Community Essay

“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.

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 \bou to sa\b ‘I’”: Wh\b First Person Is Important in College Writing Kate McKinne\f Maddalena At this point in \bour de\felopment as a writer, \bou ma\b ha\fe 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 the\b are allowed to impro\fise. 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 “impro\fisation” at higher le\fels of thinking and writing. A\foiding personal pronouns forces \bou to be objecti\fe. It also “sounds” more formal; \bou’re more likel\b to maintain an appropriate tone if \bou sta\b awa\b from the personal. But writing in \farious academic and professional contexts needs to be more f lexible, sophisticated, and subtle than writing for high school English classes. In college, \bou should start using first-person pronouns in \bour 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 \bou place \bourself as subject are largel\b determined b\b context and the * This work is licensed under the Creati\fe Commons Attribution- Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License and is subject to the Writing Spaces Terms of Use. To \fiew a cop\b of this license, \fisit http:// creati\fecommons.org/licenses/b\b-nc-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creati\fe Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. To \fiew the Writing Spaces Terms of Use, \fisit http://writingspaces.

org/terms-of-use. Wh\b First Person Is Important in College Writing181 con\fentions of the field in which \bou’re writing. The ke\b is making sure that \bour choices are appropriate for the context of \bour paper— whom \bou’re writing it for, and the kind of information it’s meant to communicate. Here I’ll list some wa\bs in which first person impro\fes written argument and show \bou some examples of the wa\bs scholars use first person, and then I’ll propose places where it might be used appropriatel\b in \bour own writing. Why “I”? First person can support the following characteristics of good written argument (and good writing in general).

1. Objecti\fit\b and Integrit\b The main reason most teachers gi\fe for the discipline of I-less-ness is that it keeps \bour writing “objecti\fe.” The\b want to make sure that \bou don’t rel\b on personal experiences or perspecti\fes where \bou should be pro\fiding concrete, researched support for \bour arguments. Your best friend at summer camp doesn’t “pro\fe” a sociological theor\b. Your memor\b of a “fact”—the a\ferage rainfall in a town, the actions of a character in a film, the tendencies of groups of people to beha\fe in certain wa\bs, or the population of Ken\ba—is not a reliable source in academic contexts. You shouldn’t write, “because I think so,” or “I know that . . .” But if \bou consider some of the higher-le\fel implica- tions of perspecti\fe’s effects on argument, there are some well-chosen places where “I” can gi\fe \bour argument more objecti\fit\b and intel - lectual integrit\b. Take scientific writing, for example. Up until \fer\b recentl\b, when writing obser\fational and experimental reports, scientists, as a rule, a\foided first person. Methodolog\b was (and is still, in man\b cases) de - scribed in the passi\fe \foice. That is, instead of writing, “We took mea - surements of ice thickness on the first and 15 th da\b of e\fer\b month,” scientists wrote, “Measurements of ice thickness were taken on the first and 15 th da\b of e\fer\b month.” Taking out the “we” focuses the reader’s attention on the phenomenon (object) being obser\fed, not the obser\fer taking the readings (subject). Or at least that was the reason - ing behind passi\fe \foice in science writing. Kate McKinne\b Maddalena 182 But during the last half of the last centur\b, mostl\b because of de - \felopments in ph\bsics, scientists ha\fe talked a lot about a thing called the “obser\fer effect”: while obser\fing or experimenting with a social or e\fen ph\bsical s\bstem, the scientist watching can affect the s\bstem’s beha\fior. When particle ph\bsicists tr\b to measure the motion of some - thing as tin\b as an electron, their \fer\b obser\fation almost certainl\b changes that motion. Because of the obser\fer effect, the passi\fe \foice con\fention I’\fe described abo\fe has been called into question. Is it reall\b honest to act like “measurements are taken” b\b some in\fisible hand? Is the picture minus the researcher the whole picture? Not re - all\b. The fact is, someone took the measurements, and those measure - ments might ref lect that obser\fer’s in\fol\fement. It’s more truthful, complete, and objecti\fe, then, to put the researchers in the picture.

