Chapter 10 Rethinking revisions: The art of devision
Restricted access

Revision is deeply rooted in academic norms and values regarding the importance of critical reflection and transparency of arguments, and not the least regarding the notion of research as a collective accomplishment. Over the last couple of decades, however the practice of revision has increasingly become interwoven with the institutionalized academic field logic of publish or perish, turning revision into a matter of opportunistically relating to normative editorial decisions based on blind peer reviews to be able to stay in the business. In this article, the aim is to destabilize the notion and practices of revision by questioning some of its taken-for-granted assumptions and challenging these assumptions by introducing an alternative approach to revision. Instead of talking about revision, I propose the use of devision, and instead of revising texts, I propose engaging in devising texts. Devision is conceptualized as a process consisting of four aspects of textual meaning exploration – intentio auctoris, intentio opus, intentio opera, and intentio lectoris; and the art of devision is presented and problematized as a constellation of four interpretative actions: self-reflexivity, distancing, composing, and projection. In the last section, the art of devision's relation to meaningfulness is addressed in a normative and somewhat idealistic manner.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Other access options

Redeem Token

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institutional Access

Personal login

Log in with your Elgar Online account

Login with you Elgar account
Monograph Book