Introduction

An increasingly globalized academic landscape demands English as the dominant language of scholarly communication for research to spread quickly and fluidly. For academic writers working in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context, participation requires more than linguistic competence; it entails aligning with highly situated expectations about argumentation, textual organization, and scholarly voice. As a result, writing for publication in English often becomes a site of negotiation, where EFL scholars must reconcile local or national academic and rhetorical traditions with the norms of international disciplinary communities.

One way this negotiation unfolds is through the involvement of literacy brokers, or individuals who mediate the production of academic texts by offering linguistic, rhetorical, disciplinary, methodological, and strategic support. These literacy brokers include colleagues, professors, professional editors, institutional services, or friends, and their contributions range from surface-level language correction to more substantive intervention in how knowledge is framed and presented. While such mediation can increase access to publication, it also complicates conventional notions of authorship, raising questions about whose voice is ultimately represented in published work.

Furthermore, writers’ reliance on literacy brokering indicates a broader, often underexamined tension within global academia: The expectation that EFL researchers produce standardized English academic writing which sometimes clashes with the social, collaborative processes needed to achieve this standard. This tension is particularly pronounced in contexts where institutional pressures to publish in English intersect with uneven access to resources such as experienced mentors or funding for editorial or research support. Emerging technologies such as generative artificial intelligence (AI) further complicate this issue by offering new forms of linguistic and rhetorical non-human literacy broker assistance. Consequently, literacy brokering must be understood not simply as an individual strategy, but as part of a broader ecology of writing shaped by both human and technological forms of mediation.

This study examines the issues of how literacy brokering operates within the writing practices of EFL PG-students, PGs, and professors at a Mexican university. By foregrounding the mediated and collaborative dimensions of academic writing for publication, it seeks to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the production of scholarly texts.

Theoretical Framework

Literacy Brokers

Brandt (2001) developed the concept of literacy sponsors, or “any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, and model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold, literacy – and gain advantage by it in some way” (p. 19). The concept of literacy sponsors facilitates thinking about literacy as more than just a collection of individual skillsets. Instead, literacy relies upon an individual’s access or lack thereof to social and economic forces that enable or hinder their literacy development. For example, in Mexico, the Sistema Nacional de Investigadoras e Investigadores (SNII) expedites researchers’ academic English literacies by providing scholarships to academics whose articles are accepted by prestigious peer-reviewed English-language journals. Institutions of higher education also act as literacy sponsors when they require PGs to write a thesis in English for their graduation, common in many Mexican universities.

The preference of these literacy sponsors for English-medium publications implicates other discursive and language practices for Mexican academics. Canagarajah (2002) noted the inequalities faced by scholars outside the periphery of English-language medium journals, as the dominance of Western conventions in academic publishing enables both global regulation of intellectual knowledge and exploitation of scholars in communities where academic English is not dominant. Thus, challenges faced by scholars in an EFL context cannot be distilled into simple narratives about lack of knowledge of English or diverse methods of reporting research. Instead, analyses of academic writing for publication must consider the impacts of literacy sponsors, or the individual or collective agents who control scholars’ access to literacy.

In the specific context of academic publishing, Lillis and Curry (2006; 2010) established the concept of literacy brokering, or the process where individuals intervene in the process of academic publishing such as when a fellow academic provides feedback on a research work in progress. Literacy brokers include academic brokers (Abs) (specialist knowledge of academia and/or the specific discipline), language brokers (LBs) (specialist knowledge of language, general knowledge of academia and/or specific discipline), and informal literacy brokers (ILBs), such as the scholar’s family and friends, who will likely have general instead of specialized knowledge of language or academia. Even as literacy brokers may frame their assistance as helping with sentence-level errors or more “native-like” writing style, Lillis and Curry (2006) found that “language is often not the principal focus” (p. 16). They reported that most academic professionals performed literacy brokering by editing text for meaning and content, suggesting organizational changes, or identifying appropriate target journals. Ultimately, literacy brokers controlled access to academic publishing for multilingual scholars, and “having access to experienced brokers often constitutes a form of cultural capital that is differentially available to scholars in various locations” (p. 30); that is, scholars in EFL contexts do not have equal access to literacy brokers that facilitate publication in prestigious Western journals. As Habibie (2022) observed, “Scholarly publication is an economic and socio-political practice as much as (if not more) it is a linguistic/rhetorical act” (p. 4). Thus, literacy brokering plays an integral role in mediating the production and distribution of academic knowledge and texts, particularly in EFL contexts.

Literacy Brokers, Linguistic Bias, and Academic Writing for Publication

Academic writers encounter literacy brokers in diverse relationships, such as a paid editor proofreading a manuscript, a mentor reviewing an article before submission, or a journal editor managing peer reviews of a potential publication. For scholars in EFL contexts, journal editors and peer reviewers of academic publications hold powerful positions as literacy brokers. Although reviewers are asked to evaluate the scientific merit or innovation of a journal article, many recommend rejections or extensive revisions based on language norms, raising concerns about language bias in the review process.

Scholars like Hyland (2016) have questioned claims of widespread linguistic bias against EFL researchers and writers, arguing that assertions of discrimination often rest on assumptions about the presumed deficits of second-language writers and an overstated divide between native and non-native English speakers. Instead, Hyland suggests that the challenges faced by EFL writers are less about linguistic deficiency and more about “a lack of control over, or familiarity with, expected and familiar argument patterns” (2016, p. 10). From this perspective, difficulties in academic writing for publication are linked to alignment with disciplinary rhetorical conventions rather than to language bias. However, this framing also underscores the crucial role of literacy brokers, who are often tasked, implicitly or explicitly, with helping writers recognize, interpret, and reproduce expected argument patterns. At the same time, Hyland’s framing raises questions about whose expectations these patterns reflect and their accessibility to scholars working across different linguistic and academic traditions.

