Claudia Flink
October 10, 2012
All the Write Moves
Investigating a Writing Rule
Writing Rules and “Good Writing”
Amongst the many skilled writers of the world, the best definition of good writing
can be seen in the words of the established scholar, teacher, and writing
administrator, Nancy Sommers. She says, “Good writing disturbs: it creates
dissonance.”
But dissonance is quite the opposite of what we have been taught about writing.
All throughout school, we have been told many different ways of writing that all
involved strict processes and formats. There were strategies that could make a
paper successful and others that were forbidden from being included in any
writing assignment. I’ve seen lists of words that are not allowed in writing and
charts that consist of solid blocks, which outline the step-by-step process of
forming the perfect essay.
All the while, we are expected to be creative and unique. Our writing is supposed
to stand out to our teachers even though we are all expected to conform to the
same process and set of rules. We are expected to have spontaneous bursts of
writing ideas, all while staying within that realm of do’s and don’ts.
Overall, writing rules are restrictions that hold writers back from their true
potential. Rules keep creativity and dissonance locked up within the back of our
minds in order to make sure we are writing to the same standards as every other
writer.
“Good writing disturbs: it
creates dissonance.”
Contents
Page 1
All the Write Moves:
Introduction to Writing
Rules
Page 2
Investigating a Writing
Rule
Page 3
A Different Point of View
Page 4
A Different Point of View
cont.
Page 5
Applying First Person
Point of View
Lorem Ipsum Dolor
SpringPage
20162
Investigating a Writing Rule
Of all the writing rules that constrain writers, some of them hold much
more debate than others. It seems as if the more generalized rules such as
paragraph structure, citation styles, placement of thesis statements, and
many more, cause the most controversy.
These generalized rules do not lead to solid answers about why these rules
are implemented or how following them is even beneficial. Rather, they
are widely accepted ideas that have just stuck with writing over the years.
The rule that will be picked apart and analyzed throughout the rest of this
article will be the issue of using first person in academic writing.
First Person as a Writing Rule
The use of first person point of view in academic writing is a writing rule
that has stood out for many years. Many viewpoints stand against the use
of first person and label it as ineffective for skillful writing.
The use of “I” and personal experiences is not, however, rejected in all
genres of writing. Personal narratives, journals, creative writing, and
persuasive essays are all areas of writing that are widely accepting of the
first person point of view. These genres of writing actually call for the
writer to make personal connections and express opinions in order to
capture the audience. The use of first person is extremely effective in
displaying personality and voice in such subjects.
However, these genres actually lack the scholarly aspect and academic
rigor of other subjects such as science, history, and math, where the first
person point of view is highly unpopular.
Introducing First Person and
Scientific Writing
Writing within subjects, such as the sciences,
does not approve of the use of first person.
Rather, third person point of view is a widely
accepted concept because of many reasons all
dealing with the nature of science itself.
Science is a field that is based solely on facts
and truths that can be reached using
systematic studies. Because of this, first
person is a struggle to incorporate into
science, because it would add a “degree of
blindness” that takes away from the solidity
of facts (Varela and Shear). The problem is
being able to “strike a balance between
demonstrating a personal investment in a
subject while maintaining a sense of
objectivity and academic rigor” (Duke
University).
First Person Point of View in
History
The use of first person point of view has actually been frowned down upon
for much of writing history. In the past, it was avoided to silence outsiders
and creativity. Individualists, women, and enlighteners had their ideas and
voices silenced as an effect of the disapproval of first person point of view
(Duke University).
And nowadays, the motto behind first person point of view in academic
writing: Just don’t do it (Duke University). It is a definitive no that is so often
unquestioned that it has just stuck with writing over time.
It sounds realistic that history says first person is bad because we need to be
unbiased. But times are changing, and with it, writing is also changing.
Academic writing such as that in the field of science is being shaken by new
morals and values; therefore the objection to first person should ultimately be
reevaluated. 2
Lorem Ipsum Dolor
Spring Page
2016 3
A Different Point of View
In order to fully understand why and how first person may or
may not be effective in science, we have to switch
gears.
If first person is not acceptable, then what is it about
third person point of view that appeals to the realm of
writing in the sciences?
Science is based on facts and truths that are found using
scientific research. Objectivity and unbiased findings
are key to the success of building upon the knowledge
of science.
