+ Models SECLAN-251; No of Pages 25 Please cite this article in press as: Harwood, N., et al. Proofreading in a UK university: Proofreaders’ beliefs, practices, and experiences. J Second Lang Writing (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.002 Proofreading in a UK university: Proofreaders’ beliefs, practices, and experiences Nigel Harwood a, * , Liz Austin b , Rowena Macaulay c a Department of Language & Linguistics, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, Essex, United Kingdom b International Academy, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom c Department of Sociology, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom Abstract This article presents key findings from an interview-based study of the beliefs, practices, and experiences of 16 proofreaders of student writing in a university setting. Proofreading is defined for the purposes of this research as ‘‘third-party interventions (entailing written alteration) on assessed work in progress.’’ We report results relating to the proofreader informants’ profiles, the types of texts informants are willing or unwilling to proofread, how much proofreaders charge for their work, the terminology informants and writers use to refer to proofreading, the changes proofreaders are willing and unwilling to make to writers’ texts, and some of the ethical uncertainties informants have experienced when proofreading. There were differing beliefs about the appropriacy of proofreading outside the informants’ disciplines, different labels given to proofreading by informants and student writers, differences in fees charged and in proofreading practices, and uncertainty regarding the ethical (in)appropriacy of certain types of intervention. We end by discussing the implications of the results and pointing to future research that will enhance our understanding of proofreading. # 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Academic writing; Language support; Revision; Editing; Textual intervention; Ethical issues; Proofreading; Beliefs Introduction When university students, particularly nonnative speakers (NNS), experience difficulties with writing, their lecturers, in the UK at least, sometimes encourage them to ‘‘have it proofread.’’ 1 One can find numerous adverts for ‘‘proofreading’’ around the notice boards of the University of Essex, where we work, and proofreading has always featured in the production of final academic and nonacademic texts. However, the changing nature of the academy, with the recruitment of more and more nontraditional and NNS students (e.g. Lillis, 2001), has resulted in an increasing number of students with a range of language support needs, impacting on academic supervisors and language support tutors. It has also quickened the debate about how much help nonnative writers, in particular, should be permitted in relation to work going on to be assessed. Attention has therefore focused anew on the nature of proofreading practices in the modern university context. In our institution, for instance, proofreading services are completely unregulated. So what is in fact being offered in the name of proofreading? Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (2009) xxx–xxx * Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01206 872 633; fax: +44 01206 872 198. E-mail addresses: nharwood@essex.ac.uk (N. Harwood), eaustin@essex.ac.uk (L. Austin), rowena@essex.ac.uk (R. Macaulay). 1 We use ‘lecturer’ as a generic term for disciplinary faculty. 1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.002