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 6th 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 

A down and dirty discussion of the dissertation proposal [Part I]

Scared of dissertation checklists

Download my dissertation checklist for free

Despite the photo, I like lists. Checking things off my list gives me the sense of accomplishment that helps me keep going. In fact, I doubt if I would have finished my dissertation without my dissertation checklist.

I’ve updated my dissertation checklist, and now you can download it for free (without registering or anything!) here. Just sneak in and grab it in Word format. Customize it for your own needs. This generic checklist includes many of the elements you need in your dissertation proposal. I also preview the elements you’ll need to include in your dissertation manuscript, after you collect and analyze your data.

The dissertation proposal

A large project like a doctoral research project has many moving parts, one of which is the dissertation. In the social sciences, dissertations are typically five or six chapters, plus some front matter (title page, abstract, acknowledgments, table of contents, lists of tables and figures, maybe a list of abbreviations) and some back matter (generally just the list of references and the appendices).

The first three chapters of a typical dissertation comprise the dissertation proposal. In this and three subsequent blog posts, I describe the sections of a dissertation proposal. Part I covers the front matter of your proposal. Part II covers Chapter 1, the introduction to your study. Part III covers Chapter 2, the basis of your justification for the study, also known as the Literature Review. Part IV focuses on Chapter 3, the blueprint for your research project, usually entitled Methodology. My discussion is generic, based on what I usually see in the dissertations I edit. Not all institutions require the same format. Follow your institutional guidelines.

The dissertation proposal: the front matter

The term front matter refers to all the pages that come before the first page of Chapter 1. Different universities require different elements in the front matter. Sometimes institutional guidelines can be quite strict. Other times they are refreshingly flexible. Here are the typical elements I find in the front matter section of a dissertation proposal.

Title page. Typically, the front matter starts with a title page. At the least, the title page provides the title of the study, the author, the degree, the school, and the date. Some of you will have to add the names and titles of your committee members. Follow your institutional guidelines. They may even have a template you can paste into place and customize for your project.

Abstract. The abstract is the overview or summary of the entire study. For your proposal, include one statement to introduce the topic, followed by the research problem and purpose of the study. Don’t include your research questions—later on, you won’t have room. For your proposal, focus on the problem, purpose, participants, and methods, and keep it short: The typical Abstract in a finished dissertation manuscript is no more than 350 words.

Acknowledgments & Dedication. We all want to acknowledge the people who helped move us along our dissertation journey. You can ignore this page for your proposal—in fact, I recommend that you do. Leave a placeholder (the title and a blank page), and fill it in after you’ve finished and received approval your dissertation manuscript. Then you can thank your mother, your mentors, your spouse, whoever helped you along your journey. I love to edit acknowledgments pages—I can hear the relief, gratitude, and profound weariness in the dissertators’ voices as they thank everyone under the sun. I know the feeling. I’d like to thank my cat, Eddie. An optional Dedication page may follow the Acknowledgments page.

The Table of Contents. Next up is usually the Table of Contents. If you don’t know by now, the Table of Contents (fondly known as the TOC) is an outline of your entire paper, usually to three or four levels of subheadings, depending on how your institution treats chapter headings. Some institutions put chapter headings in a class of their own, separate from the other heading and subheadings. Other institutions treat chapter headings as level 1 headings. Whatever. It matters, but not enough to fret about now. You’ll figure it out when your Chair dings you for not having three (or four) heading levels in your TOC. Argh.

A sample Table of Contents

A few dissertators who aren’t afraid of Word styles have figured out that Word can insert an automatic TOC. Most dissertators would probably like that idea, but are terrified of setting up and applying Word styles to their headings, and thus resort to typing their TOCs manually. Oh the humanity. I take a look, cringe, and delete the entire thing, all those pages of spaces, tabs, raggedy page numbers—yep, all gone. Then I proceed to set styles for all those headings and subheadings. I go through the paper, tagging each heading and subheading with the appropriate style. That takes a while, depending on how hard it is to figure out the dissertator’s intentions. Then I insert a TOC, bada boom, it’s done, in about six seconds. That is how you do a TOC.

