Should research students use editors?

Ross Woods, With thanks to Jαne Αbαο Re-written July 2024

Should research students use editors? Some “editing” goes so far as to represent a substantial contribution to the dissertation, so where is the boundary between permissible editing and ghost writing?

The answers are various. For example, 78% of respondents in a survey of US Doctor of Ministry programs encouraged or required students to use outside editors. 1. Some research supervisors do not accept dissertation drafts unless they have been read by a third party. On the other hand, some European universities explicitly forbid all professional editing, and see it as ground for expulsion.

When it might be unacceptable

In some fields, such as the humanities, the writing process is integral to the research. “The rhetorical construction and presentation of the argument is at least as important as the actual approach” but still suggests the use of editors is only “borderline”unacceptable. 2. However, it would be more consistent to conclude that students must be able to edit their own dissertations, and that students who cannot do so may not pass.

It is also unacceptable if supervisors neglect their responsibiities as supervisors and require students to hire private consultants to do the supervisor's job.

When it is helpful or even recommended

  1. The Australian Standard of Editing Practice (ASEP) sets explicit limits to the editor's role, and it is notable that software and proofreaders operate within these guidelines:
    1. The editor's role is limited to language, expression, referencing, and academic style. They may help in phrasing ideas more clearly, resolving inconsistencies, fixing confusing paragraphs, and helping make argument more persuasive.
    2. They may not write the student’s dissertation nor make changes to structure and content.
  2. In some dissertations in the hard sciences, the writing process is less integral to the research; researchers use writing to report their research, which is focussed on numerical data and experiments. The use of editors in these cases is quite defensible, even recommended, especially language editing for English as a Second Language (ESL) students.
  3. Modern word processing software can now set layout, generate references, and correct punctuation, grammar, spelling, and language style. Most institutions expect students to use those features, and even institutions that disallow human editors seem not to object to software that performs these tasks.
  4. In the days when typing was a specialized occupation, it was quite permissible to give the typist a set of polished notes in longhand and a copy of the style manual. It was then the typist's job to follow the style manual, although the student was fully responsible for the presentation of the document. This indicates that students could then outsource style guide compliance to a third party, as long as the student retains responsibility.
  5. Proofreaders may give any kind of comment that they wish. These are normally unpaid, and might be a spouse, friend or colleage. Institutions do not seem to object, even if the service is the same as done by a paid person wearing the title “editor.”

Tentative conclusions

The institutional policy on the use of editors should be a departmental decision. In the humanities, the department is entitled to require that students edit their own dissertations, and the use of editors is grounds for expulsion. However, in the hard sciences, the department might allow students to engage editors within ASEP standards.

The departments should also have a policy on whether or not students may hire their own specialist methodologists and statisticians. It should also have rules for doing so, so that they can identify how much of the dissertation is the student's own work.

The supervisor's role is to advise and support, but not to check typing, spelling, and grammar. However, some lazy students expect their supervisors to do so, and, in effect, write their dissertation for them.

New programs need more leeway if students do not yet have a model to follow.

______________
1. “ADME 2022 Final Project Survey Results” (v. 3.30.2022). This was an unpublished survey of US professional doctoral programs, in all cases Doctor of Ministry programs accredited by ATS. ADME is The Association for Doctor of Ministry Education (https://dmineducation.org/).
2. Αbαο, 2022.