Editorial license

Article Outline

• References
• Copyright

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN

“What’s so exciting and terrifying about the writing process is that it is really about exploration and discovery. With all of us, not just writers, there is sort of knowledge of each other. We have a lot more in common than we realize, and I think writing is really a sustained act of empathy.”

—Andre Dubus, III

Almost any editor I know will agree that writing an editorial is the hardest part of the job. It is not that there is a dearth of controversial topics, or topics in need of cogent analysis and discussion. I believe some of the challenge lies in 2 areas: (1) the pressure to be persuasive on a topic which is not already “old news” and (2) the lack of immediate feedback from readers.

The problem with being persuasive is “wanting to be”—better known as motivation. When writing an editorial, one isn’t motivated by the usual reasons to publish. In most universities, editorials are not “counted” as a measure of scholarly productivity, such as a refereed, data-based publication, nor are they rated even as highly as a chapter. I always found that interesting. Given the compensation most editors receive,¹ clearly payment isn’t a major driving influence. Therefore, inherent within the editor’s job—which is so unlike any other—is the ability to own one’s thoughts and words, write and publish them, and then leave them be. Leave them be to, hopefully, stimulate someone else’s thinking (though one rarely knows).

The problem with the lack of reciprocity and interchange in editorial writing is that one doesn’t get to “hone” one’s opinion and make it more balanced, constructive, logical, fanciful or even just clearer. No matter how persuasive one is, it remains an opinion. One rarely knows if the opinion is reflection of an N of 1, or if it resonates with others. In normal conversation, one can judge the response of the listener by both verbal and nonverbal responses. One can then moderate one’s tone, pull forth more facts to bolster an argument in the face of skepticism, appeal to the listener’s emotion, or even employ esoteric rhetoric meaning to obfuscate! Not so in an editorial—it is a stellar example of “it is what it is,—for better or worse.”

The Pulitzer prize,² given annually for excellence in editorial writing, is based on “cleanness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion.…” Wow! That is a tall order. In my opinion it is easier to write a data-based manuscript (assuming one has data, of course). It is much harder to be persuasive without appearing to devalue or berate, to be constructively critical and not unduly negative and, most importantly, to continually point out controversial (and sometimes annoying) issues without sounding like one is whining.

In the past year I have received several letters-to-the-editor about selected manuscripts we have published. This is great, I think (although I am not sure the article’s authors always agree…). It means someone is reading the paper, crystallizing an opinion to either support or counter what the authors have said and then caring enough to write about it. I continue to hope that I will also receive some similar “letters” about some of the editorials I write. I have received emails on occasion, almost always very supportive. Letters that present an alternate perspective would also be welcome and give me the opportunity to further “hone” my ideas, share the debate with readers and, ultimately, to influence (together) thinking in the field. So, I would encourage all readers who don’t agree, or even who just have a different perspective to chime in … the village of nursing would be a more informed place.

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Freda M, Kearney M. An international survey of nurse editors’ roles and practices. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2005;37:1;87-94
   • View In Article
   • CrossRef
2. The Pulitzer Prizes. www.pulitzer.orgAccessed December 1, 2007.
   • View In Article