Oldfather and West (1994) used jazz as a metaphor ... not list all of them here, although you might ask us .... with codes of conduct and standards of good prac-.
Reading Research Quarterly Vol. 38, No. 1 January/February/March 2003 ©2003 International Reading Association (pp. 8–11)
EDITORIAL
O n m etap h o rs an d ed itin g DONNA E. ALVERMANN DAVID REINKING
L
akoff and Johnson (1980), in their seminal book Metaphors We Live By, documented that everyday communication in virtually every language is infused with metaphors. Metaphors are deeply embedded in social discourse, and they subtly but pervasively influence thought and action. For example, consider the metaphor war as opposed to dance for argument; the former is a dominant metaphor among many languages whose speakers consequently engage in arguments to determine winners and losers. Researchers, too, use metaphors to characterize aspects of their work. For example, Purves (1998) used two metaphors to contrast distinctly different views of textual meaning: one, barnacles attaching themselves to the impenetrable hull of a ship, highlighted that textual meaning is always subjective and never assuredly consistent with the author’s intent; the other, peeling the layers of an onion, suggested that there was an attainable inner core of transcendent meaning for those who diligently seek it. Oldfather and West (1994) used jazz as a metaphor to characterize the work of qualitative researchers. Kagan (1998) rather pessimistically characterized some researchers as hunters who seek wall trophies by pursuing conclusions that are difficult to dispute, chess players who relish the complexities of science more than the import of their findings, and butterfly chasers who seek the elegant discovery rather than the building of an incremental coherent foundation of knowledge (the latter being another metaphor). Metaphors help us understand ourselves, the nature and objects of our work, and our relationship with others similarly engaged. Thus, as we began discussing the substance of our first RRQ editorial, we thought about metaphors that might be associated with our role as editors. Specifically, what metaphors would we like to define our editorship and what metaphors might instantiate our vision of where we would like to see RRQ move during our tenure? We considered some existing metaphors that have been applied to the editorial role. For example, a common one is that of gatekeeper; journal editors are seen as determining ultimately who and what gets into the archival scholarly record. Undoubtedly, there are editors who operate comfortably within this metaphor and even see it as their main responsibility. Every editor, at least occasionally, must make difficult decisions and judgment calls that make gatekeeping
8
On metaphors and editing
an apt metaphor—one that has potentially important consequences for the field and for individuals’ professional lives. But, in our combined editorial experience of approximately 10 years thus far, a gatekeeping metaphor captures a relatively small portion of our activities, and it certainly does not capture how we generally perceive ourselves or what we want to accomplish. Umberto Eco (1988), in his novel Foucault’s Pendulum, uses the metaphor of editor as midwife, meaning one who assists in giving birth to ideas conceived by others. Given that we see ourselves as welcoming the opportunity to work developmentally with authors, this metaphor works to some extent, and it counterbalances the potentially negative connotations of gatekeeping. We are committed to providing constructive feedback that may contribute to authors’ future work even when their present work must be rejected for publication in RRQ. Nonetheless, we find the metaphor of editor as midwife, like gatekeeper, to be too narrow. It also risks taking too much credit for the contents of the journal, and it carries gender-related baggage that may be bothersome to some readers. Following a discussion that led us to reject these two existing metaphors for editors, we engaged in an interesting and thought-provoking dialogue that produced what we believe are better metaphors for capturing our perceived role and vision. We do not list all of them here, although you might ask us sometime what they were and perhaps suggest some of your own. The most satisfactory one to emerge, given that all metaphors can become strained if pushed too far, is that of editor as broker. There are real estate brokers, stockbrokers (although this one does not have positive connotations at the time we are writing), pawnbrokers, marriage brokers, and so on. The role of a broker, whatever the context, is to act as an agent for others and to bring people and things together toward achieving desired ends. We believe this metaphor captures the diverse activities of most editors, generally, and characterizes the contributions we hope our efforts on behalf of RRQ will have on the field. A few examples follow.
Extension of scholarship First, we intend to broker a greater awareness of research efforts internationally to enlarge and facilitate communication among the community of literacy researchers worldwide. Toward that end, we have initiated a new feature entitled International Reports on Literacy Research. The content of this feature will be a synthesis of reports submitted by international
9
research correspondents whose names and affiliations are listed after the members of the editorial review board in this issue. These individuals were invited to serve on the basis of recommendations from members of the International Reading Association’s International Development Committee and our editorial review board. They have agreed to file reports of scholarly inquiry in their respective regions of the world. It is our belief that a focus on global issues of literacy is both timely and necessary and thus worthy of space in the pages of RRQ. Although we will not be able to publish the reports in their entirety in the printed version of RRQ, we will pursue the possibility of publishing some of the reports in full in RRQ Online where space is not an issue. Accompanying this expansion of RRQ’s international scope is a need to acknowledge what it means to be literate in an increasingly post-typographic world. New literacies that emerge from new media and new forms of communication suggest that traditional understandings of readers and texts will need to make room for new paradigms and new research foci. The concept of a printed version of RRQ and its relation to RRQ Online will present some interesting challenges that we and the International Reading Association publications staff welcome. Thus, we see ourselves as brokers in bringing together the strengths incumbent in RRQ’s long tradition as a printed journal and the new opportunities and capabilities provided by digital, online media. A further challenge lies in finding ways to broker the politicization of literacy instruction and the role of research in guiding such instruction. Policymakers, practitioners, and the general public have clearly tired of the esoteric squabbles that mark the so-called reading wars. They seek (indeed, often demand) research that can address seemingly intractable literacy problems facing communities, the workplace, schools, educators, and students at large. A research journal, no matter how secure it might be in its past accomplishments and established reputation, cannot isolate itself from these realities. Nor can it detach itself from the very issues that presently divide states and provinces—even nations and continents—along lines of language and culture. If RRQ is to assume its rightful place as a forum for the exchange of information on theory, research, and practice in literacy the world over, it will need to attend to these challenges. Our decision to continue publishing occasional Theory and Research Into Practice pieces, initiated by our predecessors, is one way of attending to such challenges. Our vision for extending RRQ’s contribution to scholarship arises not solely from the need to
10
R ea din g R e sea rc h Q u arte rly
maintain rigor and professionalism in the field’s leading journal. It also springs from an awareness of new challenges, from a commitment to addressing them thoughtfully and carefully within the context of the journal’s mission and role, and from our belief that savvy and sensitive editorial brokering will allow RRQ to maintain its leadership role while effectively shaping the future of the field. We welcome these challenges and see them as informing our outlook on matters related to quality of research, diversity of research, and communication with RRQ’s various constituencies.
