Using the First Person in Academic Writing: Can I Use "I"?

Written by Anthony Granziol

Bringing Yourself Back to Your Academic Writing: Pronouns and Perspective

When academic writing is discussed, objectivity usually crops up. Researchers are expected to perform their research in a way that prevents bias, undue influence, and incorrect results. That can mean blinding research subjects from other subjects, preventing observers from having certain information about their subjects (e.g., age, gender, race, political affiliation), and even taking the person writing the final report out of the phrasing so the information presented is not treated as an opinion.

But how important is it to remove the first person in academic writing? You may be surprised by just how much the answer depends on the context of what is being written.

Should Using the First Person in Academic Writing Be Avoided?

While the first person ("I", "we") has always been acceptable in works such as opinions pieces and personal reflections, opinions vary on whether such pronouns are appropriate for more scientific contexts, which generally place greater emphasis on objectivity and formality. The first-person perspective has become more accepted in academic writing, but this was not always the case. 

There are a variety of justifications for the argument to avoid using the first person. Some note that using "I" or "we" introduces a sense of subjectivity in what is supposed to be objective, unbiased writing. The use of "I" risks giving the impression that a given work represents personal opinion rather than carefully verified fact. Critics of the first person also point out that "I" draws the focus to the author themselves rather than to the information they are presenting, creating an informal or even immodest tone. 

Many sources also describe problems regarding unnecessary or improper uses of the first person. For example, a phrase such as "I read the findings of Smith, which are consistent with my study's findings" could be easily shortened to the more concise and formal "Smith's findings are consistent with those of the present study." Even style guides that embrace the first person will be quick to warn authors that it must still be used appropriately. 

The Passive Problem: Is the First Person Preferable?

The problem that most schools and publishers have with the third person in academic writing is one of voice, specifically the passive voice. Using the first person in academic writing practically guarantees the active voice will be used, since we seldom refer to ourselves passively. Nathan Sheffield pointed this out with an example for the Duke Graduate School's Scientific Writing Resource that is summarized here.

Active example: "We then analyzed the DNA using qPCR." The sentence is in the active voice, with "we" analyzing "DNA" with a tool, "qPCR." Simple and straightforward.

Passive example: "The DNA was then subjected to qPCR analysis." This sentence is in the passive voice, and the verb has been nominalized (turned into a noun), making the sentence bulkier with two unnecessary verbs and other words.

Yes, the nominalization could be done away with by using "The DNA was then analyzed using qPCR," but that raises the question of who performed the action. Using the third person carries ambiguity with it, and context will not always permit conciseness unless surrounding sentences explain who is doing the acting.

What Does AI Change About This Question?

Passive voice is not the only issue that can cause ambiguity when using the third person. The rise of generative AI has raised important concerns about the authorship of academic articles—particularly with the emergence of tools such as PaperOrchestra, which can transform unstructured information into a submission-ready manuscript. 

In response, many journal publishers have established policies that state that generative AI is not a valid author and that manuscripts may be rejected if it is found that AI was used to generate their content. Such stances reflect the fact that human writing is an important part of the scientific process. 

In this context, the use of "I" or "we" implicitly makes a claim about human authorship. The first person is thus not simply a stylistic choice but an assertion of authorship and accountability over one's work, one that may even be necessary for submission compliance.

At Scribendi, we have seen manuscripts in which AI has flattened the human style and tone—including pronoun choices. Restoring that voice isn't simply a matter of inserting "I" and restructuring verb use; it requires inferring where the author's agency was erased in the first place. Putting the researcher back into that prose means reading the science closely enough to know where a human judgment was made and asking the author who made it. Now, restoring the author's role in their own research is more important than ever, with the correct use of the first person potentially making the difference between a rejected manuscript and journal publication. 

What Do Style Guides Say About Perspective?

Importantly, the choice between first person and third person can be significantly easier if you've been instructed to use a specific style guide or to follow certain journal instructions. Many guides and publishers offer clear advice regarding whether the first person can be used, as well as it when it should be. 

