“I need you to say ‘I’”: Why First Person Is
Important in College Writing
by Kate McKinney Maddalena
This essay is a chapter in Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing,
Volume 1, a peer-reviewed open textbook series for the writing
classroom, and is published through Parlor Press.
The full volume and individual chapter downloads are available for
free from the following sites:
• Writing Spaces: http://writingspaces.org/essays
• Parlor Press: http://parlorpress.com/writingspaces
• WAC Clearinghouse: http://wac.colostate.edu/books/
Print versions of the volume are available for purchase directly
from Parlor Press and through other booksellers.
To learn about participating in the Writing Spaces project, visit the
Writing Spaces website at http://writingspaces.org/.
This essay is available under a Creative Commons License subject to the Writing
Spaces Terms of Use. More information, such as the specific license being used,
is available at the bottom of the first page of the chapter.
© 2010 by the respective author(s). For reprint rights and other permissions,
contact the original author(s).
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Writing spaces : readings on writing. Volume 1 / edited by Charles Lowe
and Pavel Zemliansky.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-60235-184-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-1-60235-185-1
(adobe ebook)
1. College readers. 2. English language--Rhetoric. I. Lowe, Charles,
1965- II. Zemliansky, Pavel.
PE1417.W735 2010
808’.0427--dc22
2010019487
180
“I need you to say ‘I’”: Why First
Person Is Important in College
Writing
Kate McKinney Maddalena
At this point in your development as a writer, you may have learned
to write “I-less” prose, without first person.
*
I-less-ness is fine; writ-
ing habits, like all habits, are best simplified when first learned or
re-learned. Jazz pianists learn strict scales before they are allowed to
improvise. Someone might go on a strict diet and then return to a
modified menu after the desired weight is lost, and the bad eating
habits are broken. Constructing arguments without using “I” is good
practice for formal “improvisation” at higher levels of thinking and
writing. Avoiding personal pronouns forces you to be objective. It also
“sounds” more formal; you’re more likely to maintain an appropriate
tone if you stay away from the personal.
But writing in various academic and professional contexts needs
to be more flexible, sophisticated, and subtle than writing for high
school English classes. In college, you should start using first-person
pronouns in your formal academic writing, where appropriate. First
person has an important place—an irreplaceable place—in texts that
report research and engage scholarship. Your choices about where you
place yourself as subject are largely determined by context and the
* This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License and is subject to the
Writing Spaces Terms of Use. To view a copy of this license, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105,
USA. To view the Writing Spaces Terms of Use, visit http://writingspaces.
org/terms-of-use.
Why First Person Is Important in College Writing 181
conventions of the field in which you’re writing. The key is making
sure that your choices are appropriate for the context of your paper—
whom you’re writing it for, and the kind of information it’s meant to
communicate. Here I’ll list some ways in which first person improves
written argument and show you some examples of the ways scholars
use first person, and then I’ll propose places where it might be used
appropriately in your own writing.
W “I”
First person can support the following characteristics of good written
argument (and good writing in general).
1. Objectivity and Integrity
The main reason most teachers give for the discipline of I-less-ness is
that it keeps your writing “objective.” They want to make sure that you
don’t rely on personal experiences or perspectives where you should
be providing concrete, researched support for your arguments. Your
best friend at summer camp doesn’t “prove” a sociological theory. Your
memory of a “fact”—the average rainfall in a town, the actions of a
character in a film, the tendencies of groups of people to behave in
certain ways, or the population of Kenya—is not a reliable source in
academic contexts. You shouldn’t write, “because I think so,” or “I
know that . . .” But if you consider some of the higher-level implica-
tions of perspective’s effects on argument, there are some well-chosen
places where “I” can give your argument more objectivity and intel-
lectual integrity.
Take scientific writing, for example. Up until very recently, when
writing observational and experimental reports, scientists, as a rule,
avoided first person. Methodology was (and is still, in many cases) de-
scribed in the passive voice. That is, instead of writing, “We took mea-
surements of ice thickness on the first and 15
th
day of every month,”
scientists wrote, “Measurements of ice thickness were taken on the
first and 15
th
day of every month.” Taking out the “we” focuses the
reader’s attention on the phenomenon (object) being observed, not the
observer taking the readings (subject). Or at least that was the reason-
ing behind passive voice in science writing.
