The Chief Editor offers some guidance, inspiration and insight into the art of crafting an effective conversation article for publication, highlighting their many advantages and value to readers and authors alike.
As I discussed in my recent post about Critical Reflections, some of the formats we consider as articles for publication are less familiar for potential authors, which is why we try and offer more guidance. In this piece then I’m going to look at another these formats, one of which was especially popular in earlier issues of Exchanges, but we’ve seen more seldomly in recent years: the Conversation article. Perhaps this blog piece will stimulate a few new ones or at the very least demystify their creation a little more.
What Are They
Undoubtably, conversations between scholars have throughout academic history been an invaluable aid to clarifying and illuminating aspects of research thinking. I’m sure many readers can think to times when a conversation over coffee or a glass of wine at a conference served to stimulate their own understanding of an area, possibly more so than the formally presented papers! Even written down, rather than experienced aurally, such transcribed debates can have a significant and illuminating value. For example, it was reading a conversation between Foucault and another researcher, rather than his writings, which finally got me to better understand his thinking on power structures. So, it is fair to say I have a personal interest in the form.
Hence, structurally conversation articles comprise annotated and contextualised dialogues between two or more people. While they always contain the transcript of a conversation, the written text goes beyond this by additionally offering some context around the exchange. This is because these articles are intended to offer a more accessible route to understanding an individual’s academic contributions, or to explore an area of research in an engaging and readable manner. Where the conversation is between an experienced scholar or significant public figure, and a researcher, the focus of the discussion is often around the former’s contribution to thinking, research or practice. In terms of word limits at submission, they are our second shortest format, coming in at between 1,500 and 3,500 words. Given the need for a healthy dialogue and contextualising information, most of those we publish tend to be towards the upper rather than the lower word limits.
Why They Matter
Today I would equate the conversation article with another beloved format of mine: the podcast. In a similar way, a conversation article matters because it intrinsically helps readers new or less familiar with a field, topic, researcher or thinking to better understand it. These kinds of articles are also useful because often, especially when focusing on significant scholars or public figures, they can work as a highlight reel, providing guidance and unique insights into a field, research, debates or key literature. Occasionally, some participants have offered revelatory and intimate insights into their working or thinking, which can be both inspirational and instructional for readers researching in associated realms. From any conversation article though, readers should find themselves better prepared to engage with the associated literature and discourse having been primed through cogent debate and exchange.
I would suggest too that conversation articles have a particular value for those scholars working in adjacent or related fields, especially such individuals keen to develop a more cross or interdisciplinary research modality. To achieve this outcome, they will by necessity need to better understand the key concepts, methods, methodologies and practices with which they will be potentially engaging. Sure, they could take a lengthy personal exploration of the literature, but this may result in the pursuit of false leads and frustrating misdirection: akin to diving into a ‘wiki-hole’ late at night chaining between articles desperately trying to understand a new topic. Sometimes the result is treasure, more often than not though the outcome is at best distraction or at worst vexation. Would that a trusted guide provide both guidance and context on the right or salient topics, publications or people to better focus any explorations and result in a saving of ever-precious time.
Conversation articles are therefore intended to offer just such guidance, with the debate and context presented in a way which will be accessible and digestible by most scholars and often well-educated public too. They will ideally bring to life topics and individuals who might otherwise be shrouded in mystery or poorly understood, or alternatively bring to the fore scholars and topics which might otherwise be passed over or disregarded by many. The best conversationalists will be able to take their readers on an informed, guided journey into these ‘mysterious realms’ with the express purpose of clarifying and celebrating the importance and value of the topic or individual under discussion. While many conversation articles have been with significant figures, interviewed by more ‘junior’ academics exploring their lives and works, many others have focused instead on peer debates. In these latter kinds of article, researchers share their nuanced and informed understanding through debating a topic of mutual interest, alongside sharing their own knowledge and perceptions. Both kinds of conversations have much to offer readers, and surprisingly, their authors too. Often through engaging in such debates on subjects of mutual interest, authors will benefit from uncovering new perceptions or understandings themselves!