More recent empirical evidence supports the uneven access to academic writing for publication. In a study of 908 environmental scientists who had published at least one article, Amano et al. (2023) found that between 35-38% of non-native speaker academic writers had received a rejection because of language, as compared to 14% of native speakers. Non-native speakers were also asked to revise their standardized academic English 12.5 times more often than native speakers. In a Colombian study of 49 doctoral students in the biological sciences, nearly half (43.5%) had papers rejected because of academic English (Ramírez-Castañeda, 2020). These scholars’ experiences reflect the wider issue of linguistic bias in academic publication (Politzer-Ahles et al., 2020) and highlight the need for re-evaluation of language review criteria and bias training for reviewers and editors.

Within this context, literacy brokers who facilitate scholars’ publications make complex choices regarding the variance in academic writing style across languages, as Kačmárová et al. (2024) explained in terms of Slovak and English academic writing style. Their study examined the distinctions between academic Slovak and standardized academic English, including not only sentence structure and word choice, but also overall text structure, function, and paragraphing. They found that Slovak writing style differed from the English expected from the target journal on three levels. These levels included the macrostructure of text, which included the big picture, research statement, aim statement; the mezostructure, encompassing paragraphing, disorganized text, under- or over-developed paragraphs, inadequate location of arguments, and absence of supporting information; and microstructure, which included language, inadequate self-reference, and “baroqueness or too much of everything”, repetition, padding, and unnatural elaborateness (Kačmárová et al., 2024, p. 236). Even as 51% of their sample met the goals of the expected English academic writing conventions, Kačmárová et al. (2024) argued that literacy brokers may not be able to modify the macro-, mezzo, and microstructural elements because they do not have the required linguistic expertise or knowledge of English as a lingua academica (p. 219). Likewise, Farley (2018) recommended that literacy brokers for Indonesian scholars take caution to “overcorrect” local writing and rhetorical styles that are accepted by journal editors. This study of Indonesian-written research articles in English concluded that some elements of non-standard grammar, localized (as opposed to generalized) research results, fewer citations of previous research articles, and lack of adherence to CARS (Create a Research Space) organization did not impede publication. These findings suggest that what is identified as a problem in EFL researchers’ texts are not always inherent to the text itself, but emerges through situated judgments made by literacy brokers, including peer reviewers and editors, within a nuanced, multilayered linguistic landscape.

These dynamics become even more complex when academic conventions are understood as traveling across contexts. Arizmendi-González et al. (2023) conceptualized elements such as grammar, structure, clarity, and style as abstract academic concepts that move across linguistic and cultural boundaries. As they travel, these concepts are not simply transferred intact; rather, they are reinterpreted, negotiated, and sometimes transformed, becoming ambiguous or differently understood by writers and reviewers (Ballard & Clanchy, 1988; Lea & Street, 1998). For scholars writing in English across linguistic contexts, this phenomenon creates a space in which expectations are often implicit and difficult to access. As a result, judgments about clarity, coherence, or correctness may reflect not only textual qualities but also reviewers’ interpretations of these shifting conventions, reinforcing forms of linguistic bias.

In the Mexican academic context, literacy brokers facilitate the publication of research from scholars who experience conflicting or contradicting perspectives of English and Spanish, as Crawford et al. (2013) found in a case study of students, and as Olmos-López (2019) eloquently described in her auto-ethnographic study. Previous studies suggest that Mexican writers tend to produce longer sentences (which can be interpreted in the context of contrastive rhetoric as a Romance construction), reiterate synonyms for rhetorical effect, and create conscious topic deviations with purposeful transitions back to the main idea more often than native English speakers writing for academic purposes (Montaño-Harmon, 1991).

However, differences in writing style can be learned in educational contexts, as Navarro-Gil (2018) found in her study of Spanish undergraduates in linguistics and medicine, who produced similar patterns of metadiscourse in their bachelor’s theses as compared to published research articles in their respective fields. Other studies of bachelor and PG-students highlight the role doctoral or masters’ supervisors play as literacy brokers (Olmos-López et al., 2022; Bao & Feng, 2023). Mendoza et al. (2021) found that Mexican PG-students reported struggling with organization, rhetorical conventions, and efficiency for publication process, and that their PG supervisors played an important role, but were often weighed down with their own needs: “They often lack the necessary English skills to mentor students, or they are too busy and overwhelmed with their own tasks and academic demands to pay sufficient attention to their students’ manuscripts” (p. 147). Mexican PG-students thus turned to informal literacy brokers such as friends and relatives to assist with their composing and editing processes.

Informal literacy brokers (ILBs) can impact an academic writer’s research in important ways, such as giving general feedback, encouragement, or emotional support. As Mihut (2014) argued, “literacy brokering implicates emotional work […] comprised of language of empathy, personal experiences, and even social relations embedded in the literate experience” (para. 2). By foregrounding the contributions of the wide variety of professional and non-academic literacy brokers, researchers can bring the social practices (SPs) and support involved to light.