Kate McKinney Maddalena182
But during the last half of the last century, mostly because of de-
velopments in physics, scientists have talked a lot about a thing called
the “observer effect”: while observing or experimenting with a social
or even physical system, the scientist watching can affect the system’s
behavior. When particle physicists try to measure the motion of some-
thing as tiny as an electron, their very observation almost certainly
changes that motion. Because of the observer effect, the passive voice
convention I’ve described above has been called into question. Is it
really honest to act like “measurements are taken” by some invisible
hand? Is the picture minus the researcher the whole picture? Not re-
ally. The fact is, someone took the measurements, and those measure-
ments might reflect that observer’s involvement. It’s more truthful,
complete, and objective, then, to put the researchers in the picture.
These days, it’s much more common to “see” the researchers as sub-
jects—“We measured ice thickness . . .”—in methodology sections.
That same kind of “whole picture” honesty applies to you making
written claims, too. When you first learned to write an essay, you were
probably taught to make claims as though they were true; write “The
sky is blue,” not “I think that the sky is blue.” That second claim isn’t
arguable—who can disprove that you think something? But a much
more sophisticated claim includes your perspective and implies the ef-
fect it may have on your stance: “From my position standing on the
earth’s surface in the daytime, I see the sky as blue.” You can make that
claim without using first person, of course, and in some contexts (i.e.
for a scientific argument), you probably should. When you’re taking
a stance on an issue, though, first person just makes sense. Defining
your perspective gives your reader context for your stance: “As a volun-
teer at a bilingual preschool, I can see that both language immersion
and individualized language instruction have benefits,” or “As a prin-
cipal at an elementary school with a limited budget, I would argue that
language immersion makes the most sense.” Consider those two posi-
tions; without the “whole picture” that the statement of perspective
implies, you might assume that the two claims disagree. The subtlety
of the subject—who the writer is—lets you see quite a bit about why
the claim is being made. If you asked the second writer to take a stance
on the immersion/bilingual instruction issue with only learning objec-
tives in mind, she might agree with the first writer. The “truth” might
not be different, but the position it’s observed from can certainly cast
a different light on it.
Why First Person Is Important in College Writing 183
2. Clarifying Who’s Saying What
A clear description of your perspective becomes even more important
when your stance has to incorporate or respond to someone else’s. As
you move into more advanced college writing, the claims you respond
to will usually belong to scholars. Some papers may require you to
spend almost as much time summarizing a scholarly conversation as
they do presenting points of your own. By “signification,” I mean little
phrases that tell the reader, “This is my opinion,” “This is my interpre-
tation.” You need them for two big reasons.
First of all, the more “voices” you add to the conversation, the more
confusing it gets. You must separate your own interpretations of schol-
ars’ claims, the claims themselves, and your argument so as not to
misrepresent any of them. If you’ve just paraphrased a scholar, mak-
ing your own claim without quite literally claiming it might make the
reader think that the scholar said it. Consider these two sentences:
“Wagstaff et al. (2007) conclude that the demand for practical science
writing that the layperson can understand is on the rise. But there is
a need for laypeople people to increase their science literacy, as well.”
Is that second claim part of Wagstaff’s conclusion, or is it your own
reflection on the implications of Wagstaff’s argument? By writing
something like, “Wagstaff et al. (2007) conclude that the demand for
practical science that the layperson can understand is on the rise. I
maintain that there is a need for laypeople to increase their science
literacy, as well,” you avoid the ambiguity. First person can help you
express, very simply, who “says” what.
Secondly, your perceptions, and therefore your interpretations, are
not always perfect. Science writing can help me illustrate this idea,
as well. In the imaginary observation report I refer to above, the re-
searchers may or may not use first person in their methodology section
out of respect for the observer effect, but they are very likely to use
first person in the discussion/conclusion section. The discussion sec-
tion involves interpretation of the data—that is, the researchers must
say what they think the data means. The importance of perspective
is compounded, here. They might not be right. And even if they are
mostly right, the systems scientists study are usually incredibly com-
plex; one observation report is not the whole picture. Scientists, there-
fore, often mark their own interpretations with first person pronouns.
“We interpret these data to imply . . .” they might say, or, “We believe
Kate McKinney Maddalena184
these findings indicate . . . ,” and then they go on to list questions for
further research. Even the experts know that their understanding is
almost always incomplete.
3. Ownership, Intellectual Involvement, and Exigency
Citing scholarship contextualizes and strengthens your argument; you
want to defer to “experts” for evidence of your claims when you can.
As a student, you might feel like an outsider—unable to comment
with authority on the concepts you’re reading and writing about. But
outsider status doesn’t only mean a lack of expertise. Your own, well-
defined viewpoint might shed new light on a topic that the experts
haven’t considered (or that your classmates haven’t considered, or that
your professor hasn’t mentioned in class, or even, quite simply, that
you hadn’t thought of and so you’re excited about). In that case, you
want to say, “This is mine, it’s a new way of looking at the issue, and
I’m proud of it.”
Those kinds of claims are usually synthetic ones—you’ve put in-
formation and/or interpretations from several sources together, and
you’ve actually got something to say. Whether your new spin has to do
with a cure for cancer or an interpretation of Batman comics, pride in
your own intellectual work is important on many levels. As a student,
you should care; such investment can help you learn. Your school com-
munity should also care; good teachers are always looking for what we
call “critical thinking,” and when students form new ideas from exist-
ing ones, we know it’s happening. On the larger scale, the scholarly
community should care. Having something new to say increases the
exigency of your argument in the larger, intellectual exchange of ideas.
A scholarly reader should want to pay attention, because what you say
may be a key to some puzzle (a cure for cancer) or way of thinking
about the topic (interpreting Batman). That’s the way scholars work
together to form large bodies of knowledge: we communicate about
our research and ideas, and we try to combine them when we can.
An emphatic statement like “Much discussion has addressed the
topic of carbon emissions’ relationship to climate change, but I would
like to ask a question from a new perspective,” will make your reader
sit up and take notice. In I-less form, that might look like: “Much
discussion has addressed the topic of carbon emissions’ relationship
to climate change, but some questions remain unconsidered.” In this
Why First Person Is Important in College Writing 185
case, second sentence still sounds like summary—the writer is telling
us that research is incomplete, but isn’t giving us a strong clue that
his or her (new! fresh!) argument is coming up next. Be careful, of
course, not to sound arrogant. If the writer of the sentences above was
worried about his or her lack of expertise in an assignment involving
scholarly sources, he or she could write: “What scholarly discussion I
have read so far has addressed the topic of carbon emissions’ relation-
ship to climate change, but I would like to ask a question from a new
perspective.” He or she can use first person to employ both deference
and ownership/involvement in the same sentence.
4. Rhetorical Sophistication
Some writing assignments focus on one simple task at a time:
“Summarize the following . . .” “Compare the readings . . .” “ana-
lyze,” or “argue.” When you write a simple five-paragraph essay, your
mode rarely changes—you can write an introduction, thesis, body,
and conclusion without explaining too many shifts in what the pa-
per is “doing.” Writing at the college level and beyond often has to
“do” a few things in the same text. Most involved writing assignments
expect you to do at least two things. You may need to summarize/
report and respond, or (more likely) you’ll need to summarize/report,
synthesize, and respond. A good introduction, as you’ve learned, needs
to anticipate all of it so the reader knows what to expect. Anticipating
the structure of a complex argument in I-less mode is tricky. Often, it
comes out as a summary of the document that follows and is redun-
dant. First person can clear that problem right up. Consider the intro-
duction to this article; when I come to the part where I need to tell
you what I’m going to do, I just . . . tell you what I’m going to do! My
writing students usually find this rhetorical trick (or is it an un-trick?)
refreshing and liberating. The same concept can be applied to transi-
tions between sections and ideas: “Now that I’ve done this thing, I’d
like to move into this other part of my argument . . .” I’ll use this type
of transition, myself, when I move into the section of this text called,
“When, and When not?”
