JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PLAGIARISM Archives


PLAGIARISM Archives

PLAGIARISM Archives


PLAGIARISM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PLAGIARISM Home

PLAGIARISM Home

PLAGIARISM  August 2013

PLAGIARISM August 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Translators and Proof Readers

From:

Jennifer Krase <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Plagiarism <[log in to unmask]>, Jennifer Krase <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 9 Aug 2013 09:06:10 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (24 lines)

Dear Ros & colleagues,

I normally skim-read this list but this time your message caught my eye! I've read with interest the other replies to the translation/proof reading question and wondered if you might benefit from another perspective. I believe I am most inclined to agree with Peter's comments, but here are some of my experiences "on the ground". When I was studying for my MPhil one of the ways I made extra money to cover cost of living expenses was proofreading for other students, normally MSc or PhD students, and very occasionally undergrads. This opened up a whole new world of information for me on how academic writing is judged in (depending on how you look at it) either a biased way or an arbitrary way (and I found it incredibly frustrating knowing some people passed their degrees with the level of work that I knew for a fact was handed in, even despite my best efforts). 

I can perhaps shed some light on the ethics of undertaking this work while specifically aiming at student clients. I made it clear on my then-website, in discussion with clients and in my final feedback roundup what I would and wouldn't do. I would open a document and track changes, and correct spelling/convention mistakes, grammar, and make suggestions about syntax. I was not there to rewrite passages or sentences; in the event that an entire paper really needed to be rewritten, I would tell them so. My common refrain was that I could only correct what was there - I could not rewrite, write new content, or add information where the client had provided none. So, I believe that I adhered to a set of editing behaviours that were clearly limited in scope and appropriate for students writing a long thesis such as an MPhil or PhD. Copyediting and proofreading all refer primarily to mechanical corrections, the pointing out of errors whether of grammar, spelling or syntax. They are not the same as copywriting, ghostwriting, or editing a work with the aim of transforming the text to a preconceived mold (in this instance, something that will pass muster as a solidly written dissertation). I do firmly believe - as do several of you - that there is a distinction, and one of the first rules of freelancing is that you lay out your goals, intentions, and limitations with your clients before ever picking up a pen. I also had a policy, made known to prospective clients, of reporting to the University any solicitations made to commission written work (i.e. ghostwriting), and any plagiarism (if found). Though I advertised widely, I never once encountered a solicitation. My clients were honest, and so was I, although some of my clients needed a ghostwriter and not a proofreader!

On the subject of English proficiency & international students, this seemed to be a pretty substantial problem, both anecdotally and in my experience as a fellow postgrad. I don't want to overstate it - I'm sure people seeking proofreaders might skew my sample considerably, but I also don't think this should be let go. There needs to be either substantially more English-language and academic writing support for all levels, or Universities need to seriously tighten up their definitions and testing for language proficiency, in advance of taking on students. A student should be unable to get to the stage of handing in without previously demonstrating their ability to, largely independently, write well enough in English to produce a substantial academic work. This was certainly not the case with a small number of my clients. From my perspective, reading the supposed result of a year or more of research, they should never have been allowed onto their courses, let alone to complete - not only was the writing nearly incomprehensible, it was a mish-mash of translation, "paraphrasing", and Wikipedia citations.

That said, it's important to keep in mind that all written work (particularly that of students) is improved by the editorial eyes of colleagues. Whether it roots out unnoticed tics in someone's writing habits, or actually exposes a fault in the research itself, we all benefit. My PhD student friends would get me to look at their chapters as they went along, and I would get them to look at mine. This definitely involved extended discussions of syntax and even about content and source choice. These conversations developed everyone as better academics, and I'm sure no one here would object. Sometimes the criticisms and insights of your supervisor don't catch everything, and sometimes you aren't ready to show them your latest hot mess. I sometimes wonder if the same collegial relationships in the formative stages of writing up are developed by international students with English as a second language; I would question whether there is parity. Isolation and alienation are two social experiences that international students bear, on top of the normal isolation (independence?) of doing a research degree. Different students are scrutinised in different ways around certain practices. Sometimes this different scrutiny is for the right reasons, and sometimes it is not. This discussion is taking place in a context of rising xenophobia in the UK, HE being no exception.

Facility with English, pressure to perform, and sometimes pressure to cheat are all things our UK undergraduates and postgraduate students struggle with. Solutions to the problems that are being discussed should aim to solve the problem as one that exists (and is perhaps growing) in HE, rather than one that exists among international students. I have found as a student and now as a worker in HE that there can be hidden biases about international students that result in either scapegoating, stereotyping, or an approach that seeks to eradicate "the problem". Students, particularly international students, have often been implicated as "the problem" rather than the system itself not being built for its users. The act of seeking a proofreader/copyeditor for your thesis is generally not at the root of the problem, it is in my experience often a symptom of other problems - academic under-preparedness, lack of confidence, language barrier, lack of appropriate support, lack of appropriately stringent admission requirements or progression standards. Often it is not a symptom of anything other than wishing to do one's best- I have similarly proofed the dissertations of many highly capable, high-performing PhD students who simply wanted a pair of trained eyes to review their work for obvious typographical errors.

I hope this has been helpful in some way. I apologise for its length, especially on a Friday! Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

With best wishes,

Jenny Krase

*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change
your subscription options, or access list archives,  visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
May 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager