I report on questionnaire and interview-based research soliciting the views of three parties on proofreading: (i) UK university lecturers; (ii) English language tutors; and (ii) undergraduate and postgraduate students. There are highly differing views of the ethical appropriacy of different forms of proofreading both within and across the three groups.
Before submitting writing for assessment, university students may seek help from a ‘proofreader’. However, articles about proofreading in publications such as Times Higher Education often question the ethics of proofreading, linking proofreading with plagiarism and cheating, and the boundaries of acceptable proofreading are contested (Harwood, 2018, 2019; Harwood et al., 2009, 2010, 2012). Indeed, there is evidence from proofreaders’ accounts that the ‘proofreading’ term is a mere term of convenience when applied to a student writing context, given it may signify markedly different styles of intervention for different people. For some, proofreading involves only light-touch interventions at the level of grammar and punctuation, while others may understand legitimate forms of proofreading to include heavier-touch interventions at the level of argumentation and content. In previous studies, I have explored proofreaders’ profiles, beliefs, and practices, but there has been little work on other stakeholders’ views towards the proofreading of student writing—although Cottier (2017), McNally & Kooyman (2017), and Salter-Dvorak (2019) have begun to address this gap. This paper duly reports on questionnaire and interview-based research soliciting the views of three parties on proofreading: (i) UK university lecturers; (ii) English language tutors; and (ii) undergraduate and postgraduate students. A striking finding is that there are highly differing views of the ethical appropriacy of different forms of proofreading both within and across the three groups. I end with a discussion of the implications of these findings for universities’ policies on proofreading.
