What’s in a name? Why does it matter if one uses “I”, “we”, or “the author”? Does it make a difference if one does something, or if something has been done? On what side should the scales tip when balancing clarity against so-called objectivity? Let’s consider these questions.
Recently, my colleague Johannes Bjerling wrote a bit about the use of the third person in abstracts: the history, the conventions, and why it’s ok to buck those traditions. Now, I would like to address the natural next step: What are the benefits of using the first person and active language in academic manuscripts?
Avoiding ambiguity
Many of us were taught early on that objectivity was of utmost importance in academic writing, when presenting scientific results, reporting findings, and so on. And, of course, it is. But should the appearance of objectivity get in the way of clarity and understanding? No.
In 1918, William Strunk Jr. wrote a foundational style guide to writing American English, The Elements of Style, in which he put forth the advice to writers to put themselves “in the background”, and this advice has persisted throughout multiple editions of the guide. But it is increasingly acceptable – and desirable – to use the first person in the pursuit of clarity and directness, even in scholarly publications.
APA, the style which Nordicom (mostly) follows, has the following advice: “Do not use the third person to refer to yourself. Writers are often tempted to do this as a way to sound more formal or scholarly; however, it can create ambiguity for readers about whether you or someone else performed an action”.
Pursuing objectivity
Although the pursuit of objectivity is part of any scientific endeavour, “the unqualified proscription against I (me, my, mine) can result in evasive language, sometimes with ludicrous effect:
The present writer argues that…
It is the opinion of this book that…” (Einsohn & Schwartz, 2019: 404).
Additionally, the whole idea of complete objectivity in the first place is imperfect. Is complete objectivity ever possible? Scholarly research by design contributes to debate, thus “identifying one’s own ideological standpoint is therefore necessary in any ethical writing practice”, according to the Writing Studio at Duke University
The pursuit of objectivity must be balanced with clarity, and along these lines, APA advises to “avoid the editorial ‘we’ to refer to people in general”, reserving it to describe the actions you and your fellow researchers took. Additionally, Einsohn and Schwartz (2019: 404) pointed out in The Copyeditor’s Handbook that “we is otherwise potentially confusing and possibly presumptuous: does it refer to all individuals in a field of study or endeavour? To all of humanity?”
In addition to the risks of sounding incoherent and perhaps even arrogant, “the scrupulous avoidance of first-person pronouns may require excessive recourse to passive voice constructions:
It is argued in this book that…
It is concluded in this paper that…” (Einsohn & Schwartz, 2019: 404).
Prioritising clarity
As with the traditional learning behind using the third person to achieve objectivity, these lessons were also applied (have also been applied?) to using passive voice: “Some people believe that it sounds more ‘scientific’, but more recently this view has been falling out of favour” (Charlesworth Author Services).
The first person and active language go hand in hand. “I did this”: direct, concise, clear. By using active language, the researchers are taken out of the background and “put back into the action of the research” (Charlesworth Author Services). One could argue this makes the findings and analysis not only more relatable, but also more trustworthy, as the researchers are now putting themselves personally on the line.
However, passive voice still has a place in academic writing. APA advises to “use the active voice as much as possible to create direct, clear, and concise sentences, especially when you are writing about the actions of people”, and alternatively, to “use the passive voice when it is more important to focus on the recipient of an action than on who performed the action, such as when describing an experimental setup”. For example, “we conducted eight interviews” places emphasis on the researchers (you) who actually conducted the interviews. Whereas “eight interviews were conducted” emphasises the fact that interviewing was the method and that there were eight of them.
O’Connor (2009: 216) humourously yet succinctly summarises this point: “It’s true that a passive verb makes for a wimpier, more roundabout way of saying something. […] But the direct way isn’t always the best way”. Again, the ultimate goal is balance between objectivity and clarity.
Benefits of using the first person and active language:
- Clarity
- Avoiding ambiguity
- Credibility
- Showing a personal interest
- Establishing personal connections with readers
- Distinguishing your perspective or contribution from other literature
- Maintaining a conversational, easy-to-understand tone
- Giving strength to your claims and showing ownership of your ideas
Reading
Einsohn, A., & Schwartz, M. (2019). The copyeditor’s handbook: A guide for book publishing and corporate communications (4th ed.). University of California Press.
O’Conner, P. T. (2009). Woe is I: The grammarphobe’s guide to better English in plain English (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Wiesner, C., Palonen, K., & Haapala, T. (2017). Debates, Rhetoric and political action, practices of textual interpretation and analysis. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57057-4_3
Read more Notes From a Manuscript Editor:
- What You Should Know about Preparing Your Manuscript
- How to Make Your Research More Discoverable
- Why Inclusive Language is Important
- The DOs and DON’Ts of DOIs (and URLs)
Have You Ever Wondered Why Abstracts Are Often Written in the Third Person?
If this question has crossed your mind, rest assured, you’re not alone. Johannes Bjerling, Editor at Nordicom, decided to delve into this matter.
Find out more arrow_forward