Abstract

Various forms of proofreading of student writing take place in university contexts. Sometimes writers pay freelance proofreaders to edit their texts before submission for assessment; sometimes more informal arrangements take place, where friends, family, or coursemates proofread. Such arrangements raise ethical questions for universities formulating proofreading policies: in the interests of fairness, should proofreading be debarred entirely or should it be permitted in some form? Using questionnaires and semistructured interviews, this article investigates where three university stakeholder groups stand on the ethics of proofreading. Content lecturers, English language tutors, and students shared their views on the ethics of various lighter-touch and heavier-touch proofreader interventions. All three parties broadly approved of more minor interventions, such as correcting punctuation, amending word grammar, and improving sentence structure. However, students were found to be more relaxed than lecturers and language tutors about the ethics of more substantial interventions at the level of content. There were outliers within each of the three groups whose views on proofreading were wide apart, underscoring the difficulty of formulating proofreading policies that would attract consensus across the academy. The article concludes by discussing the formulation and dissemination of appropriate, research-led proofreading guidelines and issues for further exploration.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2023-04-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883221146776
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Research in the Teaching of English

References (66) · 5 in this index

  1. 10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_39
  2. Alkhatib N. I. (2019). Academic staff perceptions of the need for proofreading for UK postgraduate students. …
  3. Baty P. (2006, April 7). Fluency can be all yours . for a small fee. Times Higher Education Supplement. https…
  4. Written Communication
  5. Brooks J. (1991). Minimalist tutoring: Making the writer do all the work. Writing Lab Newsletter, 15, 1-4. ht…
Show all 66 →
  1. Budenz J. (2007, January 5). OK for some to pay. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com…
  2. 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00037-7
  3. 10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.004
  4. The Longman guide to writing center theory and practice
  5. Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies
  6. Conrad N. L. (2020). Proofreading revisited: Interrogating assumptions about postsecondary student users of p…
  7. 10.5040/9781350164833.0009
  8. 10.31468/cjsdwr.589
  9. Proceedings of the 8th IPED national editors conference: Advancing our profession
  10. Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies
  11. Eckstein G. (2013). Implementing and evaluating a writing conference program for international L2 writers acr…
  12. Ellis R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97-107. https://doi.org/10…
  13. Assessing English for academic purposes
  14. 10.2307/357381
  15. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.03.004
  16. 10.1056/NEJMsb1710591
  17. 10.1016/j.esp.2014.09.001
  18. 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100957
  19. 10.4135/9780857024565
  20. 10.3102/00346543071001105
  21. Written Communication
  22. 10.1007/s10805-018-9322-5
  23. 10.1016/j.esp.2022.07.002
  24. 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.002
  25. 10.1016/j.esp.2009.08.004
  26. 10.1080/03075079.2010.531462
  27. Research in the Teaching of English
  28. 10.1007/s10805-017-9299-5
  29. Supervising postgraduates from non-English speaking backgrounds
  30. 10.2989/16073614.2010.519110
  31. Kruger H., Bevan-Dye A. (2013). The language editor’s role in postgraduate research: A survey of supervisors’…
  32. LaClare E., Franz T. (2013). Writing centers: Who are they for? What are they for? Studies in Self-Access Lea…
  33. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.01.001
  34. Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English
  35. 10.1080/02602938.2015.1013919
  36. 10.5040/9781350230484.ch-005
  37. Written Communication
  38. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.005
  39. Written Communication
  40. Mack L. (2014). Importing the writing center to a Japanese college: A critical investigation [Unpublished EdD…
  41. 10.3390/publications4030026
  42. Matthews D. (2013, August 13). Is proofreading permissible? Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighered…
  43. 10.1515/9783110807332.115
  44. McKie A. (2019, June 12). When does proofreading become plagiarism? Times Higher Education. https://www.times…
  45. McNally D., Kooyman B. (2017). Drawing the line: Views from academic staff and skills advisors on acceptable …
  46. Revising and editing for translators
  47. 10.18806/tesl.v30i2.1142
  48. ESL readers and writers in higher education: Understanding challenges, providing support
  49. 10.1080/21568235.2016.1172248
  50. 10.2307/377047
  51. Richards F. (2022). An investigation into proofreading practices at a UK university: The perspectives of an L…
  52. The coding manual for qualitative researchers
  53. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.03.004
  54. Scurr R. (2006, December 15). It is not enough to read an essay and mark it; one must also guess if a student…
  55. 10.4324/9781315816937
  56. 10.1080/03075071003671786
  57. On writtenness: The cultural politics of academic writing
  58. Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics
  59. 10.1016/j.esp.2012.04.001
  60. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.10.007
  61. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.010