How Many “I”s are there in Academic Writing?

Tuesday 24th September

As an EdD candidate, researching my own students on the course that I led, in the institution where I worked, I was adamant that my thesis needed to be written in the third person for transparency and authenticity. My supervisors were less convinced than me that this was a good idea, and it was suggested that I might reconsider my decision. 

I did reconsider my decision and decided that it really did need to be in the first person. Given that there was disagreement with my supervisors on this point, I decided that the best way to deal with this was to include a justification for the use of the first person in the introduction of my thesis so that readers and examiners alike were clear that I had taken a deliberate decision, and why I had taken it.

There are both general and topic-specific takeaways from this post. The general takeaway is that as a postgraduate researcher, you need to take ownership of and be able to defend all every single decision that you take (or have taken) in relation to your research, in case you are asked to do so in your viva or presentation.  If you are asked why you did something, replying “because my supervisors told me to” is not an acceptable answer! The topic-specific takeaway is that those who have presented their own research in a particular way (in this case in the third person) may find that convention difficult to let go of. You need to do what’s right for your research; and make sure that you have appropriate authority to justify your position. My justification below, is adapted from my thesis. I’m not offering this as an exhaustive explanation, but rather as a starting point from which to develop your own justification.

The Traditional Approach

The traditional view from a science-based perspective is that there is no place in academic writing for the use of the first person (Chalmers, 1982). Webb (1992) agrees that objectivity is traditionally represented in academic writing by the use of the third person. More recently, Robson and McCartan (2016) tell us that traditional academic writing has been in the past tense, and that passive voice is an attempt to demonstrate the credentials of the documented research activity. They argue that excessive use of the authorial “I” suggests author bias and / or naivety.

Alternative Perspectives

Haraway (1988) tells us that writing in the third person constitutes a “god trick” in which a researcher appears both ubiquitous in and absent from their research. Thomson and Kamler (2016) argue that the first person is a valid form of academic writing and argue a researcher should situate themselves specifically within their text to make themselves visible within their work. This echoes Jones’ (1992) view that the use of the first person provides author voice and visibility in research. Ivanic (1998), contends that the use of the third person abdicates responsibility for one’s work; whereas the use of the first person constitutes acknowledgement of responsibility for claims made in relation to, and resulting from, research. From the perspective of clarity of writing (and therefore reader accessibility), Day and Gastel (2017) posit that writing in the first person helps authors to articulate actions taken and conclusions drawn in a direct and concise style.

Ivanic’s Continuum

Ivanic (1998) presents a range of what she describes as alternative ideologies of knowledge making in Higher Education. One such ideology is represented by her objectivity/subjectivity continuum in relation to the use of the first person in academic writing as she contends that the use of the first person in academic writing is neither binary nor straightforward.

ObjectivitySubjectivity
Not using ‘I’ at allUsing I as the personal pronoun for verbs associated with way that the writing will be structured but continuing to present content as factual and/or objective.Using I for verbs in relation to the research process, for example aligning oneself with a particular stanceUsing I for verbs associated with cognitive acts such as knowledge claims, and positioning contribution to a field.
“I” is absent“I” is voiceover.  “I” is researcher.  “I “as contributor to knowledge and field  
Table1.1: The objectivity/subjectivity continuum: adapted from Ivanic (1998)

How Many “I”s did you say there were in Academic Writing?

Giltrow et al. (2009) present three different iterations of the first-person singular in academic writing. These are the discursive “I”, the methodological “I” and the knowledge making “I”.  The discursive “I” usually writes about discourse action in their capacity as a researcher (e.g. “I explore”). They highlight what they refer to as “forecasting” (2009:200) as a particular activity of the discursive “I”, in which the writer signposts for the benefit of their reader how their writing will be organised.

According to Giltrow et al. (2009), the methodological “I” appears where a researcher is personally present as an agent in their account of their methodology section. Such use of the first person is associated with the decisions and actions taken in pursuit of data collection. In relation to qualitative research, Giltrow et al. (2009) highlight a type of methodological “I” who places emphasis on their own role in relation to knowledge creation within their methodological account in order to illustrate the full perspective from which they have undertaken their work.  For example, you might communicate something like feminist reasoning overtly within your writing in order to make sure that your reader understands that the knowledge that would be created by you would be relative to the subject position that you inhabit.

The knowledge-making “I” is positioned by Giltrow et al. (2009) as someone who clearly identifies their own role in relation to knowledge creation. This is similar to the methodological “I” described above, but it is different because it focuses on the knowledge created rather than any ontological or epistemological position inhabited in relation to the methodological decisions and actions that were taken.  They suggest that the “knowledge-making I” can either highlight a departure from established knowledge or suggest an indication of the limitations of the knowledge created. So, if you are conducting single institution research for which generalisability is neither sought not claimed.

