Resubmit! The book – Page 2 – Love Your Dissertation

December 17, 2017

Love your dissertation, or not, but get it done: The world is depending on you

Every December I find myself reflecting on what I have accomplished during the year and what I have left undone. I’m coming to understand that tasks undone represent wasted life energy. In fact, these unfinished tasks affect my experience of the world, maybe even the world itself.

What happens when I pursue a goal, start working toward it, but quit before I finish it? The longer I neglect the task, the more the energy it took to start it fades away. Good ideas lose their luster simply because I failed to nurture them. In a way, you could call it money left on the table.

Should we finish everything we start?

Is everything we start worth finishing? I’m trying to figure that out. For example, when I was a teenager, I would start sewing a garment, make a total mess of it, realize the endeavor was hopeless, and consign the pile of abused fabric to the trash in disgust. What might I have learned, what might have I created from the debacle if I had kept working at it, seeking creative ways to turn my mistakes into something useful? Back in the 1970s, fashion trends being that they were, if nothing else, I could have made several pairs of hot pants.

Purposes of higher education

Today I am reflecting on the purposes of higher education. Reasons for attending graduate school must be as varied as the number of graduate students. If I crank up the Wayback Machine to 2005, I remember my reasons for pursuing a doctorate: to earn more money, to increase my employability, and I confess, to gain prestige. At the time, these seemed like valid reasons to embark upon the doctoral journey.

Naturally, over the course of the eight years it took me to earn the Ph.D., my reasons evolved. For instance, it gradually became clear my assumptions that I would earn more money and be more desirable to my employer were unfounded. My employer did not care; indeed, just as I was finishing the degree, my employer laid me off. In addition, after many long hours completing busywork assignments apparently designed to weed out serious doctoral candidates from the looky-loos, my (secret) goal of gaining prestige started looking increasingly ridiculous. I had to find new reasons to continue the doctoral torture, I mean, journey.

Psychic cost of quitting

Eventually I came to understand that abandoning the project before the “phinish line” would have psychic consequences for me, maybe for the world. Here’s one way to think of it: We all contribute something to the world party. I bring cups, you bring plates, we all have our gifts, and together, we create an awesome picnic. What happens if I fail to bring the cups I promised? The picnic isn’t quite so awesome as people try to drink punch off paper plates.

Many people have unfinished doctorates moldering on their metaphorical tables. About half of those who start doctoral programs don’t finish. Everyone who quits before the finish line has his or her unique reasons for abandoning the dream of earning a doctorate, and I’m not judging you. Your reasons are yours. But even now, the world might be missing your contribution. If nothing else, finishing your degree will change you at a cellular level.

Do you still want to finish your doctorate?

What were your reasons for pursuing a doctorate? Do they still make sense to you? I’m guessing some of you still harbor wistful dreams of finishing your doctorate. Some of you secretly yearn to be addressed as Doctor So and So. Some of you still hanker to see your scintillating dissertation in print.

Love your dissertation, or not, but get it done

Here we are careening into a new year. It’s a great time to reflect on our goals, assess our progress, and revise our directions going forward. I’ll go first: I want to create a small publishing empire. There, I said it. I don’t know if I can do it but I know for sure, if I don’t try, I’m certain to fail.

Do you still want that doctorate? What actions would you have to take to move in that direction?

Maybe my book will help you overcome obstacles and get it done.

Print version
Kindle version

November 8, 2017

Using first person in APA style

APA stylists prefer first person (I reviewed the literature) to third person (the researcher reviewed the literature), and certainly, to passive voice (the literature was reviewed). The main reason for using first person rather than third person or passive voice is to achieve clarity in our writing. However, the use of first person in academic writing seems to be a controversial topic. Here are my thoughts on writing in first person in APA style.

What is first person?

First person writing means using personal pronouns—for example, singular pronouns such as I, me, mine, and my, and plural pronouns such as we, our, and us.

Students often believe it is not acceptable to use “I” in their writing. Teachers sadly sometimes perpetuate the belief, cautioning students that avoiding first person will help their writing be more objective and scientific. However, using first person actually helps position you in your research, which is especially important if you have chosen a qualitative methodology. How will you describe your role in the research process without using the word “I”?

I have edited many papers in which dissertators opt for third person (the researcher interviewed the participants), as if the researcher suffered from dissociative identity disorder. I’ve even seen some qualitative researchers refer to themselves as “the researcher” when they talk about “bracketing,” which to me is the penultimate first-person activity. This avoidance of first person defies logic.