Feedback

Expert academic brokers (such as professors, supervisors, thesis directors)’s feedback to students writing theses has shown a focus on language, content, structure, and style (Casanave & Hubbard, 1992; Cooley & Lewkowicz, 1997). Bitchener et al. (2010) found that thesis supervisors attend to a wide range of issues in academic writing for publication, including content, rhetorical structure, coherence, genre expectations, and linguistic accuracy. Comparing the feedback given to L1 and L2 writers, these researchers observed that supervisors frequently commented on L2 students’ language accuracy. However, supervisors often framed these interventions not as feedback, but as editorial work intended to make the text understandable. As a result, language was treated as a necessary but secondary concern, distinct from what supervisors viewed as more substantive issues related to content and argument.

Viewed through the lens of literacy brokering, these findings highlight how ABs distinguish between feedback on content and argument and what they frame as editing of language. This distinction reflects broader assumptions about language and meaning, where attention to linguistic form is positioned as necessary for making the text understandable but unlike content, is not treated as central to knowledge development. At the same time, L2 academic writers are disproportionately subject to this intervention, which shapes their interactions with literacy brokers and overall writing process. To further understand the complex dynamics between literacy brokers, SPs, and support in production of theses/articles, the coauthors undertook the research study described in the next section.

Methods

Mixed methods empirical research was adopted involving survey and interview, as will be explained in detail below. As seen in Appendix A, the survey aimed to gather data on the people supporting graduate-students, graduates, and professor participants writing theses/articles in English and the interviews (Appendix B) to reveal further details on the SPs and support involved in literacy brokering. According to Zotzmann and Sheldrake (2021), surveys and interviews from the same participants are useful to show new insights. Besides, Lillis and Tuck (2016) argued that social practices (SPs) are inseparable from context, and that researchers should interview writers to elicit views focused on target texts to reveal the SPs.

Data Collection

After research ethics approval was obtained in a public Mexican university, an online survey was distributed (Ayiro, 2012) via email to current and former (N = 61) PG-students, PGs, and professors in the applied linguistics MA program, and twenty-one (n = 21) voluntarily accepted to participate. A consent form was included before the demographic section, then it asked participants to pseudonymize or anonymize their real names, and finally invited them to participate in an interview. The survey was designed on Google Docs and revised by each of the research collaborators for comprehensibility. It included multiple-choice questions followed by text boxes for “Other” so participants could expand on their answers. The survey showed acceptable reliability based on the Omega Coefficient (ω = 0.93). The twenty-one participants included nineteen Mexicans, one from Hungary and one from the USA. (Table 1). Data was collected from June 12 - July 31, 2023. Participants were either writing, or had completed or published a thesis or a research article in English.

The interview was scheduled on the participant’s and main researcher’s availability in-person in a classroom or via Zoom. An Olympus digital voice recorder VN-7700 and a Sony IC Recorder ICD-PX240 were used to record the 30-60-minute interviews. The participants answered in the language they chose, Spanish or English, as they felt more comfortable to answer the questions focused on literacy brokers (Lillis & Curry, 2006, 2010) and their practices when writing theses and articles in English.

Data Analysis

Survey frequency distribution and percentages were computed on Excel, and interviews thematically analyzed on MAXQDA 2022 and Excel. The distributions present the number of times SPs involving people, or non-human resources (books, courses, Grammarly, tutorials) that supported writers occurred in the data set, and the percentages, the calculation of participants’ answers. The answers were coded by researchers and then counted by SP items involving people or non-human resources. Then, all the counted values within each SP item were added to calculate the number of occurrences per SP item within the data set.

Like Chapetón and Chala (2013), thematic analysis involved recording, transcribing, analyzing, and codifying interview data inductively. Interviews were heard completely, transcribed word by word, imported into MAXQDA 2022, and reports per category downloaded to Excel for further analysis. In the inductive analysis, recurrent topics (topics addressed more than once by a participant or by more than one participant within the dataset) emerged concerning interactions with literacy brokers in the academic field. For instance, interaction with professors, classmates, and family members were coded individually and stored in a category of literacy brokers, which we subcategorized as ABs and LBs, the latter with another subcategory called ILBs based on Lillis’ and Curry’s (2006; 2010) definitions given in the literature section. In our data, the participants had knowledge of English; hence, they played a double role as both ABs and LBs.

The survey results triangulated with qualitative data from the interviews allowed more reliable findings illustrated with excerpts. For the interviews’ validity, participants shared their literacy practices based on their experiences when writing a thesis and/or article in English, whereas for reliability, themes from interviews were shared only if they appeared in more than one (Denscombe, 2010). Interrater reliability activities increased trustworthiness. For calibration, the three researchers coded interview data individually and then discussed their coding consistency.

The following sections present the survey’s results about literacy brokers, and then interview findings reveal specific literacy brokers and some SPs involved when writing theses/articles in English.

Results

Survey

Survey results illustrate that participants relied on a range of literacy brokers (Lillis & Curry, 2006, 2010), with clear differences in the types of brokers utilized across roles and writing contexts. As shown in Figure 1, professors (ABs), research collaborators (ABs), and classmates (LBs) emerged as the most frequently identified sources of support, followed by friends (ILBs). Although a small number of PG-students and PGs initially reported no interactions with literacy brokers, interview responses revealed otherwise, suggesting that some forms of support may not be readily recognized or categorized by participants as writing support. Taken in light of the results in Figure 1, this discrepancy points to the often-implicit nature of literacy brokering in academic writing practices.