Academic Examples
The fact is, using first person for rhetorical clarity and to ease transi-
tions isn’t just easier—it’s common in many academic contexts. It’s
Kate McKinney Maddalena186
accepted, even expected, in some cases, for scholarly writing such as
abstracts, position papers, theses, and dissertations in many fields to
employ first person in the ways I’ve just described. In almost all genres,
formats, and fields, the scholarly writer is expected to describe the re-
search done thus far by her peers and then make her own claims—a
structure that lends itself to first person.
Robert Terrill, a cultural studies scholar, begins his article, “Put
on a Happy Face: Batman as Schizophrenic Savior,” with an evalua-
tion of Tim Burton’s movie’s box office success, and then spends sev-
eral paragraphs discussing other scholars’ applications of psychological
frameworks to film studies. Throughout the literature review section,
Terrill’s own voice stays remote; he uses third person. But look at what
happens when he is ready to begin his own argument:
Because much of my analysis is grounded in the theo-
ries of Carl C. Jung, I will begin by outlining relevant
aspects of that theory. Then I suggest that Gotham
City is a dream world, a representative projection of
image-centered dreams. Within the framework of
Jung’s model, I show the principal characters to be
archetypal manifestations that erupt from Gotham’s
unconscious. Wayne/Batman is a splintered manifes-
tation of a potential whole; his condition represents
the schizophrenia required of a hero dedicated to
preservation of the shattered psyche of Gotham. (321)
Terrill’s move to first person separates his own claims from the
scholars he’s summarized in his introduction, and it allows him to take
ownership of his main claim. The way he “maps out” his article is also
typical of academic argument.
First person is used similarly in the sciences. Unlike Terrill, who
argues for a certain interpretation of a text, psychologists Jennifer
Kraemer and David Marquez report research findings in their article,
“Psychosocial Correlates and Outcomes of Yoga or Walking Among
Older Adults.” Much like Terrill, however, their introduction consists
of a review of literature in the third person. For almost three pages,
Kraemer and Marquez describe studies which have explored health
and injury patterns in old age, as well as studies which have investi-
gated various fitness programs for the elderly. When it comes time for
Why First Person Is Important in College Writing 187
Kraemer and Marquez to describe their own study, they shift into first
person:
We hypothesized that an acute bout of yoga would be
more effective at improving mood and reducing state
anxiety among older adults when compared with
acute bouts of walking. We further hypothesized that
older adults who practice yoga would have lower lev-
els of depression and higher quality of life when com-
pared with those who walk for exercise. We did not
make direct hypotheses for exercise barriers and bar-
riers self-efficacy because, to date, there is no research
that has examined those variables in this population.
(393)
Kraemer and Marquez continue in first person as they describe their
methodology. “We recruited a total of 51 participants (8 men, 43
women)” they write, “through classes at local yoga studios and mall
walking groups” (393). The researchers themselves, in first person, are
the subjects who “do” every action in the methods: “We asked ques-
tions on . . . We measured state anxiety by . . . We measured mood
using . . .”(393–4). By putting themselves in the picture, Kraemer and
Marquez acknowledge themselves as variables in their own study—a
key aspect of any scientific methodology, and especially those which
involve human subjects and use interviews to collect data.
On the other hand, some academic communities and genres stay
away from first person. Susan Clark, a professor at Yale who writes
about the communication and implementation of sustainable forestry
practices, describes her study without putting herself in the picture.
Where Kraemer and Marquez describe themselves “doing” the meth-
ods of their study, Clark has her article as the agent in her description
of analysis:
This article (a) describes the intelligence function
in conceptual terms, including its sequential phases
(as described by McDougal, Lasswell, & Reisman,
1981); (b) uses examples to illustrate the intelligence
activity from Reading and Miller (2000), Endan-
gered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues,
which gives 70 cases by 34 authors in 55 countries
Kate McKinney Maddalena188
that focus on species, ecosystem, and sustainability
challenges; and employs a “problem-oriented” look at
intelligence activities across all these cases (Lasswell,
1971). It does so by asking and answering five ques-
tions . . . (637)
Clark’s methods are to analyze others’ processes—hers, then, is meta-
analysis. It’s appropriate for her to remove herself rhetorically as she
deals with many actions and many, diverse actors. She is more a de-
scriber than a “do-er.”