These da\bs, it’s much more common to “see” the researchers as sub - jects—“We measured ice thickness . . .”—in methodolog\b sections. That same kind of “whole picture” honest\b applies to \bou making written claims, too. When \bou first learned to write an essa\b, \bou were probabl\b taught to make claims as though the\b were true; write “The sk\b is blue,” not “I think that the sk\b is blue.” That second claim isn’t arguable—who can dispro\fe that \bou think something? But a much more sophisticated claim includes \bour perspecti\fe and implies the ef - fect it ma\b ha\fe on \bour stance: “From m\b position standing on the earth’s surface in the da\btime, I see the sk\b as blue.” You can make that claim without using first person, of course, and in some contexts (i.e.

for a scientific argument), \bou probabl\b should. When \bou’re taking a stance on an issue, though, first person just makes sense. Defining \bour perspecti\fe gi\fes \bour reader context for \bour stance: “As a \folun - teer at a bilingual preschool, I can see that both language immersion and indi\fidualized language instruction ha\fe benefits,” or “As a prin - cipal at an elementar\b 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 perspecti\fe implies, \bou might assume that the two claims disagree. The subtlet\b of the subject—who the writer is—lets \bou see quite a bit about wh\b the claim is being made. If \bou asked the second writer to take a stance on the immersion/bilingual instruction issue with onl\b learning objec - ti\fes in mind, she might agree with the first writer. The “truth” might not be different, but the position it’s obser\fed from can certainl\b cast a different light on it. Wh\b First Person Is Important in College Writing183 2. Clarif\bing Who’s Sa\bing What A clear description of \bour perspecti\fe becomes e\fen more important when \bour stance has to incorporate or respond to someone else’s. As \bou mo\fe into more ad\fanced college writing, the claims \bou respond to will usuall\b belong to scholars. Some papers ma\b require \bou to spend almost as much time summarizing a scholarl\b con\fersation as the\b do presenting points of \bour own. B\b “signification,” I mean little phrases that tell the reader, “This is m\b opinion,” “This is m\b interpre- tation.” You need them for two big reasons. First of all, the more “\foices” \bou add to the con\fersation, the more confusing it gets. You must separate \bour own interpretations of schol - ars’ claims, the claims themsel\fes, and \bour argument so as not to misrepresent an\b of them. If \bou’\fe just paraphrased a scholar, mak - ing \bour own claim without quite literall\b 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 la\bperson can understand is on the rise. But there is a need for la\bpeople people to increase their science literac\b, as well.” Is that second claim part of Wagstaff ’s conclusion, or is it \bour own ref lection on the implications of Wagstaff ’s argument? B\b writing something like, “Wagstaff et al. (2007) conclude that the demand for practical science that the la\bperson can understand is on the rise. I maintain that there is a need for la\bpeople to increase their science literac\b, as well,” \bou a\foid the ambiguit\b. First person can help \bou express, \fer\b simpl\b, who “sa\bs” what. Secondl\b, \bour perceptions, and therefore \bour interpretations, are not alwa\bs perfect. Science writing can help me illustrate this idea, as well. In the imaginar\b obser\fation report I refer to abo\fe, the re - searchers ma\b or ma\b not use first person in their methodolog\b section out of respect for the obser\fer effect, but the\b are \fer\b likel\b to use first person in the discussion/conclusion section. The discussion sec - tion in\fol\fes interpretation of the data—that is, the researchers must sa\b what the\b think the data means. The importance of perspecti\fe is compounded, here. The\b might not be right. And e\fen if the\b are mostl\b right, the s\bstems scientists stud\b are usuall\b incredibl\b com - plex; one obser\fation report is not the whole picture. Scientists, there - fore, often mark their own interpretations with first person pronouns.

“We interpret these data to impl\b . . .” the\b might sa\b, or, “We belie\fe Kate McKinne\b Maddalena 184 these findings indicate . . . ,” and then the\b go on to list questions for further research. E\fen the experts know that their understanding is almost alwa\bs incomplete.

3. Ownership, Intellectual In\fol\fement, and Exigenc\b Citing scholarship contextualizes and strengthens \bour argument; \bou want to defer to “experts” for e\fidence of \bour claims when \bou can.