Figure 2 further highlights how interactions with literacy brokers are structured by participants’ academic roles. Students and PGs generally met with a professor/thesis director (AB) to talk about their theses/articles, reinforcing the central role of institutional literacy brokers in guiding academic writing practices. In contrast, professors mainly talked with research collaborators (ABs), indicating a shift towards more reciprocal or peer-based brokering in more advanced stages of academic careers. Just a few PG-students and PGs reported meeting with proofreaders (LBs), and only PGs reported meeting with writing advisors (ABs), English native speakers (LBs), and language editors (LBs). This finding suggests that participants do not commonly access specialized language support, or that such support is peripheral compared to discipline- or institution-based academic relationships.

Findings for Figure 3 reveal that support for grammar and technical vocabulary is most often provided by thesis directors (ABs), classmates (LBs), or collaborators (another classmate, LB), rather than by designated language experts such as writing tutors or professional editors. In contrast, professors revealed support only from research collaborators (another professor, AB) concerning language. Likewise, just a few PG-students and PGs reported support from teachers of English (LBs), friends, and relatives (ILBs). This finding resonates with earlier discussion of feedback practices, where attention to language is often framed as editorial work.

Figure 4 complicates this picture by showing that some participants did not consider human literacy brokers to be sufficient sources of support for their academic writing needs. Although almost all of the PG-students and PGs chose their professor as a helpful human broker, nearly half of the (4/9, 44.4%) PGs, all four professors (100%), and one quarter (2/8, 25%) of the PG-students did not select a professor, English teacher, or human translator. Instead, the two PG-students (25%) found useful technological tools (Grammarly, Translators online), two of the four professors (50%) used writing books, and four out of nine PGs (44.4%) used diverse technological resources (translators online, Grammarly, writing books, or writing tutorials). This finding suggests that literacy brokering is not limited to interpersonal relationships but extends to technological mediation, with writers supplementing human feedback through self-directed and technological practices involving static (e.g., books) or dynamic resources (e.g., bots).

Overall, survey findings suggest that literacy brokering is distributed across a network of actors who play different roles depending on the writer’s position and needs. Professors (ABs) function as central gatekeepers for PG-students and PGs, while more experienced scholars rely on peers within research networks. At the same time, the relatively limited role of specialized LBs, combined with the reliance on classmates and technological tools, points to a decentralized and improvised system of support. These findings have important implications for how academic writing norms are learned and enacted: rather than being transmitted through formal instruction alone, they are negotiated across multiple interactions, often in contexts where learning may remain implicit.

Interview

Overall, the interviews indicate that ABs were most likely to support writing development, complemented by more limited contributions from LBs and minimal, but crucial, involvement from ILBs. Table 2 presents the diverse people playing the role of ABs, LBs, and ILBs (Lillis & Curry, 2006, 2010) revealed by the Mexican PG-students, PGs, and PG professors interviewed.

The wide range of ABs (e.g., thesis directors, professors, collaborators, friends with technical expertise) suggest that writing support is only nominally grounded in institutional support. Although some of the most impactful ABs to PG-students and PGs were part of the formal program structure, such as thesis directors, many ABs were accessed through personal or professional networks. The presence of roles such as partners, friends from doctoral programs, and external scholars indicates that academic brokering practices often blend professional and personal ties. LBs were mostly, although not exclusively, non-professionals in the language field, indicating that participants relied on accessible, peer-based networks rather than formal editing or language services. The smaller and narrower range of ILBs (mostly family and friends outside of academia) suggests that these actors play a more peripheral, situational role, often tied to emotional support or occasional proofreading rather than sustained engagement. Academic writing support is thus relational and socially embedded, enacted through overlapping networks with different degrees of expertise, formality, and engagement, rather than a single source of assistance.

Having identified the range of individuals who functioned as literacy brokers, Figure 5 indicates the number of times PG-students, PGs, and professors reported in the interviews that they received support from ABs, LBs, and ILBs. These instances mean that 5/8 (62.5%) of PG-students, 7/9 (77.7%) of PGs, and 3/4 (75%) of professors reported ABs’ support. Second, only 4/8 (50%) of PG-students and 6/9 (66.6%) of PGs reported LBs’ support. Finally, only 1/8 (25%) of PG-students and 1/9 (11.1%) of PGs reported ILBs’ support.

Figure 5 indicates that interviews with PG-students and PGs addressed more instances of support from ABs, LBs and/or ILBs than professors, although variation exists within groups. Some PG-students, PGs, or professors also mentioned receiving support from one or more ABs. So, the following interview excerpts from the participants (PG-students studying a masters’ degree, PGs of the master’s degree, and professors with a postgraduate degree) complement and illustrate some of the ABs’. LBs’, and ILBs’ (Lillis & Curry, 2010) practices.

Social Practices Identified Between Writers and Literacy Brokers

For instance, Elsi, a PG, described receiving multiple forms of support, primarily from ABs (three instances) and to a lesser extent from LBs (one instance), while Kida and Marina reported fewer or more varied interactions across categories. Elsi’s account illustrates how ABs support was both sustained and pedagogically oriented. Her “organized and perfectionist” thesis supervisor provided structured and consistent guidance, prompting reflection rather than directly correcting texts. As Elsi noted, the supervisor would comment, “What do you think?” when marking a problematic paragraph, encouraging her to reassess her intended meaning. Through targeted feedback and digital annotation tools used with the thesis supervisor, her primary AB, Elsi developed greater awareness of recurring issues such as lexical interference from Spanish, which the supervisor identified explicitly as “interference” or “calques,” as well as the need for concision in academic writing. Additional AB support came from an experienced peer who broadened her disciplinary lexicon and from a professor who introduced a phrasebank that improved her use of connectors.

