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
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Research in the Teaching of English

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. Research in the Teaching of English
Also cites 38 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_39
  2. 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00037-7
  3. 10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.004
  4. Conrad N. L. (2020). Proofreading revisited: Interrogating assumptions about postsecondary student users of p…
  5. 10.5040/9781350164833.0009
  6. 10.31468/cjsdwr.589
  7. Eckstein G. (2013). Implementing and evaluating a writing conference program for international L2 writers acr…
  8. Ellis R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97-107. https://doi.org/10…
  9. 10.2307/357381
  10. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.03.004
  11. 10.1056/NEJMsb1710591
  12. 10.1016/j.esp.2014.09.001
  13. 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100957
  14. 10.4135/9780857024565
  15. 10.3102/00346543071001105
  16. 10.1007/s10805-018-9322-5
  17. 10.1016/j.esp.2022.07.002
  18. 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.002
  19. 10.1016/j.esp.2009.08.004
  20. 10.1080/03075079.2010.531462
  21. 10.1007/s10805-017-9299-5
  22. 10.2989/16073614.2010.519110
  23. LaClare E., Franz T. (2013). Writing centers: Who are they for? What are they for? Studies in Self-Access Lea…
  24. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.01.001
  25. 10.1080/02602938.2015.1013919
  26. 10.5040/9781350230484.ch-005
  27. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.005
  28. 10.3390/publications4030026
  29. 10.1515/9783110807332.115
  30. 10.18806/tesl.v30i2.1142
  31. 10.1080/21568235.2016.1172248
  32. 10.2307/377047
  33. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.03.004
  34. 10.4324/9781315816937
  35. 10.1080/03075071003671786
  36. 10.1016/j.esp.2012.04.001
  37. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.10.007
  38. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.010
CrossRef global citation count: 6 View in citation network →