• Macquarie Home »
• Faculty of Human Sciences »
• Department of Linguistics »
• Centres and Groups »
• Style Council

Style Council

Sydney, July 2004

National policy on editing theses

Janet Mackenzie

This is a tale of two acronyms: CASE and DDOGS.

CASE is the Council of Australian Societies of Editors, the peak national body representing the editing profession in Australia. DDOGS is the Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies, representing thirty-eight Australian universities.

This talk is also a cautionary tale - if you get up and ask a question at a conference like this, you might end up doing the work.

Editors have long been concerned with the ethical dimensions of editing theses, for all the obvious reasons - editorial intervention may misrepresent the student’s academic ability, and editing may unfairly advantage those who can afford to pay. There is also the matter of proficiency in English. Graduates of Australian universities who apply to overseas universities for further studies are exempt from tests of their English language abilities - an Australian degree implicitly attests that the student is proficient.

The editing of theses is a practical as well as a moral problem - the committees of the various state and territory societies of editors are often approached by their members and by university staff and students to advise, and even to adjudicate, in particular cases.

This was the background to a question I asked in April 2001 at the Partnerships in Knowledge conference in Canberra, a joint national conference held by indexers and editors. We were addressed by the then head of the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, Prof. Michael Chubb, and I asked him if that body would join CASE in preparing a suitable policy. He invited CASE to write formally to the Vice-Chancellors and propose draft guidelines, which it did.

The letter took a long time to wend its way through the groves of Academe. The delay was so long, in fact, that CASE drew up interim guidelines on editing theses, which were adopted by all the state and territory editors’ societies by the end of 2002. Eventually the letter to the Vice-Chancellors landed in the hands of DDOGS, and they approached CASE to join them in drawing up a suitable policy.

Naturally, having set the thing in motion, I got dobbed as the CASE representative. I met with Dr Deirdre Barron of Swinburne University and Professor Elaine Martin of Victoria University. Later Dr Barron had to drop out due to pressure of work, and Professor Martin and I continued the negotiations.

We found that our members’ concerns were almost identical and we wanted the same things - our discussions were mostly about the wording. Of course, since we represented two bodies that meet intermittently, it took an inordinate amount of time to get each draft approved, but eventually we reached agreement on a joint national policy. This was ratified by both bodies, CASE and DDOGS, just six weeks ago.

We decided to base the policy on Australian Standards for Editing Practice. This document has been accepted by the editors’ societies as stating the core knowledge that a competent editor brings to the job. It is available on the CASE website, www.case-editors.org.

The Editing of Research Theses by Professional Editors

Policy developed by the Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies collaboratively with the Council of Australian Societies of Editors

Background

Professional editors need to be clear about the extent and nature of help they offer in the editing of research students’ theses and dissertations. Academic supervisors of research students also need to be clear about the role of the professional editor as well as their own editorial role. This policy has been developed primarily to give guidance to professional editors. It also provides a guide for academic supervisors. This document has been developed with close attention to the current Australian Standards for Editing Practice (ASEP). Academic supervisors are encouraged to become familiar with this very useful publication.

Proofreading and Editing of Research Theses and Dissertations

It is expected that the academic supervisors of research higher degree students will provide editorial advice to their students. This type of advice is covered in Standards C, D and E of ASEP:

• Standard C, Substance and Structure
• Standard D, Language and Illustrations
• Standard E, Completeness and Consistency.

Students may use a professional editor in preparing their thesis for submission, but they should discuss this with their principal supervisor and provide the editor with a copy of this policy before they commence work.

Professional editorial intervention should be restricted to:

• Standard D
• Standard E

Where a professional editor provides advice on matters of structure (Standard C), exemplars only should be given.

Material for editing or proofreading should be submitted in hard copy. In electronic copy it is too easy for the student to accept editorial suggestions without thinking about their implications.

When a thesis has had the benefit of professional editorial advice, of any form, the name of the editor and a brief description of the service rendered, in terms of Australian Standards for Editing Practice, should be printed as part of the list of acknowledgements or other prefatory matter. If the professional editor’s current or former area of academic specialisation is similar to that of the candidate, this too should be stated in the prefatory matter of the thesis.

The Australian Standards for Editing Practice is available on the following website:www.case-editors.org

So that’s the policy. Like the Standards, the policy is also available on the CASE website.

Now it’s easy to quibble with the provisions of the policy. For my taste, the policy is a bit too loose - Standard D allows the editor considerable scope to make material improvements to the quality of a thesis. The provision regarding hard copy editing has delighted some editors and caused consternation among others, but the academics were quite insistent on it, and personally I feel it’s a good safeguard and it provides a clear record of editorial suggestions. Doubtless there are other points that could be improved.

This policy is untested. We hope it will work, we hope it will be widely adopted and become normal practice, but the real world may expose defects in it. We expect that it will be reviewed as experience dictates the need for changes.

The policy is not binding - neither CASE nor DDOGS has any means of enforcing it. But it has been agreed at a national level by the relevant representative bodies, and it therefore has considerable standing. Although it is written specifically for higher degree theses, it can be taken as guidance for the editing of student work at any level.

So I commend the policy to you. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got at the moment. It provides editors with a clear statement of their responsibilities in undertaking this type of work and it will help them to resist requests for inappropriate intervention. It will also clarify the position for students who engage an editor, and it will help academic supervisors and examiners to judge how much assistance the student has received. I hope you will all publicise the policy to your colleagues and your institutions.

I welcome questions and comments.

<< Back to 2004 Papers

[Back to top]