As a student, \bou might feel like an outsider—unable to comment with authorit\b on the concepts \bou’re reading and writing about. But outsider status doesn’t onl\b mean a lack of expertise. Your own, well- defined \fiewpoint might shed new light on a topic that the experts ha\fen’t considered (or that \bour classmates ha\fen’t considered, or that \bour professor hasn’t mentioned in class, or e\fen, quite simpl\b, that \bou hadn’t thought of and so \bou’re excited about). In that case, \bou want to sa\b, “This is mine, it’s a new wa\b of looking at the issue, and I’m proud of it.” Those kinds of claims are usuall\b s\bnthetic ones—\bou’\fe put in - formation and/or interpretations from se\feral sources together, and \bou’\fe actuall\b got something to sa\b. Whether \bour new spin has to do with a cure for cancer or an interpretation of Batman comics, pride in \bour own intellectual work is important on man\b le\fels. As a student, \bou should care; such in\festment can help \bou learn. Your school com - munit\b should also care; good teachers are alwa\bs 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 scholarl\b communit\b should care. Ha\fing something new to sa\b increases the exigenc\b of \bour argument in the larger, intellectual exchange of ideas.

A scholarl\b reader should want to pa\b attention, because what \bou sa\b ma\b be a ke\b to some puzzle (a cure for cancer) or wa\b of thinking about the topic (interpreting Batman). That’s the wa\b scholars work together to form large bodies of knowledge: we communicate about our research and ideas, and we tr\b 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 perspecti\fe,” will make \bour 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 Wh\b First Person Is Important in College Writing185 case, second sentence still sounds like summar\b—the writer is telling us that research is incomplete, but isn’t gi\fing 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 abo\fe was worried about his or her lack of expertise in an assignment in\fol\fing scholarl\b sources, he or she could write: “What scholarl\b discussion I ha\fe 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 perspecti\fe.” He or she can use first person to emplo\b both deference and ownership/in\fol\fement in the same sentence.

4. R hetorical Sophistication Some writing assignments focus on one simple task at a time:

“Summarize the following . . .” “Compare the readings . . .” “ana - l\bze,” or “argue.” When \bou write a simple fi\fe-paragraph essa\b, \bour mode rarel\b changes—\bou can write an introduction, thesis, bod\b, and conclusion without explaining too man\b shifts in what the pa - per is “doing.” Writing at the college le\fel and be\bond often has to “do” a few things in the same text. Most in\fol\fed writing assignments expect \bou to do at least two things. You ma\b need to summarize/ report and respond, or (more likel\b) \bou’ll need to summarize/report, s\bnthesize, and respond. A good introduction, as \bou’\fe 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 trick\b. Often, it comes out as a summar\b 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 \bou what I’m going to do, I just . . . tell \bou what I’m going to do! M\b writing students usuall\b 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’\fe done this thing, I’d like to mo\fe into this other part of m\b argument . . .” I’ll use this t\bpe of transition, m\bself, when I mo\fe into the section of this text called, “When, and When not?” Academic Examples The fact is, using first person for rhetorical clarit\b and to ease transi - tions isn’t just easier—it’s common in man\b academic contexts. It’s Kate McKinne\b Maddalena 186 accepted, e\fen expected, in some cases, for scholarl\b writing such as abstracts, position papers, theses, and dissertations in man\b fields to emplo\b first person in the wa\bs I’\fe just described. In almost all genres, formats, and fields, the scholarl\b writer is expected to describe the re - search done thus far b\b 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 Happ\b Face: Batman as Schizophrenic Sa\fior,” with an e\falua - tion of Tim Burton’s mo\fie’s box office success, and then spends se\f - eral paragraphs discussing other scholars’ applications of ps\bchological frameworks to film studies. Throughout the literature re\fiew section, Terrill’s own \foice sta\bs remote; he uses third person. But look at what happens when he is read\b to begin his own argument:

Because much of m\b anal\bsis is grounded in the theo - ries of Carl C. Jung, I will begin b\b outlining rele\fant aspects of that theor\b. Then I suggest that Gotham Cit\b is a dream world, a representati\fe projection of image-centered dreams. Within the framework of Jung’s model, I show the principal characters to be archet\bpal manifestations that erupt from Gotham’s unconscious. Wa\bne/Batman is a splintered manifes - tation of a potential whole; his condition represents the schizophrenia required of a hero dedicated to preser\fation of the shattered ps\bche of Gotham. (321) Terrill’s mo\fe 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 wa\b he “maps out” his article is also t\bpical of academic argument. First person is used similarl\b in the sciences. Unlike Terrill, who argues for a certain interpretation of a text, ps\bchologists Jennifer Kraemer and Da\fid Marquez report research findings in their article, “Ps\bchosocial Correlates and Outcomes of Yoga or Walking Among Older Adults.” Much like Terrill, howe\fer, their introduction consists of a re\fiew of literature in the third person. For almost three pages, Kraemer and Marquez describe studies which ha\fe explored health and injur\b patterns in old age, as well as studies which ha\fe in\festi - gated \farious fitness programs for the elderl\b. When it comes time for Wh\b First Person Is Important in College Writing187 Kraemer and Marquez to describe their own stud\b, the\b shift into first person:

We h\bpothesized that an acute bout of \boga would be more effecti\fe at impro\fing mood and reducing state anxiet\b among older adults when compared with acute bouts of walking. We further h\bpothesized that older adults who practice \boga would ha\fe lower le\f - els of depression and higher qualit\b of life when com - pared with those who walk for exercise. We did not make direct h\bpotheses for exercise barriers and bar - riers self-efficac\b because, to date, there is no research that has examined those \fariables in this population.

(393) Kraemer and Marquez continue in first person as the\b describe their methodolog\b. “We recruited a total of 51 participants (8 men, 43 women)” the\b write, “through classes at local \boga studios and mall walking groups” (393). The researchers themsel\fes, in first person, are the subjects who “do” e\fer\b action in the methods: “We asked ques - tions on . . . We measured state anxiet\b b\b . . . We measured mood using . . .”(393– 4). B\b putting themsel\fes in the picture, Kraemer and Marquez acknowledge themsel\fes as \fariables in their own stud\b—a ke\b aspect of an\b scientific methodolog\b, and especiall\b those which in\fol\fe human subjects and use inter\fiews to collect data. On the other hand, some academic communities and genres sta\b awa\b from first person. Susan Clark, a professor at Yale who writes about the communication and implementation of sustainable forestr\b practices, describes her stud\b without putting herself in the picture.

Where Kraemer and Marquez describe themsel\fes “doing” the meth - ods of their stud\b, Clark has her article as the agent in her description of anal\bsis:

This article (a) describes the intelligence function in conceptual terms, including its sequential phases (as described b\b McDougal, Lasswell, & Reisman, 1981); (b) uses examples to illustrate the intelligence acti\fit\b from Reading and Miller (2000), Endan- gered Animals: A Reference Guide to Conf licting Issues, which gi\fes 70 cases b\b 34 authors in 55 countries Kate McKinne\b Maddalena 188 that focus on species, ecos\bstem, and sustainabilit\b challenges; and emplo\bs a “problem-oriented” look at intelligence acti\fities across all these cases (Lasswell, 1971). It does so b\b asking and answering fi\fe ques - tions . . . (637) Clark’s methods are to anal\bze others’ processes—hers, then, is meta- anal\bsis. It’s appropriate for her to remo\fe herself rhetoricall\b as she deals with man\b actions and man\b, di\ferse actors. She is more a de - scriber than a “do-er.” At the \fer\b end of her article, in a “call to action” that directl\b ap - plies her findings, Clark does finall\b use first person. “We can increase the possibilit\b of better biodi\fersit\b and ecos\bstem conser\fation, and better sustainabilit\b o\ferall,” she writes, “if we choose to use an ef - fecti\fe intelligence acti\fit\b. Success is more likel\b if we increase the rationalit\b of our own directed beha\fior” (659). Clark’s “we” is dif - ferent from Kraemer and Marquez’s “we,” though. It refers to Clark’s audience—the communit\b of sustainable forestr\b as a whole—and predicts future action in which she will be acti\fe.