Every now and then I will edit a paper from some harried dissertator whose institutional guidelines seem hell bent on making it impossible for anyone to get approval. Things in the TOC must line up just so, the k under the j, and indented just this amount, no more and no less. In those rare cases, Word’s automatic TOC feature will only get us partway to the goal. Annoying, but what can we do? I guess we could do some programming in Word, but that’s above my paygrade. Feel free. If the TOC has minute formatting requirements, I insert the TOC, convert it to plain text, and then format it as required, hoping that the dissertator won’t move stuff around and mess up the pagination. That’s a different subject for another day.

To update your TOC, click anywhere in it and press F9 on your function key row, or right-click and choose Update Field. You can update the entire table or just the page numbers.

Lists of Tables and Figures. The Table of Contents is usually followed by the List of Tables and the List of Figures (starting on separate pages). Usually the List of Tables comes first, but actually, I believe the List that should come first is the one that is the longest. Follow your institution’s template.

The magical trick of creating these lists is to use Word’s INSERT CAPTION function. You can insert labels above each table (e.g., Table 1) and below each figure (e.g., Figure 1). Word will generate accurate lists of each. You won’t have to type anything except the table titles and the figure captions. Bada bing. Magic. On rare occasions, I like Word. Making these lists is one of them. To update your list, click anywhere in it and press F9 on your function key row, or right-click and choose Update Field.

List of Abbreviations. Most dissertators don’t include a list of abbreviations, unless they are in the military. Dissertators who are or were in the military usually present an extensive list of acronyms, because that is their common language. If you have a list of abbreviations or acronyms, present it simply and concisely, without definitions. You’ll have a section in Chapter 1 to present your definitions of key terms.

The end of the front matter

When I see the term front matter, for some reason I think of gray matter and then wonder, do I have any left? Uh-oh. Then I think, front matter doesn’t matter, which is just silly—of course, front matter matters, if you are writing a dissertation proposal. How your front matter looks is a huge clue to the quality of the rest of your proposal. For example, if I see that you’ve manually typed your Table of Contents, I know that your comfort level with Word is low. That means I will be on the lookout for other formatting errors, and I will find them. Front matter matters in the sense that this section sets the level of expectation for the three chapters that follow.

The final page of the front matter marks the transition between the preliminary gobble-de-gook (technical term for all that stuff I’ve been talking about) and your actual paper. The front matter prepares your reader (or reviewer) for the proposal that follows. That means you need a dividing line between the two sections. We accomplish this in Word using a section break.

That means, at the end of the final page in your front matter, there should be a NEXT PAGE SECTION BREAK. This is the crucial section break in most dissertations. You can have more, and you may be required to have more, but if the pagination of the front matter changes on page 1 of Chapter 1, you’ll need at least this one section break or you’re a goner. You’ll find this essential section break in the little section break boutique under the PAGE LAYOUT Ribbon.

The section break tells Word that the formatting in section 2 can be different from the formatting in section 1. That’s great, because quite often the page number format changes from lowercase Roman numerals to Arabic numerals, don’t ask me why. If you ever accidentally deleted a section break and cried out in horror as your margins, page numbers, headers, and footers went wonky, you know what I am talking about. Quick, CONTROL Z!

If you can’t see your section breaks, it’s not your eyes. Turn on the “nonprinting characters” by clicking the SHOW/HIDE button on your Home Ribbon. Voila! Suddenly the extent of your crappy keyboarding ability becomes apparent. Yikes! Where did all those extra spaces and tabs come from? Yep. You tried to align things using spaces, didn’t you? Whoopsy.

In the next blog post, I dig deep under the hood of Chapter 1 to reveal the surprising number of essential elements, all of which you will need if you want to get your proposal approved.

