Ah, the first or third person again

Some researchers talk about the clunkiness of academic writing, suggesting that it is overly "complicated; pompous, long-winded, technical; impersonal, authoritative, humourless; elitist, and excludes outsiders" (Hartley, 2008, p. 4). Part of the cause is, I think, the use of the third person... which has been called "a ‘god trick’, in which the researcher is nowhere and everywhere" in academic writing (Kamler & Thomson, 2006, p. 59).

Text written with the third person voice "effectively write[s] out the presence of the researcher and renders them invisible –there is no 'I' in such reports" (SAGE Publishing, 2022, p. 13, citing Lazard & McAvoy, 2020, p. 162). Most academic journals seem to increasingly prefer the third person. US professor, Eric Brennan wrote of his frustration in trying to have a first person article published, suggesting that "Writing in the third person is [...] a form of deception in which the thinking of scientists does not appear, and they are obliterated as active agents in the construction of knowledge" (2024, p. 2, quoting Webb, 1992).  

There is a growing dislike of the third person. Originally we found "The third person with the passive [voice was...] considered desirable because it resulted in a detached, scholarly tone that hid the writer and seemed to connote objectivity. It also resulted in a wordy, lifeless style illustrated by this sentence: 'It was decided by this researcher that the effects of socioeconomic status should be investigated as a factor that might possibly affect the amount of reading done in the home' " (Joyner et al., 2013, p. 187).

Yet writing in the first person can be highly effective, providing we connect via citations to our scholarly community, so illustrating that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Engagement is a key reward for researchers. There is a warmth in the first person, "We suggest that" as opposed to the far cooler third person, "This paper suggests that" (Hartley, 2008, p. 183). Some authors decide on the first person voice in the hope that their readers will be more likely to challenge the research "process since writing in the third person is more suggestive of a single correct interpretation" (Johns, 2010, p. 274, citing Freshwater and Rolfe 2001). And, interestingly, if we are undertaking an action research project, we should write in the first person; to create immediacy, and probably because we are the collection instrument (Herr & Anderson, 2014, p. 49).

However, we must be judicious, not studding our writing with too many personal pronouns. Consider the following example: "Whilst I may make efforts to restrict my data to [...] interviews, there is no doubt that my prior knowledge of the participants through my daily work with them will impact upon the meaning that I make of what they tell me. That I might be considered a peer [...] could [mean...] they will tell me what they think I want to hear" (Kamler & Thomson, 2006, p. 61). As the authors note, each sentence contains two to three pronouns, making this a bit of a 'me'-fest (Kamler & Thomson, 2006); without the balance that linking to evidence provides. Scholarly research becomes conspicuous by its absence. 

And we should remember that sometimes the third person IS the most appropriate format to convey information (Hartley, 2008). Using the third person can help us to focus on the results gathered, rather than on the participants who provided the data (Wise, 2022, citing Watts, 2014). 

Choice is the key.

Sam

References:

Brennan, E. B. (2024). “I” versus “the author”: The power of first-person voice when writing about science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(22), e2316966121, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2316966121

Hartley, J. (2008). Academic Writing and Publishing: A practical handbook. Routledge.

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2014). The Action Research Dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Johns, C. (2010). Guided Reflection: A narrative approach to advancing professional practice (2nd. ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Joyner, R. L., Rouse, W. A., & Glatthorn, A. A. (2018). Writing the Winning Thesis or Dissertation: A step-by-step guide (3rd. ed.). Corwin Press.

Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for supervision. Routledge.

SAGE Publishing. (12 August 2022). Common challenges in Thematic Analysis and how to avoid them with Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke [handout]. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/606f09be9fd45e6380f33b68/t/62fb7fcd712f726fd10c3ce5/1660649431880/Thematic+Analysis+webinar+slides+-+Aug+22.pdf

Wise, C. (2022). I’m old enough and I’m young enough: Semi-Retirement and Career. Journal of the National Institute for Career Education and Counselling, 49(1), 3-9. https://www.nicecjournal.co.uk/index.php/nc/issue/view/49/49