Alongside these formal supports, Elsi also drew on LBs, two highly English- proficient Mexican professional-translator friends living in Canada, who reviewed sections of her thesis and posed critical questions about clarity, structure, and relevance, asking, “Is this necessary to be here?” Importantly, as she noted in her interview, “They did not do it for me,” meaning they did not rewrite the text; rather their feedback and that of the ABs functioned as scaffolding that fostered metalinguistic awareness and independent revision.

RenataChavez, a PG, received support from classmates (LBs) who gave her verbal feedback phrasing. For instance, when they met, they questioned, “Hey Zul, How would you say this?” and she replied, “I would say it in this way,” to which the classmate answered, “I like it,” and incorporated it in his text. This interaction illustrates how peer-based brokering operates dialogically, with writing decisions co-constructed through negotiation. A similar experience was revealed by Natalia, a PG, who talked about support from classmates (LBs) in a reciprocal way. They shared and suggested literature for her. They said: “Hey, look at this [source] I found,” or they said, “You have a similar topic to mine, what authors do you recommend for me?” or if Natalia found an article useful to another classmate, she told them, “I found this and I think it can be helpful for you too.” This reciprocity positions brokering as mutual rather than unidirectional, reinforcing its social and collaborative nature.

RenataChavez also revealed a cluster of social writing activity among 5-6 classmates operating as a research team (LBs). They divided the research into parts, determining who would write which section, and they all worked together on results, conclusions, and the introduction. RenataChavez’s team worked in a Google Doc, set deadlines to complete sections, and then read and gave each other peer reviews so the writing did not sound separated. This interaction suggests that writing is approached as distributed, collective practice in which coherence is actively managed across multiple contributors.

This last cluster of social writing practice from RenataChavez is similar to what professor Sandra reported. Sandra worked with a professors’ academic research group (ABs) because the university requires them to publish as a research group. Sandra and her professor-collaborators worked on single sections, and when they integrated them, they met. According to Sandra, when working with several people, they distributed the sections, and Sandra, the main author, revised the paper. They set deadlines, sent the completed sections to Sandra, who was responsible for everything, then Sandra told collaborators what needed to be done and then they gathered and read it together, so it had the same writing style. In contrast, when Sandra co-authored an article with one collaborator (AB), as the lead author, she decided to simplify the drafting process by sharing a Google Doc. This shift suggests that the scale of collaboration shapes how brokering is enacted, from structured orchestration in larger groups to more immediate co-construction in smaller ones. Together, these patterns position academic brokering for professionals as embedded within collaborative infrastructures rather than isolated acts of assistance for students.

Kida, a PG student, received support from some professors (ABs). For example, her thesis director (AB) was very direct and detailed, telling her, “Here it is missing something of syntax, this word is not used in this way, if you are saying this, why you were saying this in the previous paragraph, it is unrelated.” The thesis director (AB) was not understanding the text, and wondered how Kida could make it better. Here, brokering took a more evaluative and directive form, reflecting hierarchical relationships within academic settings. Martha, a PG, received support from her thesis director (AB), who revised translations. Martha wrote the text and translated it, then her thesis director revised it and said, “This word is not [correct], go and change it, search for something else; this sentence is structured wrongly, you must change it.” Martha perceived that her thesis director (AB) helped her a lot, but these practices foreground language regulation, reinforcing dominant norms of correctness in academic writing. In contrast, RenataChavez, a PG, worked with a thesis director (AB) who helped her to clarify the landscape rather than telling her what to do. When they met in person, clarifications allowed RenataChavez to realize she was just complicating things. This variation highlights that academic brokering can range from directive correction to conceptual guidance, shaping different dimensions of writing development.

Likewise, Daniel, a professor, generally asked for support from ABs for different purposes, illustrating the diversity of brokering practices even at more advanced stages of expertise. For instance, he met with a colleague-collaborator to discuss his data processing; although he had not done the analysis yet, he could not find anything relevant that could be published. His colleague-collaborator suggested possible directions and said: “We could address it from here or there.” This type of disciplinary-specific support allowed him to identify the focus of the study they were doing. He also asked for support from a friend (AB) who had technical expertise in quantitative software analysis, as he was not clear on the use of SPSS software and therefore had delegated much of the analysis. This support focused on technical tools rather than disciplinary expertise. Daniel argued that he drafted individually, but then afterwards engaged with collaborators (ABs) to revise and improve the writing and content, when actually it was more focused on the processes of research and analysis. Hence, although for him, revision was a more collaborative process than drafting, collaboration happened at both stages. This account suggests that, even for experienced researchers, academic brokering encompasses a wide range of practices, from conceptual guidance to technical support and collaborative revision, highlighting that expertise does not eliminate the need for literacy brokering but rather reshapes how it is mobilized.

Maya, a PG-student, on the one hand received feedback from professors (ABs) based on her research oral presentations in class, and on the other hand, she and professors (ABs) agreed she would send them her research proposal in a template provided for her. On this template, ABs (professors) also gave written feedback through the comment tool. This finding indicates that literacy brokering operates across modalities, linking oral performance and written production as interconnected sites of feedback. Lily, a PG student, received support from professors (ABs), who gave her feedback which helped a lot. For instance, Lily met professors virtually and their focus was on discussing literature review development and clarifying data analysis, whereas feedback on grammar was given on thesis drafts exchanged through emails, or written on paper; thus Lily, even until that day of the interview, returned to it and said, this paragraph … [needs something]. Lily also addressed people’s availability. Lily did not want people to waste time. So, she asked the brokers “What is your availability?” to try scheduling a meeting on a specific date and time. Lily argued that most of this support was virtual, which she did not prefer. Indeed, many students reported brokering through digital environments, extending support beyond physical classroom spaces. But participants value modes of interaction differently, with some like Lily perceiving face-to-face exchanges as more effective or desirable, as the abundance of in-person peer-to-peer feedback sessions between students also suggests. These findings reveal tensions between feedback effectiveness, individual preference, and broker availability.