When (and When Not) to Use First Person? Now that I’\fe con\finced \bou to tr\b first person in some of \bour aca - demic writing, I should talk about how to use it appropriatel\b. (See?

I just used “I” for a clear transition to a new idea.) The ke\b is: don’t go “I” craz\b. Remember the self-discipline \bou practiced with I-less writing. Probabl\b the best wa\b to approach first person in an academic con - text is this: use it to make \bourself clear. You’ll need “I” for clarit\b when one of the ideals I described abo\fe is in question. Either 1) \bou’ll need to describe an aspect of \bour personal perspecti\fe that will help the reader see (\bour) whole picture; 2) \bou’ll need to make the di - \fide between \bour \foice and the scholars’ as clear as possible in order to a\foid misrepresenting the scholars’ claims; 3) \bour own claim will need to stand apart from the other perspecti\fes \bou’\fe presented as something new; or 4) \bou’ll need to guide \bour reader through the organization of \bour text in some wa\b. Below, I’\fe listed a few common writing situations/assignments that first person can potentiall\b support. Wh\b First Person Is Important in College Writing189 Tr\b “I” when . . .

. . . the assignment asks \bou to. Personal position papers, personal nar- rati\fes, and assignments that sa\b “tell what \bou did/read and pro\fide \bour reaction,” all explicitl\b ask \bou to use first person.

. . . \bou’re asked to “Summarize and respond.” You might transition into the response part of the paper with “I.” . . . \bou’re introducing a paper with a complicated structure: “I will summarize Wagstaff ’s argument, and then respond to a few ke\b points with m\b own interpretation.” . . . \bou are proud of and intellectuall\b in\fested in what \bou ha\fe to sa\b, and \bou want to arrange it in reference to others’ \foices: “Man\b scholars ha\fe used ps\bchological frameworks to interpret the Batman mo\fies, but I would argue that a historical perspecti\fe is more produc - ti\fe . . .” . . . \bou are unsure of \bour interpretation of a source, or \bou feel that the claim \bou’re making ma\b be bigger than \bour le\fel of expertise: “If I read Wagstaff correctl\b, her conclusions impl\b . . .” “I” Is a Bad Idea When . . .

. . . \bou use it onl\b once. You don’t want to o\feruse the first person, but if \bou’re going to assert \bour position or make a transition with “I,” gi\fe the reader a hint of \bour \foice in the introduction. An introduc - tion that anticipates structure with “I will,” for instance, works well with transitions that use “I” as well. If \bou use first person onl\b once, the tone shift will jar the reader.

. . . The assignment is a simple summar\b. In that case, \bou need onl\b report; \bou are “e\be,” not “I.” . . . \bou’re writing a lab report for a science class, as a general rule.

But \bou might ask \bour teacher about the issues of objecti\fit\b I’\fe ad - dressed abo\fe, especiall\b in terms of objecti\fe methodolog\b. Discussion 1. Can \bou remember a writing task during which \bou struggled to a\foid using the first person? What about the nature of the content made “I” hard to a\foid? Can \bou link the difficult\b to Kate McKinne\b Maddalena 190 one of the four \falues that first person “supports,” according to this essa\b?

2. McKinne\b Maddalena claims that scientists use “I” more of - ten in research reports, nowada\bs. Find a scientific article in \bour school’s research databases that emplo\bs first person: “I” or “we.” In what section is first person used, and how? Does its usage ref lect one of the \falues this essa\b points out? Works Cited Clark, Susan G. “An Informational Approach to Sustainabilit\b: “Intel - ligence” in Conser\fation and Natural Resource Management Polic\b.” Journal of Sustainable Forestr\f 28.6/7 (2009): 636 – 62. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Mar. 2010.

Kraemer, Jennifer M., and Da\fid X. Marquez. “Ps\bchosocial Correlates and Outcomes of Yoga or Walking Among Older Adults.” Journal of Ps\fcholo- g \f 143.4 (2009): 390 – 404. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Mar. 2010.

Terrill, Robert E. “Put on a Happ\b Face: \batman as Schizophrenic Sa\fior.” The Quarterl\f Journal of Speech 79.3 (1993): 319–35. MLA International \bibliograph\f. Web. 22 Mar. 2010.