At the very end of her article, in a “call to action” that directly ap-
plies her findings, Clark does finally use first person. “We can increase
the possibility of better biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, and
better sustainability overall,” she writes, “if we choose to use an ef-
fective intelligence activity. Success is more likely if we increase the
rationality of our own directed behavior” (659). Clark’s “we” is dif-
ferent from Kraemer and Marquez’s “we,” though. It refers to Clark’s
audience—the community of sustainable forestry as a whole—and
predicts future action in which she will be active.
W ( W N) U F P
Now that I’ve convinced you to try first person in some of your aca-
demic writing, I should talk about how to use it appropriately. (See?
I just used “I” for a clear transition to a new idea.) The key is: don’t
go “I” crazy. Remember the self-discipline you practiced with I-less
writing.
Probably the best way to approach first person in an academic con-
text is this: use it to make yourself clear. You’ll need “I” for clarity
when one of the ideals I described above is in question. Either 1) you’ll
need to describe an aspect of your personal perspective that will help
the reader see (your) whole picture; 2) you’ll need to make the di-
vide between your voice and the scholars’ as clear as possible in order
to avoid misrepresenting the scholars’ claims; 3) your own claim will
need to stand apart from the other perspectives you’ve presented as
something new; or 4) you’ll need to guide your reader through the
organization of your text in some way.
Below, I’ve listed a few common writing situations/assignments
that first person can potentially support.
Why First Person Is Important in College Writing 189
Try “I” when . . .
. . . the assignment asks you to. Personal position papers, personal nar-
ratives, and assignments that say “tell what you did/read and provide
your reaction,” all explicitly ask you to use first person.
. . . you’re asked to “Summarize and respond.” You might transition
into the response part of the paper with “I.”
. . . you’re introducing a paper with a complicated structure: “I will
summarize Wagstaff’s argument, and then respond to a few key points
with my own interpretation.”
. . . you are proud of and intellectually invested in what you have to
say, and you want to arrange it in reference to others’ voices: “Many
scholars have used psychological frameworks to interpret the Batman
movies, but I would argue that a historical perspective is more produc-
tive . . .”
. . . you are unsure of your interpretation of a source, or you feel that
the claim you’re making may be bigger than your level of expertise: “If
I read Wagstaff correctly, her conclusions imply . . .”
“I” Is a Bad Idea When . . .
. . . you use it only once. You don’t want to overuse the first person,
but if you’re going to assert your position or make a transition with “I,”
give the reader a hint of your voice in the introduction. An introduc-
tion that anticipates structure with “I will,” for instance, works well
with transitions that use “I” as well. If you use first person only once,
the tone shift will jar the reader.
. . . The assignment is a simple summary. In that case, you need only
report; you are “eye,” not “I.”
. . . you’re writing a lab report for a science class, as a general rule.
But you might ask your teacher about the issues of objectivity I’ve ad-
dressed above, especially in terms of objective methodology.
D
1. Can you remember a writing task during which you struggled
to avoid using the first person? What about the nature of the
content made “I” hard to avoid? Can you link the difficulty to
Kate McKinney Maddalena190
one of the four values that first person “supports,” according
to this essay?
2. McKinney Maddalena claims that scientists use “I” more of-
ten in research reports, nowadays. Find a scientific article in
your school’s research databases that employs first person: “I”
or “we.” In what section is first person used, and how? Does its
usage reflect one of the values this essay points out?
W C
Clark, Susan G. “An Informational Approach to Sustainability: “Intel-
ligence” in Conservation and Natural Resource Management Policy.”
Journal of Sustainable Forestry 28.6/7 (2009): 636–62. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 22 Mar. 2010.
Kraemer, Jennifer M., and David X. Marquez. “Psychosocial Correlates and
Outcomes of Yoga or Walking Among Older Adults.” Journal of Psycholo-
gy 143.4 (2009): 390–404. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Mar. 2010.
Terrill, Robert E. “Put on a Happy Face: Batman as Schizophrenic Savior.”
The Quarterly Journal of Speech 79.3 (1993): 319–35. MLA International
Bibliography. Web. 22 Mar. 2010.