Opposite Ends of the Spectrum
Unfortunately, with everything that is good in the world,
there comes something bad.
It is because of this that third person is used in scientific
writing. Third person has been labeled as appropriate
“for a generally accepted body of knowledge or
thinking” (Webb 747-52). It embodies the idea that the
scientist could not have influenced his/her findings in
any way possible; therefore, anonymity is preserved.
The use of third person may be labeled as the best
method of writing for science to this date, but there are
many bad aspects that come with using this point of view.
Third person has been labeled as a “format that leads to
excruciatingly torturous sentences about what ‘the writer’
and ‘the author’ think” (Webb 747-52). This, I have
found, is extremely relevant. Often times students abuse
devices such as the Internet and a thesaurus in order to
find words or explanation that are far beyond their own
understanding. With third person comes the expectation
that the student will write as intelligently as possible,
which can be intimidating, and often times hurt the
student’s writing outcome.
Now enter the biggest component of scientific research
and writing: qualitative versus quantitative data.
Quantitative data is all of the numbers, charts, and
figures that are gathered from a research project,
whereas qualitative data is the observations,
conclusions, sights, sounds, and feelings drawn from
the study. In terms of first versus third person:
quantitative data is represented by third person point of
view and qualitative is represented by first person.
Third person can also make a piece of writing appear
choppy or “deprived of flow” (Webb 747-52). This
choppiness can be attributed to such quick and clear-cut
sentences that appear to make the writing look like a stepby-step process that could easily be broken apart. In such
a case, the writing might look like a set of instructions
instead of a write up or interpretation on what the
researcher found within a scientific study.
Quantitative data is valued because of the ability for
scientists to be able to take the recordings and reach the
same conclusions over and over again without having to
make any interpretations (Webb 747-52). This
quantitative data also allows for there to be that
“neutral, value-free, impartial basis” (Webb 747-52).
So again, the idea is to maintain that objectivity and
unbiased recollection of the research.
The use of third person dissociates the scientists so far
from the work they have just performed; it appears as if a
person was not actually involved at all. This, especially,
is a bad part of third person in scientific writing. The
3
Lorem Ipsum Dolor
Spring 2016
Page 4
(Opposite Ends of the Spectrum continued)
idea that the scientist was not actually involved gives the impression that
discoveries just appear out of nowhere. This detachment makes science
appear as if it is so far above our heads that we cannot even reach it (Webb
747-52). Science does not just come down to us from the heavens in
spurts; we have to build up the ladder to reach new discoveries. So in
reality, “new knowledge is constructed rather than found” (Webb 747-52).
The Presence of Bias
In contrast to this detached view that is portrayed through third person,
scientists actually play a major role in what is being tested, recorded, and
observed. Because of this, bias cannot be completely eliminated from
scientific writing.
The bias that is present in the research and writing process is not an
obvious voicing of opinions, but rather a series of choices that the
scientists makes. The decisions of whom to study, how to collect data, how
to analyze, and how much the scientist divulges themselves into the project
are all areas where bias is naturally occurring (Webb 747-52). Bias is
strongly inevitable when it comes to how much time, emotion, and choice
a scientist puts into the study.
Another form of bias is seen in reviewing research processes and scientific
writing, which calls for objectivity to be completely thrown out the
window. Revision itself is an extremely biased process, and even
scientific processes and writing require revision (Webb 747-52). Scientists
reading one another’s work and performing research repetitively will pick
out what they believe could be interpreted or performed differently. Doing
so adds partiality and changes on behalf of the writer’s personal thoughts
and opinions.
First Person in Science
People only list out the negative side of using first person in scientific
writing, but there are ways to incorporate it without turning research into a
personal narrative.
When it comes to qualitative data, the use of personal pronouns may be
required to describe what is being observed and then recorded. Sights,
smells, taste, and textures can be recorded using the first person.
However, in order to make these data similar to the reliability of
quantitative data, more description would be necessary. Because
quantitative data can be reached more than once, making qualitative data
4
“Mutual
Constraints”
Two authors, Valera and Shear, have
defined a method for incorporating first
person data (qualitative) with third
person data (quantitative) in scientific
writing.
The main idea is that neither one should
outweigh the other in writing. Where
third person data is present, so there is
also first person data.
