Eureka: Using First Pronoun in a Dissertation is prevalent.

In academic writing, the convention of avoiding the first-person pronoun "I" stems from a desire to maintain objectivity and an impersonal tone, particularly in fields like the natural and formal sciences. This approach is grounded in positivist research traditions that emphasize neutrality by removing the researcher from the narrative (Hyland, 2002). Historically, academic rigor in these fields has been seen as contingent upon distancing the researcher from their findings, with the avoidance of "I" being a marker of that neutrality (Swales & Feak, 2012).

However, qualitative research methodologies—particularly autoethnography—prioritize subjectivity and reflexivity. Autoethnography situates the researcher’s personal experience as a vital source of data, recognizing that subjectivity allows for a more nuanced understanding of complex social phenomena (Chang, 2008; Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011). The use of "I" is not merely an acceptable choice in this framework but an essential one. It offers a transparent link between the researcher’s personal experiences and the broader societal context, encouraging deeper engagement with the research process (Spry, 2001).

Helen Sword's analysis, in both her works Stylish Academic Writing (2012) and The First Person (2019), directly challenges the assumption that the use of "I" undermines scholarly rigor. She reveals, "Another surprising finding was the predominance of first-person pronouns in the sciences. The high percentages in medicine, evolutionary biology, and computer science (92, 100, and 82 percent, respectively) confound the commonly held assumption that scientists shun the pronouns I and we in their research writing" (Sword, 2012, p. 58). This observation notably contrasts the practices in other fields, such as higher education research and history, where first-person pronoun usage is significantly lower. Sword’s research dismantles the myth that the employment of a personal voice is less scholarly, demonstrating instead that "no particularly strong correlation between pronoun usage and the number of authors per article" exists. Furthermore, Sword notes that "Nor did I find a single discipline in which first-person pronouns are either universally required or universally banned," highlighting the diversity of practices across disciplines, including those with a strong tradition of impersonality (Sword, 2019). This evidence supports the argument for embracing a personal voice in scientific writing, particularly in fields like autoethnography, where the researcher’s perspective is critical to shaping the narrative.

The use of "I" in autoethnography goes beyond simply including personal pronouns for stylistic purposes. Autoethnographic research requires "thick description," a method introduced by Geertz (1973) that involves rich, detailed storytelling to capture the complexity of lived experience. This method allows researchers to delve deeply into their own experiences, linking them to broader cultural and societal themes. The first-person narrative enables researchers to provide vivid, reflexive accounts that blend personal storytelling with rigorous analysis, enhancing the richness and depth of the research (Raab, 2015).

Reflexivity, a core aspect of autoethnography, further emphasizes the role of the researcher in shaping research outcomes. By using "I," autoethnographers can openly acknowledge their positionality, biases, and subjectivities, which are integral to the research process (Vang et al., 2022). The inclusion of the first-person voice creates transparency, allowing readers to understand how the researcher’s personal experiences and reflections influence the study. This reflexive process is essential for maintaining methodological rigor in qualitative research, as it encourages a deeper interrogation of the researcher's role and its impact on the findings (Luitel & Dahal, 2021).

In this context, autoethnography challenges the positivist tradition that favors objectivity and detachment. The use of "I" not only facilitates personal reflection but also strengthens the connection between the researcher and broader cultural phenomena, offering a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the subject matter. As Sword (2019) argues, the increasing use of first-person pronouns across disciplines indicates a shift toward recognizing that personal voice can enhance, rather than detract from, scholarly communication.

?References

• Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as Method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
• Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273-290.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
• Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
• Luitel, B. C., & Dahal, N. (2021). Autoethnography: Writing lives and telling stories. Journal of Transformative Praxis, 2(1), 20-34.
• Raab, D. (2015). Transpersonal approaches to autoethnographic research and writing. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1516
• Spry, T. (2001). Performing autoethnography: An embodied methodological praxis. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 706-732.
• Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. University of Michigan Press.
• Sword, H. (2012). Stylish Academic Writing. Harvard University Press.
• Sword, H. (2019). The first person. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 7(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.1.12
• Vang, M., Wolfgram, M., Smolarek, B. B., Lee, L., Moua, P., Thao, A., Xiong, O., Xiong, P. K., Xiong, Y., & Yang, L. (2022). Autoethnographic engagement in participatory action research: Bearing witness to developmental transformations for college student activists. Action Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221145347

?