There are other methodological arguments for the use of the first person in academic writing. Webb (1992) suggests both methodological decisions and data analysis choices are manifestations of personal decisions taken by researchers. You could develop this further to argue that the personal decisions permeate all areas of postgraduate research in education. You select your literature, and your theoretical perspectives. You formulate your recommendations and claim your contributions to knowledge. Webb claims that whilst writing in the third person has been traditionally viewed as an indicator of objectivity, it is really deception because the author is obliterated as an “active agent in the construction of knowledge” (1992:749). Webb’s (1992) observation reinforces Smith’s (1987) argument that anonymity and detachments can extinguish, or at least mitigate, contextual factors. This perspective is developed by Agaolue (2013:np), who invites us to consider the potential loss of contextual information when the passive voice is used to describe a scientific laboratory process:

Consider a sentence like “slides were carbon-coated for EMP analysis”. By whom? By me? a cack-handed undergraduate summer student? By a technician with 30 years’ experience? These things make a difference. In a lot of cases, you remove information when you recast a sentence in the passive. 

Methodological Considerations

The methodological arguments deal with four distinct areas: ontology and epistemology, reflexivity, and credibility. From an ontological perspective, Ivanic (1998) suggests that the first person is required where a researcher claims a constructivist ontology in which reality may be local, contingent, or socially constructed.

Dean (2015) asserts that reflexive practitioners must acknowledge the presence of themselves in their work and part of the application of their own rigorous standards to their own work. This develops Ivanic’s (1998) argument that the use of the third person fails to acknowledge the researcher and their role in writing and reinforces Punch and Oancea’s (2014) assertion that there is no such thing as positionless research.

The development of vocational and professional courses in HE has led to an increased requirement for reflexivity in terms of reflecting on methodological decisions, and courses of practical action. Moberg (2013) suggests that writing in the first person acknowledges the perspectives of a researcher which provide their reader with transparency in terms of the potential biases to which an author may subjected, and the extent to which an author has addressed those biases. Similarly, Mascia-Lees and Black (2017) point out that a reflexive writer will acknowledge the role that they play in their research, and the potential impact that this might have on their participants. Whilst it’s fair to say that both Moberg (2013) and Mascia-Lees and Black were commenting from an anthropological perspective, writing yourself you’re your research is not the exclusive domain of anthropology.  It can be extended to educational research, particularly from the perspective of own institution research, where your research often relates to and arises from your own professional practice.

Webb (1992) contends that alternative criteria to validity and reliability are required for qualitative research. For example, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest credibility as an alternative criterion for internal validity in evaluating qualitative research. Auditability is a key aspect of credibility, and they indicate auditability is both present and apparent when a reader can clearly follow the decision trails used by the researcher. It can be argued that the transparency provided by writing in the first person facilitates auditability, because it very clearly locates the researcher in their research and identifies them as what Guba and Lincoln (1981) would call a subject in their own studies. Furthermore, the American Psychological Association advocates the use of the active voice of the first person (Lee, 2014).

References

  • AGAOGLU, A. (2013) ‘Academic writing: why no ‘me’ in PhD?’ at <https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/apr/19/academic-writing-first-person-singular> accessed 28/09/2017.·
  • CHALMERS, A.F. (1982) What is this thing called Science? Milton Keynes: Open University Press
  • DAY, R. & GASTEL, B. (2012) How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, Seventh Edition, Cambridge University Press.
  • DEAN, J. (2017) Doing Reflexivity: An introduction. Bristol: Policy Press
  • GILTROW, J. (1995) Academic Writing. Writing and reading across the disciplines. Ontario: Broadview Press
  • HARAWAY, D. (1998) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3) 575-99
  • IVANIC, R. (1998) Writing and Identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Netherlands: John Benjamins B.V.
  • JONES, A. (1992) Writing feminist educational research: am “I” in the text? In S. Middleton and A. Jones (eds), Women and education in Aoteroa (pp18-32, 224) Wellington: Bridget Williams Books
  • LINCOLN Y.S. AND GUBA E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage
  • Marcus, G. E. (2015) ‘Reflexivity in Anthropology’ in International Encyclopaedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences (Second Edition), Volume 1, pp. 88-92.
  • Mascia-Lees, F. E. & Black, N. (2017) Gender and Anthropology, Second Edition, Long Grove: Waveland Press.
  • MELLORS-BOURNE, R., ROBINSON, C., AND METCALFE, J. (2016). Provision of professional doctorates in English Higher Education institutions. London: HEFCE
  • Metcalf, P. (2016) Anthropology: The Basics, Taylor & Francis e-Library: Routledge.
  • Moberg, M. (2013) Engaging Anthropological Theory: A Social and Political History, London: Routledge.
  • WEBB, C. (1992) The Use of the first person in academic writing: objectivity, language, and gatekeeping. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1992, 17, 747-752
  • PUNCH, K. AND OANCEA, A. (2014) Introduction to Research Methods in Education (2nd Edition). London: Sage
  • QUALITY ASSURANCE AUTHORITY (QAA) (2015) Characteristics Statement: Doctoral Degree. Gloucester: QAA
  • ROBSON, C. AND MCCARTAN, K. (2016) Real World Research: A resource for users of social research methods in Applied Settings. Chichester: Wiley
  • SMITH, D. (1987) The Everyday World as Problematic. A feminist sociology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press
  • THOMSON, P and KAMLER, B. (2016)Detox your writing: Strategies for Doctoral Researchers. Abingdon: Routledge

Related Articles

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *