Hallo Anne!
Thank you for raising this issue.The number of responses, increasing by the 
minute, shows that the questions related to ‘I/we’ and active vs. passive is 
of considerable interest.
    I am a language consultant living in Norway where much of my work 
consists of editing articles to be published in scientific journals. In 
addition I also check the language and styles of doctorate theses. The 
following nevertheless comprises my immediate thoughts.
    I am not convinced that the question of I/we is essentially linked to 
the question of active vs. passive voice, i.e. the passive voice enables us 
to avoid ‘I/we’. My understanding is that most – but not all – journals 
prefer the active voice. Some specifically state this preference in the 
Author Guidelines. But to be rigidly bound to the active (or passive voice, 
as in the case of Anne’s daughter) is unnecessary. Some variety is 
introduced into the style if one permits ‘The data in Table 1 show that …’, 
and elsewhere ‘It is seen from the data in Table 1 …’.
    First, a consideration of personal pronouns, especially the plural ‘we’? 
This surely depends on the nature of the study. Some research projects will 
be personal and related to a population as opposed to a sample. The 
analytical method will be specific to that population study as will the 
findings. It seem quite appropriate in such studies for the first person 
singular (or plural) to be applied: ‘We tested the data using …; we found 
that …’. The results are thus personal – subjective. Use of ‘I’ and ‘we’ 
serve to emphasize this.
    Broader studies based on a sample are normally expected to yield 
findings of a more general character. One indication of how ‘general’ the 
results are will be indicated by the confidence intervals. Here the 
impersonal, passive, form should be used: ‘The data was analysed using 
one-way ANOVA’; ‘It was observed that ...’. In Writing in Psychology, T. 
Raymond Smyth writes: ‘You should look at your experiment from an objective 
standpoint, and again the use of personal pronouns can lead to a subjective 
view’ (1996: 4),
    A common ‘error’ is for authors to personalise studies based on samples 
using the first person. But even more common is for a single author to use 
‘we’ when he or she means ‘I’. No reference is made in the paper to whom ‘we’ 
are, or what role these other persons played in the research. This often 
reflects some uncertainty in the method and findings, even in the hypothesis 
and data, and where the author is apparently attempting to justify the 
results. Further, I often notice that the conclusions in articles using this 
style contain statements using words such as ‘probably’, ‘may’, ‘can’ and 
others. I have even encountered papers where the hypothesis was clearly 
formulated following a description of the data and method.
    The use of ‘we’ in a discussion paper or text aimed at involving the 
student: ‘We will see’; ‘we note that …’ and even ‘I think that …’; ‘My 
interpretation of the results is …’. But the lecturer may well be advised to 
add ‘… but that is my personal view’.
    As stated, these are some initial thoughts. The may conflict with those 
of other contributors, but there may well be some common ground. I am sure 
we all look forward to Anne’s résumé.
John Taylor