Quality of research Our role as brokers is consistent with a commitment to quality of research. For example, editors must often broker authors’ and reviewers’ often divergent opinions and views about what defines quality in research. As editors of RRQ, we are committed to publishing the highest quality and most important research in the field of literacy. At the heart of ensuring quality and importance is a workable, rigorous, and fair process for reviewing manuscripts, which in turn depends upon a knowledgeable and diligent editorial review board. We carefully selected reviewers for this board (some of whom responded to an open call for self-nomination) on the basis of their ability to represent a broad cross section of interests, including topical and disciplinary knowledge; research methods and expertise; cultural, linguistic, and geographic diversity; and various professional environments (e.g., universities, research centers, and education agencies). Although the editorial board reflects a broad range in terms of years of reviewing experience, all members of the board are individuals who have shown evidence of superior scholarship, open mindedness, fairness, and efficiency in turning in reviews. Following the lead of previous editors of RRQ, we intend to rotate individuals on and off the editorial board periodically to take advantage of the wealth of untapped expertise in the field and also to distribute the responsibilities and benefits associated with reviewing in an equitable manner.
Diversity of research Building on the past, we are dedicated to brokering further the diversity that Reading Research Quarterly has attained in publishing high quality and rigorous research on diverse topics, in diverse contexts, and with diverse populations. We are especially interested in attracting manuscripts from scholars
JA NUARY /FEBRUA RY/ MA RCH 2003
38/1
across the spectrum of the research community, including international scholars, minority scholars, senior scholars, promising new scholars, and scholars from disciplines outside education (e.g., literary criticism, psychology, sociology, and anthropology). We welcome studies and commentaries that examine literacy issues from diverse epistemological, methodological, and interdisciplinary perspectives. Toward this end, we are introducing New Directions in Research, a feature that will bring to bear multidisciplinary perspectives on research topics that are timely and seem poised to make a difference in how literacy research is conducted in the future. The first installment appears in this issue. Not only does its focus on multilingual issues pertaining to literacy seem a timely issue, but the topic and authors also reflect the international emphasis described in the previous section. In our role as brokers, we also wish to facilitate and encourage innovative forms for reporting research that might, for example, include connections to online sources of data or that explore alternative forms of data representation. We are particularly interested in encouraging the submission of unified research reports that are interdisciplinary and reflective of a coordinated use of different research methods to examine the same, or similarly related, sets of questions about a particular phenomenon. Likewise, although we see reports of empirical research (both qualitative and quantitative in design) being the mainstay of RRQ, we are interested in receiving peer-reviewed syntheses of research, theoretical essays, and scholarly commentaries. Regardless of content or form, our goal is to have every page of RRQ represent a tangible and important research contribution to the field.
Professionalism in communicating with our constituencies Brokers who see themselves as professionals also conduct their business ethically in accordance with codes of conduct and standards of good practice aimed at protecting the interests and well-being of those whom they serve. As editors, we likewise feel a strong sense of and a need for ethical responsibility as outlined in Appendix C of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001). Beyond such formal written codes, we pledge a commitment to a larger sense of professionalism that is captured by words such as integrity, respect, evenhandedness, efficiency, diplomacy, confidentiality, courtesy, and constructiveness. These qualities will be operational in all of our work as edi-
On metaphors and editing
tors on behalf of the field and in all of our dealings with RRQ’s various constituencies.
Acknowledgments In closing, we wish to acknowledge the many people who have contributed to making this first issue under our editorship a reality. Foremost, we wish to thank the authors, reviewers, and international research correspondents without whom there would be nothing for us as editors to broker. Their collegiality, professionalism, and dedicated efforts on behalf of the field in general and RRQ in particular are greatly appreciated. We want to thank especially the reviewers whose extensive and vital work is often invisible to readers. David Moore’s willingness to continue as essay book review editor is greatly appreciated. Andrew Garber, Editorial Associate, and Jonathan Eakle, Editorial Assistant, have been inestimable assets in managing our editorial tasks, both conceptually and pragmatically. We also wish to acknowledge the dedi-
11
cation and professionalism of the publications support staff at IRA under Joan Irwin’s capable leadership. Finally, we wish to thank our predecessors John Readence and Diane Barone. They have been excellent role models as editors, and their finely honed brokering skills have made our transition to the RRQ editorship a pleasurable and fruitful experience. REFERENCES AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. ECO, U. (1988). Foucault’s pendulum (W. Weaver, Trans.). New York: Ballantine. KAGAN, J. (1998). Three seductive ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. LAKOFF, G., & JOHNSON, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. OLDFATHER, P., & WEST, J. (1994). Qualitative research as jazz. Educational Researcher, 23, 22–26. PURVES, A. (1998). Flies in the web of hypertext. In D. Reinking, M.C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R.D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 235–252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