Below is a quick summary of how some major style guides rule on this issue:

APA: APA encourages the use of the first person when referring to your own viewpoints or work that you did, noting that the first person ensures that attribution is clear. It recommends against using "the author" in such cases. 

Chicago Style: The position of the Chicago Manual of Style, while lacking detailed guidance on perspective, is that both first and third person are correct and acceptable, and that the first person should be used if deemed appropriate.

MLA: This style is more mixed on the use of the first person, embracing it in certain limited cases. It also notes that overuse of "I" can be off-putting for readers, so it recommends using it sparingly, even when appropriate. 

While these are only a few examples of major style guides, it's noteworthy that none of them strictly prohibit the use of the first person. Of course, the instructions of a particular journal or publisher may be more relevant than these guidelines, so if you're following such instructions, you should always consult them first before deciding what perspective to use.

What Do Reviewers Want to See?

So where does this leave you if you want to write academically? Ultimately, your choice of first person or third person will depend on what your specific audience will expect. If you're aiming to publish an article in a scientific journal, that means answering an important question: What do reviewers want to see?

The answer to this question will depend on your journal and field of work. Some reviewers may be concerned about generative AI use, as discussed above, and expect to see strong indications of human authorship through appropriate use of the first person. Other reviewers may desire a heightened level of formality and allow no room for even a hint of subjectivity, thus mandating the third person. At Scribendi, we've seen this dynamic play out in reverse: a manuscript that avoids 'I' where it's now expected can read as AI-generated even when it isn't—a perception problem that has nothing to do with the quality of the research

Of course, reading any specific guidelines or instructions you are following is the first step to determining what a reviewer or publisher might expect in terms of perspective. But if relevant guidance isn't provided, current papers in your field may give you an idea of what the established tendency is in your area of work. Since academic writing has a consistent audience (fellow authors/students seeking supported arguments on a subject they're familiar with), it should be fairly easy for you to choose a suitable tone and perspective once you know your content.

It's worth noting that certain fields may be more or less in favor of the first person in academic writing. The social sciences, for example, have become increasingly accepting of "I" and "we". Similarly, subjects in the humanities are often permissive of a strong authorial voice. Philosophy and arts articles tend to use personal experience to illustrate ideas or point out parallels between current and past work. Gender studies papers usually draw on specific perspectives that can be bolstered by personal experience.

In contrast, reviewers in fields such as mathematics or medicine may favor the strict use of the third person. Fields in which objectivity is paramount are often more likely to place the emphasis firmly on the scientic information presented. However, AI, as well as a general shift away from an understanding of the first person as informal, are changing attitudes even in these fields.  

When Should I Use the First Person?

So, with all of this information in mind, when should you use the first person in academic writing? 

The short answer: when it's expected. 

Ultimately, your choice of perspective will come down to the context you are writing in. Does your style guide endorse the first person when appropriate? Does your journal, in the wake of AI, desire a strong sense of authorship and thus encourage "I"? Has your field been moving away from passive voice, with most articles now using the first person? These are some of the scenarios in which the first person is recommended.

Notably, most sources will not recommend that the first person be used in all cases. You would not generally find "I" and "we" used appropriately in a literature review. But when your writing calls for you to describe actions that you took, or if you're writing in a context where personal anecdotes are permissible, "I" is logical.

The use of the first person must always be justified by good writing practices. A good rule to follow is to make the first person helpful by using it to show agency (e.g., "While previous studies have focused on X, I have taken a Y perspective…") or progress (e.g., "We noted X after the reaction began…").

Final Words

In summary, using the first person in academic writing successfully requires a careful assessment of context, situation, and tone. But it can be done—and in somes cases, it should be. Consulting a style guide, journal instructions, or other works in your field can help you make an informed choice.

Image source: sokkete/envato.elements.com

Know how your paper will be read with Scientific Editing. 

About the Author

A Scribendi in-house editor, Anthony is happily putting his BA in English from Western University to good use with thoughtful feedback and incisive editing. An avid reader and gamer, he can be found during his off hours enjoying narrative-driven games and obscure and amusing texts, as well as cooking for his family.