encounter: Disability rights, disability justice, and the ethics of access. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 36(3), 326–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519221087960

12.

Clem

(2023). Teaching technical editing for social justice. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(2), 49–69. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/12

13.

Clem

Cheek

(2022). Unjust revisions: A social justice framework for technical editing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 65(1), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2021.3137666

14.

Durazzi

(2022). The case for supplemental style guides. In 2022 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (pp. 406–408). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9881742

15.

Flanagan

Albers

M. J.

(Eds.) (2019). Editing in the modern classroom. Routledge.

16.

Graves

H. B.

Graves

(1998). Masters, slaves, and infant mortality: Language challenges for technical editing. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572259809364639

17.

Hamraie

(2016). Universal design and the problem of “post-disability” ideology. Design and Culture, 8(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2016.1218714

18.

Hodges

Ponce

(2022). Anti-racism, linguistic diversity, and technical editing. In 2022 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (pp. 53–56). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9881656

19.

Huntsman

(2021). Addressing workplace accessibility practices through technical communication research methods: One size does not fit all. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 64(3), 221–234. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9507448 https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2021.3094036

20.

Huntsman

(2022, July). An image for all: The rhetoric for writing alt-text. In 2022 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (pp. 49–52). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9881714

21.

Jones

N. N.

(2016). The technical communicator as advocate: Integrating a social justice approach in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(3), 342–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616639472

22.

Jones

N. N.

Williams

M. F.

(2017). The social justice impact of plain language: A critical approach to plain-language analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 412–429. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8103776 https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2762964

23.

Kreth

M. L.

Bowen

(2017). A descriptive survey of technical editors. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(3), 238–255. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7936428 https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2702039

24.

Mackiewicz

Durazzi

(2023). Editors’ perceptions of singular they. Technical Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2023.2184499

25.

Mackiewicz

Kraut

Durazzi

(2023). Editors’ use of comprehensive style guides: The case of singular they. Technical Communication Quarterly, 33(4), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2023.2236671

26.

Melonçon

(2019). A field-wide view of undergraduate and graduate courses in technical and professional communication programs. In Flanagan

Albers

M. J.

(Eds.), Editing in the modern classroom (pp. 171–191). Routledge.

27.

Meloncon

Henschel

(2013). Current state of US undergraduate degree programs in technical and professional communication. Technical Communication, 60(1), 45–64. https://tek-ritr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/undergrad_degrees.pdf

28.

Moeggenberg

Z. C.

Stevens

H. L.

Walton

Alexander

J.-J.

(2022). Inclusive editing: Actionable recommendations for editors and instructors. In 2022 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (pp. 267–276). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9881617

29.

Oswal

S. K.

(2022, July). Reshaping the philosophical backdrop for disability-inclusive user experience design: The case of a socially-aware, collaborative, international translation project. In 2022 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (pp. 358–363). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9881748

30.

Oswal

S. K.

Palmer

Z. B.

(2022). A critique of disability and accessibility research in technical communication through the models of emancipatory disability research paradigm and participatory scholarship. In Schreiber

Melonçon

(Eds.), Assembling critical components: A framework for sustaining technical and professional communication (pp. 243–267). University Press of Colorado.

31.

Remler

D. K.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2021). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation (3rd ed.). Sage.

32.

Rose

E. J.

(2016). Design as advocacy: Using a human-centered approach to investigate the needs of vulnerable populations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(4), 427–445. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0047281616653494 https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616653494

33.

Schreiber

(2024). What is technical about technical editing? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 67(4), 437–454. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10726632 https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2024.3463349

34.

Smith

(2023). Corpus linguistics and technical editing: How corpora can help copy editors adopt a rhetorical view of prescriptive usage rules. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 37(2), 194–216. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10506519221143125 https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519221143125

35.

Smith

Ranade

Baniya

(2021, October). Local users, global takeaways: Methodological considerations for audience advocacy in communication design research. In the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 269–276). Association for Computing Machinery. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3472714.3474387

36.

Strantz

(2021). Using web standards to design accessible data visualizations in professional communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 64(3), 288–301. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9509359 https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2021.3091784

37.

Walton

Moore

Jones

(2019). Technical communication after the social justice turn: Building coalitions for action. Routledge.

38.

Yin

(2024). The conscious style guide: A flexible approach to language that includes, respects, and empowers. Little, Brown Spark.