How does this work?
This method suggests that first person
not be completely prohibited in science,
but rather weaved in with the third
person. The two data types would switch
back and forth. Whenever third person
data is presented, first person data would
soon follow it to explain how the data
was collected and what the researchers
interpreted from the results.
Using this method is much more
accurate because it shows that scientific
data are up for interpretation because
results are not always the same. The
third person data would maintain the
factual and solid part of science, while
the first person data would present new
ideas that may be later formulated into
facts.
Lorem Ipsum Dolor
Spring 2016
Page 5
clearer would make it easy for anyone reading your data
to reach the same conclusions (Webb 747-52). Doing so
would also make it so the researcher can easily justify
and describe what was done and what came out of it.
the audience?
First person point of view is not only using the
“authorial I” (Duke University). Because science is
largely based on group work and the involvement of
multiple people with different parts of the research, the
first person point of view can be made plural. The use
of “we” to describe processes that the group makes
during the study is an effective way of describing the
process.
On the other hand, sciences such as chemistry,
biology, and more air on the quantitative side and
would use first person in only a few instances.
First Person in Teaching Scientific
Writing
Up until this point in time, first person has always
been taught to be completely separate from writing
within the sciences. When students use it, they are
penalized and told that it does not apply to the genre
of writing.
A couple of questions could be asked of yourself to
determine the use of first person:
Is it necessary to identify who performed what
in this situation?

Will my reflections make the data more clear to
And, will using first person change the tone of
my writing and make it sound redundant?
Social sciences (such as psychology and sociology),
environmental science, and a few others are largely
based on observations and therefore would include
many first person accounts.
Saying that first person is acceptable in science does not
mean that your writing should be bombarded with “I”’s
and over the top personal reflections. So, it is important
for students to be able to identify when it is possible for
the use of first person to be applied to their scientific
writing.


A second thing to consider when using first person
is the particular science in which you are writing
for.
When Do I Use First Person in
Science?
Will my input or personal experience have
strong relevance? (Duke University)
Will the inclusion of my personal experiences
take away from the academic rigor or the
subject? (Duke University)
All of these things can help a student determine if
their writing would benefit from the use of first
person.
Most importantly, you should be able to describe what
it is you have gained from the experience and the data
that you found. Rattling off the data is no good if you
have not expanded upon your knowledge in the process.
You should be able to identify where it is you have built
your intelligence, what may have stumped you, and
how you have altered the realm of science in any way.


While I do not believe students should be told first
person could be used in any genre, they should not
be forbidden from making the decision of whether
or not it would be beneficial in their writing.
Rather, I suggest that students be taught in what
instances it would be acceptable and in what ways
they can utilize first person to strengthen their
writing.
5
Page 6
Revising the Rules
Writing rules can sometimes be generalizations that have just
been widely accepted. If we took the time to analyze every rule
and what it could do to hurt or help our writing, we might find
that the list of restraints might shorten.
Writing using “heuristics” versus “algorithms” would allow
students to have the flexibility to make the educated choice on
whether or not to follow a rule (Rose, 240). Therefore, teachers
should present all of these so-called rules as suggestions.
More importantly, the rules that are in place now should not
define a student’s writing. We should all be able to create this
dissonance that is good writing and prove to our audiences that
these rules are not applicable to writing today.
We should all be willing to step outside of the boundaries our
education on writing has created for us and prove to teachers,
peers, and the public that breaking the rules can bring strength to
writing. We can prove that this will give it the unique quality that
makes it not good writing, but memorable writing, which will
stand out in the minds of all our readers.
References
Duke University, Writing Studio. “Because I Said So: Effective Use of First Person Perspective and the Personal Voice
in Academic Writing”. PDF file.
Rose, Mike. “Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Stifling of Language: A Cognitivist Analysis of Writer’s Block.”
College Composition and Communication 31.4 (1980): 389-401. Print.
Varela, Francisco, and Jonathan Shear. "First Person Methodologies: What, Why, and How?." Journal of Consciousness
Studies. N.p., 1999. Web. Web. 4 Oct. 2012.
Webb, C. "Journal of Advanced Nursing." Use of First Person in Academic Writing: objectivity, language, and
gatekeeping. 17.6 (1992): 747-52. Print. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?