Maya also received emotional or moral support from her mom (ILB), especially when feeling confused after a second visit to her professor. On that day, she arrived home and talked with her mom (ILB), who told her, “But you had said you were interested in how to help students,” and Maya answered, “Oh yes, yes, it is true.” So, although her mom did not know about the topic, she knew her, and when she was getting lost, by only talking with her mom, it helped her get back [refocused] to her research interest. Although not academically specialized, this form of brokering highlights the affective dimension of writing, where sustaining motivation is as important as developing skills. Likewise, Dante and Amy described emotional support from classmates (LBs), who provided a sense of shared experience and reduced isolation. Dante, a postgraduate, gathered with his friend-classmates (LBs) to work as a group. For him, having personal and emotional support let him know he was not alone in this writing process. Also, Amy, a PG, received in-person emotional support from classmates (LBs). They were all under the same pressure and deadlines, and for her, it was very enjoyable to be with them, to talk a bit first, and then work. These findings suggest that peer brokering fulfills both cognitive and emotional functions within the writing process. Ximena, a PG student, received support from her thesis director (AB), who acknowledged her thesis advances. This acknowledgement made her feel more motivated and regard the research process from a different perspective. Recognition thus operates as a form of emotional brokering, motivating writers’ engagement with their work.

In the later stages of writing, language-focused brokering was more likely to occur, focusing on writers’ clarity and surface-level accuracy. Natalia also received support from friends (ILBs) living in the USA. She exchanged emails with them to proofread her text. One of her friends said “Hey, you are using vocabulary that is too formal, I am not used to using this vocabulary by you.” Likewise, Kida, a master’s student, had support from her classmates (LBs). She gave them her work to verify that her writing conveyed her intended message. Likewise, Dante, a PG, was supported on proofreading his text by his partner (AB) in the last stage; it was a more in-depth support, this is, his partner did not give him comments on content, but helped him more on style, to avoid run-ons, the use of commas, etc.

After identifying the range of literacy brokers, findings revealed the types of practices through which literacy brokers supported writing, as described by participants in the interviews. Rather than isolated activities, these practices formed a multifunctional system of support, combining knowledge creation, writing development, and interpersonal relationships. ABs did not simply correct texts; they helped writers shape research direction and argumentation (e.g., clarifying focus, suggesting analytical paths), develop writing practices (e.g., providing structured feedback, a template and phrasebank), and engage in disciplinary collaboration (e.g., co-authoring, distributing sections, and negotiating revisions). Feedback was delivered through diverse modalities, including face-to-face interaction, written comments, and digital platforms, suggesting a hybrid and flexible ecology of support extending across both professional, institutional, and personal spaces. Additionally, these practices frequently emphasized scaffolding over correction, as brokers prompted reflection, asked questions, and guided revisions rather than rewriting texts. Emotional and motivational support also emerged as integral, with thesis directors and peers encouraging students and validating progress, thereby sustaining engagement in the writing process.

Importantly, findings show differences across participant groups; while PG-students and PGs relied on ABs for a wide range of writing- and language-related support, professors’ interactions with brokers were more narrowly focused on collaborative research practices, such as refining data analysis, negotiating content, and co-authoring texts. While interactions across groups often emphasize scaffolding through feedback and collaboration, both professors and less experienced writers sometimes relied on more interventionist forms of support, such as detailed correction from a thesis director or delegating expertise to a collaborator. This finding suggests that academic writing is consistently mediated through literacy brokers’ expertise, as both professors and students engage in practices that simultaneously support development and reproduce dependence on brokers.

Findings also show LBs were typically non-professional actors, such as classmates, colleagues, and friends who provided support primarily focused on language, proofreading, literature sharing, and emotional encouragement. ILBs played a more limited role, mainly offering emotional support and occasional proofreading. Together, these patterns indicate that students engaged with layered networks of support, where different types of brokers contributed distinct but sometimes overlapping forms of assistance across written, oral, and digital modalities, both inside and outside the classroom.

For PGs, brokering often involved participation in peer-based writing collectives alongside interactions with thesis directors. In these contexts, similar forms of support, such as revision, clarify, and proofreading were distributed across ABs, LBs, and ILBs, suggesting that writing development is sustained through overlapping networks rather than clearly bounded roles. In contrast, professors primarily engaged with other ABs in collaborative research contexts, where support was concentrated on content development and revision. This narrower range of practices highlights how brokering at advanced levels becomes embedded in disciplinary production rather than learning-oriented support, even as it remains collaborative.

PG-students’ practices with professors further illustrate how brokering supports entry into disciplinary writing conventions. Through interactions with subject professors’ (ABs), PG-students learned language norms, such as introductory phrases (i.e., functional language: connectors, transitions), clarity, unbiased writing, and academic writing voice. They also learned about how to start writing the proposal, the methodology, and collecting data. These interactions emphasize how brokering facilitates enculturation into academic writing practices, including both textual conventions and research procedures.

