 |
 |
folks, i have not contributed to this thread because i am overloaded with obligations but want to add my view on this. i think it is a mistake to consider the issue of pronoun use a mere stylistic issue. the royal "we" as in "we the crown decided (for you)" is intended to make dissension difficult: a modern example would be the ceo concluding: "we all are in agreement on this, aren't we?" -- silence. the first person pronoun I denotes the speaker, the author, and the WE when there are more than one. using I enables the reader to know who is accountable for what was done or is said. ignoring first person pronouns when an action is reported, a choice is behind what is stated or a claim is made leaves open who is accountable for it and this is a linguistic game to avoid accountability and claim unquestionable truths. i do not think there are unquestionable truths and i am opposing this stance. making it difficult to be accountability is a practice in science writing relative to which i believe chris rust started this threat. to claim objectivity means hiding one's contribution to an argument or report. it suggest that reality spoke through its data, not I/WE. when reality speaks what it says becomes undeniable, unquestionable, and the reader is expected to accept what is said as factual accounts. i think we should rule out the devious practice of using that linguistic trick (of disclaiming accountability by not using personal pronouns) to invoke objectivity when one is responsible for what is written. my suggestion is to use I/WE when we report what we did, thought, or brought forth. we do not use third person pronouns IT/THEY when we quote others or report on measurements, data or theories attributable to others. accordingly, we should refrain from saying "it was found" when it is we who were the ones who did the analysis. we should not say the definition of X is Y when it is we who either define X as Y or select that definition among other definitions published elsewhere. we should not claim knowledge to be in books when we are the ones who have read them with gain -- knowledge is embodied in a reader or actor etc. as a reviewer, i would say the use of I and WE is not a mere stylistic preference. it foregrounds or hides the author. in judging the appropriate use i would ask what truth games the author is playing with the reader when not using first person pronouns for what the author should be held accountable on the issue of using full names for authors, there are style manuals, such as apa, that rule it out. publishers like that because it saves a miniscule amount of print space. when publishing in journals, i have found it difficult to oppose their requirements. when publishing larger works i have always insisted on full names and succeeded. when asking for conference papers those who write requests for proposals have the ability to ask for references with author's full names. klaus -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Rust Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:36 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: I, We, The Author Thanks for everybody who has responded to this question. There seems to be a general theme here that first person is good, especially where there is a personal reflective aspect to the research. A couple of people have noted that journals and conferences seem to be hotbeds of conservatism, inhibiting the progressive instincts of the rest of us and there have been some comments that perhaps first person is less appropriate when we deal with "scientific" matter or wish to establish a particular kind of objectivity. In a way my original question was intended to question this last position, which is probably the root of the conservatism of editors who have to look over their shoulders at the great weight of "scientific" journals that dominate the academic publishing industry. I feel very strongly that 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. We tend to assume that replicability is the keystone of scientific knowledge, implying a kind of objective mechanistic validation. However, even today, I suspect that there are very few totally reliable procedures of advanced science that can be replicated without a degree of skill and judgement. The great chemists of the 18th and 19th centuries relied heavily on the craft skills of their art and the ability to reproduce a chemical event often depended entirely on a degree of dexterity that only the most accomplished could achieve. At that point one has to trust (passionately) both their skill and their integrity in order to accept their findings since the same dexterity could also be employed to deceive, a practice that is not unknown among scientists today. best wishes from Sheffield Chris ********************* Professor Chris Rust Head of Art and Design Research Centre Sheffield Hallam University, S11 8UZ, UK +44 114 225 2706 [log in to unmask] www.chrisrust.net Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race. - H. G. Wells