I have a friend going to an 18 month MBA class. Or, some other degree. At any rate, it’s Masters level. From, at least formerly, a quite respectable local University.
So, he asked me to look over his paper. I took issue with one phrase that he used “…this writer will try to prove…”
I complained that the phrase ‘this writer’ was considered bad form, and had been so at least since the 1970s, when a Middle School teacher told me such. My friend told me that the professor stated that that was the phraseology that the professor insisted on.
I’m skeptical. What’s the Straight Dope, in re: using this (to me, at least) boorish phrase?
I am in a graduate program right now. I have never been instructed to use such a phrase, and I can’t recall seeing it in any papers or articles I’ve read. “This essay…” or “This paper…” but never “This writer…”
I can’t tell you the actual rule regarding acceptable use, but this has been my experience anyway.
There used to be a stylistic rule to not say “I” in formal academic writing. The workaround used to be “this writer” or “this author”. It was considered out of date during my graduate work over two decades ago so I’d really be surprised if a professor was encouraging it now. Does the prof also insist on thou and thine?
It used to be the convention to use passive and impersonal constructions in science writing. However, in recent decades it’s become much more prevalent to use the active voice and first person. I would be surprised if MBA programs were more formal than ones in science.
In my own writing, I avoid all references to myself or the paper I’m writing. In my opinion, it’s just unnecessary verbiage. That said, using both “this paper” or “this writer” or “I” or (most annoyingly when there’s only one author) “we” is quite common.
Using the impersonal “this reporter” still seems to be the in [style in journalism.
](BUCHANAN AND GOODMAN - THE FLYING SAUCER LYRICS)When this programmer writes comments in his computer code (which this programmer does extensively), he always uses the royal plural “we” in describing what the code is doing.
Master’s level papers are usually done in either APA (American Psychiatric Association) style, for classes that relate to the sciences, or MLA (Modern Literary Association) style for something more liberal arts-y. My guess is that your friend is using APA, which discourages (but doesn’t outright forbid) references to the self as much as possible. The Bedford Handbook by Diana Hacker is your go-to source for what’s allowed and what isn’t. One or two “This reader” references will probably pass unnoticed.
This editor says it’s an awkward construction whose intent is to get around using “I” and if this were going in a publication I edited, which it won’t be, that particular construction would get axed, as would “will try to prove.” (There is no try! Prove, or prove not!)
As this is a matter of style, not grammar, the correct answer is, by definition, whatever the reader, in this case the professor, expects to see. Were the person writing for a newspaper, the correct answer would be found in that publication’s house style, which is what the copyeditors and, therefore, the readers expect to see.
It’s purely a matter of taste, so there is no objective answer. The only objective thing we can say is a recitation of the construction’s history.
IMHO: In professional and academic writing I was taught never to refer to myself. Nobody gives a shit. Impart the information to the audience respectfully without any narrator being present.
Ask the professor or department head what style guide is recommended and spend a few hours reading it.
Yep, the Economist (which I think upholds a pretty high standard of readable journalism), frequently uses the phrase “your correspondent” rather than “I”. This appears to be an editorial decision: The Economist - Wikipedia
The different styles all have advantages and disadvantages - the worst case is writing that builds in all the disadvantages and none of the advantages.
If no reference is made to the author, passive voice will ensue.
If I insert myself into the writing too much, I sound really informal.
Discussing the writer of this sentence in third person sounds very contrived.
The rule I use to please myself is to make sure every action has a clear actor. If that actor is me, I say so clearly. Usually the actor is only me if I’m talking about methods. “I conducted a search” is clearer than “a search was conducted” or “the writer conducted a search”. This only gets messy for multi-purpose papers.
This is personal preference, though. Academics often have pet hates against one of the styles. If they are kind enough to tell you which one they prefer, and they are marking or reviewing your work, the choice is easy.
It’s a style thing. The best course of action is to consult whatever style guide is recommended by the university, program, and/or instructor. I remember in one undergrad class we were all asked to refer to ourselves as “the researcher”. What style is the instructor asking for? APA? MLA?
In the journal articles that I published, I’ve used either “the present author” or a passive construction (“it will be attempted to demonstrate in the present paper…”) to refer to myself, i.e. when making a statement which I want to be understood as my personal opinion. I admit it sounds archaic, but I think it’s still sufficiently common not to be seen as wrong or inappropriate.
Here’s a comparative study of the preferred usage in different academic disciplines.
This is an interesting topic. Here are the facts of the situation. My train of thought, at any rate.
Avoiding direct references to yourself (in the forms of I, me, etc.) results in awkward or unwieldy sentences and is generally not good.
But it has some historical weight behind it in certain modes of writing.
But, let’s face it: this is done to artificially inflate the authority of the work. Just look at that recent study that shows that people in positions of power don’t use the word “I” very much. Taken to the extreme, they refer to themselves in the third person all the time. I’m too lazy to dig up the link right now, but you know what I’m talking about.
People are becoming more aware of this now and are going to increasingly judge this practice as pretentious and artificial.
Even in academic papers.
But it will keep happening anyway.
Meanwhile the good writers will do it better, this will gain traction, and the convention will split. The better way to do it will gain acceptance (though not universally) and will eventually rule the day.
So, I’d advise anyone to write the more straightforward way; if that is bucking the trend, so be it. Having said that, there are plenty of reasons that even a good writer might use “this writer” or somesuch, and there are plenty of situations where it might be better to conform to a stupid rule.