Discussion

This study explored literacy brokers and identified SPs and support involved in a participant group made up of PG-students, PGs, and professors at a Mexican university. Findings align with Lillis and Curry (2010) who reported AB, LB, and ILBs. That is, in this study of Mexican language researchers writing academic texts in English, PG-students and PGs generally received support from ABs, LBs and a few from ILBs. In contrast, professors reported support only from ABs as Lillis and Curry classified them. This distribution extends previous work (Conrad, 2022) which noted the limited attention to ILBs, by showing that informal literacy brokering remains peripheral in this context. Consequently, these PG-students and PGs relied more on ABs like professors and formal LBs such as classmates.

More specifically, the findings indicate that literacy brokering is largely embedded within participants’ immediate academic environment. PGs and PG-students in this EFL context received support from internal ABs and LBs such as professors, thesis directors, and classmates, who facilitated text production. That is, LBs among PGs and PG-students were (a) often their classmates, novice researchers who were at that moment of their studies learning academic writing in English and writing their first thesis, but who knew English and were studying the same master’s program; and ABs being (b) their thesis directors or professors who facilitated thesis production for graduation. In contrast, the professors received support from ABs, mostly other professors who served as research collaborators. Taken together, these patterns suggest that brokering is organized through relational and networked connections, where support emerges from both hierarchical (professor-student) and horizontal (peer-peer) interactions, reinforcing Conrad’s (2022) argument that instructors both provide and enable peer-based support. The findings also highlight the social nature of writing practices across groups. Students, postgraduates, and professors alike participated in collaborative writing, often working in small groups and reviewing texts collectively. In doing so, they frequently occupied dual roles as both writers and literacy brokers. Importantly, the forms of support extended well beyond language, confirming Lillis and Curry’s (2006) view of literacy brokering as multidimensional. Within this broader range of practices, proofreading emerged as particularly prominent, especially among PG-students and PGs, echoing Conrad (2020). However, in this study proofreading did not resemble professional proofreading services for publication, such as quality checks of already edited manuscripts for publication and possible fees. Rather, proofreading involved ongoing intervention by professors and peers within the writing process itself. This suggests that proofreading, in this context, functions as a developmental and collaborative practice, not merely a final-stage correction.

At the same time, students’ engagement with a template provided by professors, prior theses, and disciplinary texts illustrates how brokering also supports enculturation into academic writing practices (i.e., to have “natural encounters with real-world writing and communication situations,” or learn literate activity by participating in a disciplinary community consisting of peers and other professionals in their discipline - in Narváez-Cardona & Chois-Lenis, 2022, p. 27). PG-students and PGs encountered the genres and structures of academic writing through more experienced brokers, which allowed them to engage in reading-writing practices embedded in the social context of their thesis directors and professors, which are the academic community in which this faculty is immersed (Johns, 1997; Ungureano, 2024). Nevertheless, such tools were insufficient on their own, as many participants continued to struggle with clarity, cohesion, and rhetorical effectiveness. This finding suggests that acquiring academic writing in English to produce texts covering the demands of academic gatekeepers does not occur in a vacuum. According to Hyland, writing is learned through years, and disciplinary writing through reading, trial, error, through participating in communities and through lots of practice (2016). The reliance on brokers for clarity and language suggests that mastering disciplinary writing involves not only structural knowledge but also ongoing negotiation of meaning.

From this perspective, the findings point toward the need for more structured and sustained forms of writing support. In addition to introductory courses and access to resources, students may benefit from formalizing the collaborative practices already present in their everyday writing, such as peer writing groups and shared drafting processes. Graduate student writing groups, as well as faculty writing groups, have promise not only as support for research production, but for building their “repertoires of writing and teaching practices” (Clark-Oates & Cahill, 2013, p. 113), or, in other terms, their literacy brokering skills. Clark-Oates and Cahill (2013) argue that faculty writing groups, in particular, have the potential to reshape the institution’s attitudes and investment toward academic writing, helping all actors understand the multi-stage process and social dimensions of academic research production. Dissertation retreats have also shown promise as impactful mediators of academic writing for research, particularly in terms of building confidence and lessening anxiety (Fladd et al., 2019). Graduate writing groups, like those described in Salgado and Jiang (2021), could formalize already-established peer groups, fostering both emotional and academic support for graduate students and providing ongoing opportunities for feedback, revision, and reflection. Such interventions would build on existing brokering practices, making them more consistent, visible, and pedagogically intentional.

Beyond cognitive and textual dimensions, the findings also underscore the importance of affective and relational factors in literacy brokering. Consistent with Mihut (2014), we found that literacy brokering involved emotional support, encouragement, shared experiences, and social relations among classmates, friends, and family members. The emotional, moral, encouragement, and trust impacted PG-students and PGs as researchers in informal ways. For example, some students asked others to meet at home to work together so they could progress; others said that it was like “to feel a loving touch” or like being cared for when being together, talking, and working together; others even cooked for their classmates and ate delicious food, which was something they enjoyed and motivated them to work and achieve work on time. These findings meant that working together, classroom friendship, and informal places to work played a role in their writing progress and showed that academic writing is indeed a social practice. Notably, professors did not report receiving similar forms of emotional support from their literacy brokers, which raises questions about how affection is distributed across levels of expertise and points to an area of further research. Mihut (2025) suggested that literacy challenges scholars to rethink writing through emotions and experiences, and also suggested a transnational approach that foregrounds personal stories and literacy as affinity because literacy brokers also helped immigrants as they cross national, linguistic, and cultural borders.