Capturing the Conversation
Unlike a critical reflection though, the first step to creating this kind of article is to arrange, plan and conduct your conversation itself. This means identifying who will be involved, getting their permission not just to have the discussion but an agreement that their words can be shared in an article too. With the groundwork laid, the next step is to move on to plan the structure and topics for actual discussion itself. This aspect is one which is very much in the hands of the lead conversationalist and not something on which the journal has any expectations or preconceptions. Generally, though we would advise starting with less-specific questions before progressing on to more detailed topics. This can help establish a tone for the discussion, alongside letting participants warm-up and become comfortable with talking with one another. In this latter respect, you might even schedule a brief ‘off-the-record’ chat before you commence the questioning, to further build a strong rapport between all conversationalists. This will aid in achieving the kind of professional and revelatory exchange that lies at the heart of all the best conversation articles. Ideally it is also worth preparing a concluding, wrap-up question for the end of your discussions, which will allow for the reiteration of any key points but also bring the discussion to an appropriate and well-structured ending.
If you are less familiar with discussions or interviews like this, there are many books and articles on semi-structured interviewing which can provide exceptional guidance. [1] Once you have an outline to the planned conversation, it is an excellent idea to share it with everyone who will be talking. Do try to dissuade anyone from overpreparing though, as it is best if the dialogue develops along more naturalistic lines. Even if you will be having a conversation with a peer or close colleague though, making sure everyone knows what will be discussed is always a good idea, just in case there are any topics which need to be avoided or handled empathetically. [2].
Practically speaking, try and conduct the conversation somewhere relatively quiet where you can record it, and transcribe it later in preparation for conversion into an article. You might like to have some drinks (coffee, tea, water etc.,) on hand, as talking for a prolonged time can dry the throat and lead to awkward pauses or disrupt the conversational flow. Afterwards, when you are ready to transcribe your discussions while you can handle this manually thankfully there are many automatic transcription programmes now, including embedded in Word365, which make this task easier. Do be prepared to do some copyediting though as they do not always catch every nuance, name or unusual word correctly and may struggle with some accents. [3] However you approach it though, once the dialogue has been transcribed, your next step is to transform it into a full conversation article.
Writing the Conversation
A conversation article practically speaking comprises three parts: an introduction, the transcript and a postscript or conclusion. The introduction is where your discussion’s themes or key individual(s) are introduced, setting the scene, and often comprise not much more than a paragraph or two. Ideally this is where you should highlight why this conversation matters and especially, given our journal’s interests, its relevance in a cross, multi or interdisciplinary manner. This may be an aspect you explore more fully in your transcript, but it is invaluable to readers (and editors) that you highlight this context clearly from the outset. Your introduction should also include any appropriate citations to key pieces of relevant information, concepts, definitions or literature: especially those likely to be less familiar to a wide academic audience. In terms of overall article length though the introduction normally comprises only around 10-20% of the total word count.
The introduction is followed by the conversation transcript itself, and while I would strongly advocate for authenticity within this, a modest degree of author mediation is acceptable. That is to say, you don’t need to transcribe every single utterance or piece of paralanguage the conversationalists made. You might also want to add the occasional aside or clarifying note, to help the comprehension or context of the discussions. However, authors should try to avoid too much heavy-handed editing though, as efforts to valorise any of the participants, in my experience, runs the risk of stunting the natural conversational flow. It can also introduce a sense of artificiality or artifice in the dialogue, and this increased inauthenticity can cause some readers to switch-off or move on from reading your article. So, edit lightly here!
Additionally, within your transcript it is normal practice to preface each speaker’s statements with their name, to clarify which of them is talking at any point. Generally, the first time they speak you would use their full name, and for all subsequent dialogue, their first name only. For example:
Tom Goode: I would always argue that that the publication of A Silent Spring in ’62 was one of the most significant moments of the modern environmental movement. Or at least in bringing it into the public discourse.
Margo Leadbetter: Would you say it still has the same impact today, for readers who are perhaps more concerned with climatic chaos?
Tom: Absolutely, sadly much of what it has to say still bears considerable attention.
As a general rule Exchanges does not use titles in front of names, so don’t use ‘Dr’, ‘Prof’ etc., within these name captions. Such titles can be covered in the author biographies at the end of the article. There may also be points in the conversational exchange where you want to redact, paraphrase or contextualise something which was said. It is perfectly acceptable to make an appropriate use of square brackets [ ] around the phrasing here. In any case, as the transcript forms the heart of this article, it should also represent the bulk of the word count, coming in around 70% or more of the whole.
Finally, there should be a brief article postscript or conclusion, ideally offering a few final thoughts on the key points or matters raised. It might even point the reader to other works or discussions relevant to the conversation or individual discussed. Unsurprisingly, this codicil will normally be the shortest element of the whole piece, normally comprising at most 10% of the total wordcount. [4]
At the very end of the article references or a bibliography should follow to conclude the piece. As in our standard guidance to authors, references should be those works which are directly cited or quoted from within the article, most often found within the introduction. Where texts are alluded to, for example books written by one of the conversationalists and mentioned in your discussions, then these should be placed in a bibliography instead. If you’re not sure which citations go where don’t worry, your editor will help guide you on this during the later copyediting stages of editing!
Incidentally, it is good practice to share your final-pre-submission manuscript with everyone involved ahead of submitting it to us for consideration. Participants may have some final insights or suggestions to add, which you could incorporate into the main text or add as a comment in an endnote. Sharing the draft manuscript like this ahead of submission helps avoid any risks that named participants might feel ‘overexposed’ by anything ‘too revelatory’ they said, and which now appears associated with their name in a draft article! [5]
Examples
Here are a few examples of past conversations which might help spur your imagination or give a better idea of the form.
Concluding Thoughts
Hopefully, this post has given you a flavour, helpful guidance and even a little inspiration to create your own conversation article. It is worth mentioning that editing and revisions requested from conversation manuscripts tend to be lighter, which is a minor advantage too. This tends to mean they progress to publication acceptance, and dissemination as an article, more rapidly too. As we normally wouldn’t suggest you revise the dialogue itself, our editors tend to focus in on the opening and closing of the piece – the contextualisation – as these are the sections which normally benefit from the most attention to ensure they’re suitable for our readers. Unsurprisingly, our most common feedback and revision requests are focused on where authors haven’t explained in sufficient depth or transparency why their topic or subject matters, and their significance to the wider academic world. Ideally, considering and highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of the conversation here is always a great way to help progress your manuscript to publication success!
Incidentally, conversation articles, like critical reflections, have often featured in our most popular articles of the year. So, they are clearly a format which our readers value and benefit from, and as I noted at the start, my only regret is that we have far fewer of them submitted these days than we once did. However, with the lower number of conversations published more recently, there’s an opportunity for newer ones to make a significant splash, so if anything, they are possibly a more attractive prospect for a publication than ever.
I do hope this article has helped you better understand not just how easy it can be to create a conversation article for Exchanges, but also how valuable and readable they can be. I have certainly enjoyed all the ones I have read during my time on the journal, and I look forward with considerable interest to any we receive in the future.
As always if you have any further thoughts about this topic, please do use the comments option below. If you’ve got any specific questions about a possible submission, naturally, please do get directly in touch. I look forward to hearing from you!
Endnotes
[1] I will confess to being a past master, or at least indecently experienced, at this style of interviewing, as a consequence of my doctoral research and podcasting endeavours. If anyone would like some specific guidance, I am happy to offer pointers to anyone less familiar with this approach.
[2] Some people, more natural performers, may find the unprepared approach more exhilarating or freeing. Hence, adopt an approach which works best for everyone. I confess I always prefer to have an outline idea at least of any topics up for debate, simply so I can focus my mind before speaking.
[3] I nominally speak with a mix of standard English RP and light UK Midlands accents…and transcription programmes sometimes struggle with me! They are getting gradually better but expect to spend time correcting some inaccuracies in an automatic transcription, especially where technical/disciplinary-specific terms or people’s names are encountered.
[4] Don’t get too hung up on these percentages though. You may have only a brief transcript and want to provide proportionally more context and analysis. This is formally perfectly acceptable within the conversation format, but it can be a good idea to discuss this with the Chief Editor (me!) ahead of submission to double check.
[5] The attributed authorship of the article is a decision you’ll have to make among yourselves as we are normally guided by the wish of the contributors, as communicated to us from the lead (submitting) author. Some contributors prefer to include all writers and conversation participants as authors, others restrict it to solely those who transcribed, drafted and revised the article text itself. If I were to make any suggestion though, I would personally consider the former option preferable, which if nothing else can be a handy way to have your name associated with a co-author with a noted figure. However, the first author should always be whomever led on authoring the article, rather than most ‘significant’ figure involved, unless they personally drafted the article.
Exchanges Editorial Discourses 