 

Print version
kindle version

Why I wrote a book to help you get your dissertation proposal approved

Hi. My name is Carol Booton, sometimes known as Dr. Carol. I was 50 years old when I started my doctoral program at a for-profit online university in December 2005. After eight long years, I earned my doctorate in Business Administration in December 2013. One doctorate doesn’t make me an expert, I know. (How many would, I wonder?) However, I remember the problems I faced trying to get my proposal approved. Now, as an academic editor, I edit other people’s proposals and dissertations and I see the same problems in their proposals that I encountered in mine.

So I wrote a book to help dissertators avoid some of the hurdles I had to overcome. It’s called Resubmit: 28 ½ reasons why you can’t get your dissertation proposal approved. It was published by Crossline Press and you can find it on Amazon. I also have a companion website for the book, at LoveYourDissertation.com, where you can download templates and worksheets in pdf format for free right now. Find out how to get 20% off the book price at the end of this post.

Does it feel like you are all alone?

I attended a doctoral program that was offered completely online. It was convenient, but I had next to no interaction with others in my program. I was alone in my cave the entire time. I had no peers to bounce ideas off of, nobody to puzzle things out with. Even my mentors were not easily accessible or willing to help when I needed feedback. I felt very much alone, especially when I was working on my dissertation proposal.

I spent a long time stuck on my proposal because I didn’t have answers to some basic questions: Should I choose qualitative or quantitative (which one will get me done faster?) How do I choose a theory? What does it mean that my proposal elements are not “aligned”? When should I cite a source? Why does it seem like Microsoft Word is trying to kill me?

Since 2014, in between editing other people’s proposals and dissertations, I’ve had time to ruminate on my doctoral journey and ponder what I could have done differently to make it flow more smoothly (and end sooner). The result of my rumination was this book.

You are alone, but there is help

I’ve written the book I wished I had had when I was sweating over my proposal, watching the clock ticking and thinking, hmmmm, failure is apparently an option after all. I wanted simple, practical advice from someone who had been in my shoes, someone who didn’t throw more academic jargon at me, but shared real stories to give me insight into the obstacles that were holding me back. I wrote the book I didn’t have when I could have really used the help.

Traditional books don’t always help

You probably bought some books when you embarked upon your dissertation journey. Me, too. I needed help to understand the dissertation process and get a sense of the nature of the journey. I wanted to know, was I in for smooth sailing or a raging whirlpool of confusion? The books I found were written for dissertators who attended traditional doctoral programs at traditional universities—none of the advice seemed to apply to my own situation as a nontraditional dissertator.

I also bought books to help me learn how to apply certain research methods. Many of the books I bought are still sitting unread on my shelf. I like to read, but some seemed like gibberish to me—I admit, I’m not a natural mathematical genius. I love statistics, sort of in the way I love rainbows and unicorns. I needed a book written by a real person in language I could understand. I wanted a book that sounded like a good friend wrote it.

You need a nontraditional book

I wrote this book to resemble a conversation, from someone who made it to the top of the mountain and is reaching back to help others make it to the top, too. A conversation, like I’m talking to you right now. The chapters are brief, easy to read, and loaded with tips—useful things I learned along the way that you might be able to use. Many chapters provide examples and simple illustrations of how to accomplish tasks, step by step.

The chapters of this book are arranged by issues that might be holding you back, okay, call them problems. Obstacles. Whatever. I am referring to the reasons that may be holding you back from getting your proposal approved, whether it’s how to use Word to set up a Table of Contents or how to choose your theoretical foundation. You can find specific guidance and direction in each “Reason,” aimed directly at helping you solve that problem so you can get on with writing and submitting your proposal.

Before you know it, you’ll have your approval and be moving on to the fun adventure of collecting data!

The book is called Resubmit: 28 ½ reasons why you can’t get your dissertation proposal approved and you can find it on Amazon for $29.99. The Kindle version is $9.99.

To purchase the print book and receive 20% off your order,
visit the Amazon CreateSpace estore
use discount code J49BZ39R

This discount is good through March 1, 2017

Verified by MonsterInsights