Friends,
Much of this thread addresses the question of whether an author _may_
write in the first person. I'd like to note four occasions on which
an author MUST write in the first person.
The author should write in the first person when he or she is a
necessary actor in the narrative. An author is a necessary actor who
should write in the first person:
1 To narrate events that her or she has witnessed,
2 To narrate personal experience,
3. To take responsibility for findings and results, or
4. To state an educated or professional opinion.
As I see it, writing a first-person statement in the third person is
poor form for two reasons. First, it is often unclear: writing "the
author believes" is roundabout. This makes the meaning hard to
understand. Second is the matter of responsibility. If an author
believes something to be so, he or she should state it in his or her
own voice.
The notion that writing in the third person makes scholarly or
scientific writing more objective is a convention that has little
foundation. If we describe something carefully and well, the
objectivity of our narration arises from the quality of our
description. It does not arise from the pretense that some third
party -- the author! -- is speaking.
It seems to me that practice at many journals is changing. The
practice in books published at leading scholarly presses has already
changed.
The key is care. Many times, authors interject themselves when there
is no need to do so. This raises other problems. I won't get into the
question of how to choose when to appear in an article or book as the
author and when to narrate or write without a personal appearance.
This requires judgement, and the judgement usually depends on the
specific circumstances. Assuming that an author is careful, I agree
with the majority of those who say that careful use of first person
is acceptable.
It seems to me that the general standard on this issue is changing to
reflect a more reasonable -- and realistic -- approach. We are the
authors of our research, our ideas, and our theories. We must take
responsibility for what we write.
In four cases, I go beyond the position that first-person narrative
is acceptable to the position that first-person narrative is
necessary. When I state my opinions, report my findings, narrate my
experience, or narrate events that I have witnessed, I do so as
myself.
As Shakespeare writes,
"I do not strain at the position,-
It is familiar,-but at the author's drift;
Who, in his circumstance, expressly proves
That no man is the lord of any thing,
Though in and of him there be much consisting,
Till he communicate his parts to others..."
-- Troilus and Cressida, Act II, Scene 3.
I'll close by quoting the Bard of Sheffield. To open this thread,
Chris Rust wrote, "My personal view is that it is perfectly
acceptable to write in the first person, and in some cases it may be
helpful. Of course it is absolutely essential that it is done with
clarity and precision, like all aspects of academic writing, and it
seems to me that using the first person is both an important
acknowledgment of the role of the researcher in the work and a
challenge to the writer's rigour. If you can write in the first
person and be completely clear about the way that you and your
actions affect and effect the inquiry then you have done yourself and
your readers a great service.
Later, he wrote, "... the fiction of detachment undermines the value
of science writing. I have also noticed that many real authorities in
the natural sciences are not afraid to put themselves into their
narratives, although that may not be so true when they are writing
for refereed journals. My hero, Michael Polanyi, developed the idea
that scientific knowledge is a matter of passionate belief, which I
take to mean belief in the methods, skills and judgement employed by
individuals to discover new knowledge."
To which I agree. In the first person, course.
Ken
--
Ken Friedman
Professor
Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
|