Despite the availability of these multiple forms of support, PG-students and PGs still reported significant challenges in writing the thesis/articles, echoing Mendoza et al. (2021). In this process, the role of thesis directors proved central. Consistent with Krauss and Ismail (2010) and Bitchener et al. (2010), whose participants viewed supervisory relationships as critical to their progress and overall research experience. However, limited access to professors due to time constraints may have reduced opportunities for sustained guidance. As a result, PG-students frequently turned to classmates for additional support, both for writing-related tasks and for emotional encouragement, reinforcing the importance of peer literacy brokering. Our study adds to what Hyland (2009) indicated: Feedback allows students to understand the norms and values of their disciplinary fields, and this consequently eases students to enculturate into disciplinary literacies and epistemologies. PG-students and PGs reported receiving oral and written feedback, which was in English according to the syllabus and curriculum policy in the PG’s program. However, the reliance on written comments suggests that opportunities for early, dialogic interaction may have been limited. As Bitchener et al. (2010) propose, more frequent pre-writing engagement could help clarify expectations and reduce later difficulties.

Academic brokers not only responded to texts but also gave feedback on genre structure and referred PG-students and PGs to resources such as books on writing (Bitchener et al., 2010). However, the prominence of proofreading and recurrent attention to clarity across participants’ accounts suggest that challenges extended beyond surface-level accuracy to issues of coherence and organization. Similarly, Bitchener et al. (2010) identify coherence problems as stemming from insufficient signposting and difficulties in structuring ideas effectively. Indeed, in our study about language brokering, the PG-students and PGs were provided by their professors with a bank of functional phrases to produce sentence patterns, but ongoing issues with coherence and clarity indicate that students may not grasp the rhetorical functions of these forms (Johns, 1997). For instance, Amy held that she did not know the language used to introduce sections, that she used the same words, that it was difficult to change them, or even to use new ones. Thus, the findings on feedback point to a gap between access to linguistic resources and deeper understanding of how to use them effectively within disciplinary contexts.

Conclusions

This study aimed to reveal the academic brokers, SPs, and support embedded in a Mexican PG language researchers’ context. Like Lillis and Curry (2010), ABs (professors) and LBs (classmates) predominated and were often in the same academic context and field. Their practices frequently took the form of collective research activity, either among classmates or professors. However, these collaborations differed in organization: classmates tended to work simultaneously on shared documents by dividing sections and co-constructing texts, whereas professors more often worked individually and later convened to integrate and revise the complete paper to ensure coherence.

Relatedly, PG-students and PGs tended to gather in informal settings (e.g., at home) and professors in the formal context (university) to help each other on the ongoing papers, engaging in extended discussions that combined writing, feedback, and social interaction. Professors reported different kinds of meetings with collaborators at different stages of writing although fewer and more task-oriented, typically focused on reviewing near-final drafts. This contrast highlights how literacy brokering practices vary not only by level of expertise but also by the intensity and social nature of interaction. Thus, in agreement with Harris (1982) and Kells (2016), these findings support the value of writing groups as a more systematic and continuous strategy to support PGs beyond the classroom with the aim of fostering PGs’ professionalism and persistence in their programs (Bell & Hewerdine, 2016). Such programs can provide collaborative support in a welcoming environment where peers and writing tutors or other facilitators ensure researchers continue to make progress on academic writing (Salgado & Jiang, 2021). These two strategies could also contribute to emotional support.

Overall, literacy brokers emerged as a key factor in the production of research theses and articles. Brokering involved diverse SPs and varied types of support (e.g., proofreading) that extended beyond linguistic concerns to include revision, structure, clarity, and encouragement. While professors did not report receiving emotional support, PG-students and PGs highlighted its importance, particularly through interactions with classmates and supportive ABs. These interactions were generally perceived as positive and instrumental in advancing writing. Moreover, the types of feedback from ABs (professors) and LBs (classmates) align with prior studies (Bitchener et al., 2010), reinforcing the central role of feedback in academic writing development. These findings suggest the need to make literacy brokering more explicit and intentional, such as through training for both professors and students, the promotion of collaborative writing practices, and the development of tools such as checklists to guide proofreading and editing. These actions could help clarify expectations and encourage more socially grounded writing practices.

Despite limitations related to survey design–particularly the possibility that some participants overlooked some brokers–this study contributes to the literature on literacy brokering by offering a detailed account of the actors, practices, and types of support involved. Specifically, it documents the interplay between ABs, LBs, and ILBs, as well as a range of SPs such as virtual feedback, small group collaboration and providing emotional support. Importantly, the findings underscore that writing development is supported through multiple, overlapping forms of mediation that extend beyond language to encompass broader academic and social dimensions.

At the same time, the study points to several areas for further research, including the role of the language used for instruction or feedback to PG-writers (Lanoke et al., 2025), the influence of brokers’ linguistic backgrounds (Conrad, 2022), and absence of reported emotional support among professors.

Finally, the overall findings support a social literacies perspective on academic writing. Writing in this context is not an individual activity but a socially mediated process sustained through interactions with others, engagement in shared practices, and access to diverse forms of support. Therefore, researchers, educators, and institutions should recognize and build upon these social dimensions by designing systematic writing support structures that make literacy brokering visible, sustained, and supportive of writing development.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Guanajuato (CEPIUG) and postgraduate participants for their support to conduct this study.

References

Notes

^* Research article

Article origin Empirical research conducted at the University of Guanajuato, Languages Department.

Author notes

^a Correspondence author. E-mail: g.arizmendi@ugto.mx

Additional information

How to cite: Arizmendi González, G., Hodges, A. & Day Babcock, R. (2026). Literacy Brokers, Social Practices and Support While Writing Theses/Articles in English at a Mexican University. Signo y Pensamiento, 45. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.syp45.lbsp

Descargar