Editing Academic Writing: Productive Erosion and Corrosive Processes



This chapter uses stories as a prompt to inquire into an all too familiar process of editing, in particular, what editing produces through the processes involved in academic writing. The stories ‘map’ the territory of editing, with an invitation to the reader to make meanings through their own ‘explorations’ of the experiences. Years of the editing and feedback loop in academia works to produce ‘experts’ – with ways of writing, and reading. Knowledge production can become secondary to the ‘mastery’ of a particular set of skills that enable publication.


  1. Antonio, E. (1973). Painters painting. Retrieved from:
  2. Davies, B. (2003). Shards of glass: Children reading and writing beyond gendered identities (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  3. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dreyfus, H., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Elderfield, J. (Ed.). (1992). Essays on assemblage. New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art.Google Scholar
  6. Elkins, J. (2000). What painting is. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  9. Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  10. Ingold, T., & Hallam, E. (2007). Creativity and cultural improvisation: An introduction. In E. Hallam & T. Ingold (Eds.), Creativity and cultural improvisation (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  11. Jack, B. (2013). The woman reader. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue, and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 34–37). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. McArdle, F., & McWilliam, E. (2005). From balance to blasphemy: Shifting metaphors for researching early childhood education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3), 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marcus, G., & Saka, E. (2006). Assemblage. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2–3), 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Picasso, P. (1937). Guernica. Retrieved from:
  16. St Pierre, E., & Pillow, W. (Eds.). (2000). Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Sameshima, P. (2007). Seeing red/a pedagogy of parallax: An epistolatory Bildingsroman on artful scholarly enquiry. Youngstown, OH: Cambria Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Urciuoli, B. (2014). The semiotic production of the good student: A Peircean look at the commodification of liberal arts education. Signs and Society, 2(1), 56–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weiler, H. (2006). Challenging the orthodoxies of knowledge: Epistemological, structural and political implications for higher education. In G. Neave (Ed.), Knowledge, power and dissent: Critical perspectives on higher education and research in knowledge society (pp. 61–87). Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Williams, P. (2015). Plagiarism, palimpsest and intertextuality. New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing, 12(2), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wood, D. (2010). Everything sings: Maps for a narrative atlas. New York, NY: Siglio Press.Google Scholar
  22. Wood, J. T. (2008). Critical feminist theories. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 323–334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wright, S. (Ed.). (2012). Children, meaning-making and the arts (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Australia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations