Abstract

This Special Issue has presented a series of conversational interviews with editors of leading journals in the field of philosophy of education. This concluding article synthesises the interviews and reflects on what this project offers to early career researchers including the interviewer-authors in this issue. The contributing writers are interested in their own prospects, as well as those of the field of philosophy of education, and indeed education, and society more generally, in the context of the turbulent changes currently remodelling academic lives and institutions. This has been an inspiring project to work on, producing these six interviews, on which this conclusion and special issue is based: ; _Shaping the agenda of the global civil society: an interview with Michael Peters_, by Richard Heraud and Marek Tesar. ; _Publishing and intergenerational learning in philosophy of education: an interview with Paul Smeyers, _ by Daniella J. Forster. ; _Insights from an editor’s journey: an interview with Gert Biesta, _ by Christoph Teschers. ; _Writing in the margins: an interview with Bob Davis, _ by Kirsten Locke. ; _Emerging perspectives on editorial ethics: an interview with Chris Higgins, _ by Liz Jackson. ; _The long arc of knowledge: an interview with Nicholas Burbules, _ by Georgina Stewart. Most of the Editors commented on the large amount of work involved in editing a journal: a demanding, time-consuming, but very rewarding and satisfying job. Paul Smeyers spoke of taking on the role after being approached by the publisher, when he realised there were few alternative candidates. Gert Biesta spoke of being curious to find out about the process of publishing from the inside, as well as regarding it as an honour to be asked, and being motivated by a wish to help the field. Michael Peters said his editing philosophy includes helping academics to realise that editing and publishing are related to having control over one’s own ideas: more political and philosophical than simply the technical tasks of proofreading and editing. All the Editors are motivated by a wish to improve the field, and ultimately society. An editor clearly needs to read a great deal: some of the Editors spoke about reading everything submitted, and everything published in the journal; or of having read thousands of papers in their time as editor; and the daunting commitment of time involved—about half a day per paper, or more. Several Editors spoke about the impact of the job on their own research output: one view being that the sheer time involved in editing a journal is detrimental to being an active researcher. Conversely, reading the work of so many other scholars can provide an editor with more motivation to write, while having limited writing time available encourages more decisiveness, and less perfectionism. Journals and editors need to understand their consumers: who reads what, how and when. In recent decades, reading practices have undergone a major change from paper-based to screen-based, and some of the Editors speculated that paper-based journals will soon disappear entirely. The change to reading digitally is the latest in a series of historical iterations of how the disciplines of reading interact with the mediating technologies, with each change integrating new forms while retaining what is best in their heritage. Reading, and hence also writing, played an important part in the eighteenth-century European development of human rights and the concept of equality, through widespread readership of seminal texts. The contemporary situation, in which everything can be freely read, redefines the relationship of the reader to the author, whereby reading and writing constitute a form of creative labour on the self, involving self-transformation, self-recognition, and the kinds of links that are possible between people in a digital world.