What choice does the poor dissertator have? If the dissertator is not allowed to use first person, it is impossible to avoid using third person or passive voice. If the dissertator is not allowed to use passive voice, then the only alternative is to use third person. This false prohibition is a mild tragedy, in my opinion, a step backward in my fight against obfuscation.

We know that APA stylists prefer first person to passive voice (see APA 6^th ed., sections 3.09 and 3.18). Therefore, we would say “I conducted a study” rather than “A study was conducted.” Any time we are talking about actions we took to collect data, analyze data, and so forth, APA style indicates we should use “I collected, I analyzed.” This is appropriate use of first person.

Some dissertators are part of a research team. If that applies to you, it makes sense to describe your research process and findings using first person plural (e.g., we administered a survey to parents …).

“This study” versus “my study”

On a related topic, a client once asked me about writing “this study” versus “my study.” It’s not wrong to say “my study,” “my questions,” “my analysis,” but this style of writing focuses the discussion unnecessarily on the researcher, when the focus should be on the research. I recommend using first person for clarity, not to be the center of attention. I think it’s important to “own” our research, but not make ourselves the focus of the research. We should strive for both clarity and objectivity.

In my experience, some institutions, reviewers, and committees will not accept first person, despite APA style guidelines. When I’m editing, I rarely know the preferences of the committee, unless I happen to receive a paper containing reviewers’ comments. My goal is to adhere to APA style without drawing unnecessary attention to it. I try to avoid anything that distracts the reader. It’s like when you are watching a movie, and something happens in a scene to make you realize, hey, I’m watching a movie. The suspension of belief is lost, and the magic is gone. I want your readers to stay with your story and feel the magic.

I edited a paper from a dissertator whose Chair delayed feedback for months. I did the first three chapters (using first person) and then as the months passed, I forgot all about the project. Suddenly, there it was again, in my inbox, with a note from the dissertator: My Chair wants me to use “the researcher” instead of first person. Oh, and no passive voice. The Chair’s reasoning was that APA prefers the active voice. However, she failed to note that she preferred third person. Logic may take a holiday, but follow your Chair’s preferences. Whatever your Chair says, that is what you should do. Then pray to the dissertation gods that your Chair isn’t replaced partway through your program!

The APA style dilemma

If you aren’t allowed to use first person AND you’ve been told to avoid passive voice, what can you do? Normally, I would say your next best option is to employ anthropomorphism: for example, the survey collected…, the paper discusses…, the study explored… However, if you must comply with APA style guidelines, this option won’t work. Chicago style users present papers rife with anthropomorphism, but the standards are different for those of us who follow APA style. See my blogposts on avoiding anthropomorphism and passive voice.

For APA users, your next best option is to use third person, which means referring to yourself as the researcher. You’ve probably seen this awkward construct before in other researchers’ work and wondered, what the heck? Yep. If our reviewers will not allow us to use first person, that is what we get. Remember, always check with your Chair, Committee members, and other reviewers to make sure they accept first person. You can bolster your case for using first person by referring them to sections 3.09 and 3.18 in the sixth edition of the APA publication manual.

For APA users, here is the hierarchy:

First person writing is clear, direct, and lively. You will soon wonder how you managed without first person. After you switch to first person, anything else will sound tired, murky, and a little suspicious. I encourage you to try it. If you want to fight for first person with your Chair and Committee, I support you! Arm yourself with APA page numbers and don’t give up. Good luck.

Sources

American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Print version
Kindle version

November 8, 2017August 19, 2020

Avoiding anthropomorphism in APA style

Updated for APA 7th edition (2020)

Anthropomorphism (also sometimes called personification) is the attribution of human characteristics or agency to animals or to inanimate sources such as concepts or objects. Writers anthropomorphize a concept or object to avoid using first person and passive voice or simply to liven up their writing. Back in 2010, the authors of the APA style guide cautioned dissertators to avoid anthropomorphism.

Here’s a recap of the APA dissertator’s dilemma:

Passive voice. We know APA writers should avoid using passive voice. (e.g., The teachers were found to be reluctant to change). Passive voice is dull and often unclear.

Active voice. Active voice, in contrast, is lively and clear: The teachers seemed reluctant to change. APA stylists recommend we use first person when we discuss our procedures and findings: I found the teachers reluctant to change.

Third person. However, many institutions, reviewers, chairs, and committees balk at seeing first person in scholarly writing. Thus, we see third person standing in for first person: The researcher found that the teachers seemed reluctant to change.

Anthropomorphism. In addition to third person, we are often tempted to anthropomorphize our study and write something like this: The data suggested that teachers were reluctant to change. What is wrong with this statement, you ask? Well, back in the ancient days of APA 6th edition, we were admonished that data can’t suggest anything. Since when do data have little mouths and brains to offer us suggestions on anything? Data are many things, but they do not have the power to “suggest” anything to anyone. However, researchers can suggest many things, and we often do, based on the data we studied.

In these strange new days of APA 7th edition, you will be ecstatic to hear that data can talk! Yep. Data and other nouns we wanted to embrace but couldn’t—e.g., findings, studies, chapters—have been released from anthropomorphism prison.

Chicago style users have always been able to slide anthropomorphic constructs past their reviewers, but not APA style users—until this brave new world of 2020. Almost all the social science proposals and dissertations I have edited required the use of APA style. However, I don’t think I’ve edited a single document in which the author did not fall at least once into the trap of anthropomorphism. The error is so common in academic writing, I wonder why APA style even bothers to mention it. There’s one right there! APA style is a concept, not a peeved teacher with a clipboard and stopwatch. Argh! Anthropomorphism strikes again!

Anthropomorphism revisited for 2020

At last, no more worries about anthropomorphism! Well, mostly no more worries. See APA 7th edition, section 4.11 for details. We still aren’t allowed to give animals human characteristics, no matter how much it sounds like they actually speak. And some parts of our dissertation are still not allowed to talk. We are still encouraged to use first-person to describe things we do in our research.

Here are some common examples of anthropomorphism, with my assessment of how well the construct complies with APA 7th edition style guidelines:

The study investigated (better to say focused on or addressed; researchers investigate, not studies)

Management encouraged (debatable; I would write managers encouraged)

The paper discusses (better to use addresses)

The theory posits (I would use provides or addresses)

The chapter describes (you might get away with this, I’m not sure I would be so bold, but try it, let me know what happens)

The literature claims (I don’t think so; literature isn’t a monolith. I would write researchers have claimed...)

The data suggested (Yes! We can say this now!)

The findings demonstrate (Yes, this is okay too)

The report talked about (better to use addressed)

The survey collected (maybe, try it and let me know what happens)

And my personal favorite, The theories worked hand in hand (definitely don’t write this)

APA 6th edition explicitly allowed academic writers to use only two verbs with an inanimate object: indicate and show. The strait jacket has been loosened. You may now feel safe to write, “The findings suggest the moon is made of green cheese.”

When I was in my PhD program (way back in 2013), I was told to imagine a box and ask myself, what is a box capable of doing? Can a box do this action (suggest, discuss, demonstrate)? In my book Resubmit!, I offered a list of acceptable, questionable, and unacceptable verbs that could be performed by a box (or by a study, a chapter, a discussion, or the data). Guess it is time for the second edition.

What actions can findings perform? Findings cannot talk but they now can suggest.

When I edit, I feel safe and secure with indicate and show, and I sometimes use provide. I used to feel as if I were pushing the envelope. A chapter doesn’t really provide in the sense that providing something is evidence of agency or will. A chapter is a made up bunch of words on a page, and as such, really can’t provide anything, when you really think about it. But my argument was that a box can provide something: mystery, cookies, fun… so by that logic, a chapter can provide, too. I just wouldn’t rely on a chapter to pay my rent or put food on my table. Now boxes—and chapters, studies, findings, and research—can do all sorts of energetic things. You have more room to wiggle now.

The APA style dilemma

Back in APA 6th edition, we weren’t allowed to use first person AND we were told to avoid passive voice. Now, the best option is to employ some anthropomorphism: for example, the survey collected…, the paper addresses…, the study explored… Yay! See my blogposts on using first person and avoiding passive voice.

For APA 6th edition users, our next best option was to use third person, which means referring to yourself as the researcher. You’ve probably seen this awkward construct before in other researchers’ work and wondered, what the heck? Yep. If our reviewers will not allow us to use first person, that is what we get. Remember, always check with your Chair, Committee members, and other reviewers to make sure they accept first person. You can bolster your case for using first person by referring them to section 2.27 in the seventh edition of the APA publication manual.

For APA users, here is the hierarchy:

Anthropomorphism used to be our last resort. No more! Feel free to write, “This study explored…” Did your study find out something interesting? Go ahead and write, “This study found…” Let your findings suggest at the top of their little lungs! Free at last. Get busy and finish that dissertation!

Sources

American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.: Author.

American Psychological Association (APA). (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C.: Author.