First-Person Pronouns in Academic Writing: When They Work

Few questions in academic writing generate as much confusion as whether to use first-person pronouns. Many students are taught a flat rule, never write "I" or "we" in academic work, and then encounter published papers in their field that use the first person freely. Both cannot be right, and in fact neither is. The honest answer is that first-person use depends on your discipline, your document, and the specific function the pronoun is performing. This guide explains where the first person is accepted, where it is avoided, and how to use it well when it is allowed.

Quick answer

Whether you can use "I" and "we" in academic writing depends mainly on your discipline. Many social science and humanities fields now accept limited first-person use, especially to describe what the author did or decided. STEM fields and the most formal academic writing still tend to avoid it, preferring constructions that keep the focus on the research rather than the researcher. The old blanket rule against the first person has softened, but it has not disappeared. The safest approach is to check the conventions of your field and your target journal or assignment, use the first person sparingly and purposefully where it is allowed, and never let it shift the focus from the work to yourself.

Why the First-Person Rule Is So Confusing

The confusion comes from a real historical shift. For much of the twentieth century, academic writing, especially scientific writing, strongly favored an impersonal style that removed the author from the text. The reasoning was that science should sound objective, and that keeping the researcher out of the sentence reinforced the impression of neutral, observer-independent fact. A generation of students learned the rule as absolute: the first person has no place in serious academic work.

That consensus has weakened. Many style guides and journals now accept, and some prefer, limited first-person use, on the grounds that it is clearer and more honest about who did what. The American Psychological Association, whose style dominates the social sciences, explicitly endorses the first person to describe the researcher's own actions, on the reasoning that "the experiment was designed" hides an agent the reader can reasonably want identified. So a student may be taught the old rule by one instructor and then read current journals that break it constantly. Both are describing real conventions; they are just from different moments and different fields.

This is why a blanket rule, for or against, is the wrong way to think about the first person. The useful question is not "is the first person allowed in academic writing" but "is it allowed in this field, in this document, for this purpose." That question has clear answers.

First-Person Use by Discipline

Discipline is the single biggest factor in whether the first person is acceptable. The conventions fall into a rough spectrum.

Fields that generally accept the first person

Much of the humanities, including literature, history, and philosophy, accepts the first person, and in some genres expects it. An argument-driven humanities essay often advances a reading that is explicitly the author's, and "I argue that" is a normal, accepted move. Many social sciences, particularly under APA style, accept the first person to describe the researcher's own choices and actions. Examples include "We recruited 120 participants" and "I coded the interviews using thematic analysis." Qualitative research often uses the first person deliberately, because the researcher's position relative to the data matters and naming it is part of being transparent about method.

Fields that generally avoid the first person

Much of the natural and physical sciences, along with engineering, still leans toward impersonal constructions, especially in formal journal writing. The convention favors keeping the sentence focused on the materials, methods, and results rather than the people who carried them out. "The samples were heated to 60 degrees" is standard, where "I heated the samples" would read as informal in many science journals. Formal academic genres across fields, such as some dissertations and certain kinds of formal reports, also lean impersonal. Even here, though, the rule is softening, and some science journals now permit "we" in places they once would not.

The reliable way to know

Because conventions vary this much, the dependable method is to look, not to guess. Read several recent articles in your target journal or several strong papers in your field, and notice whether and how they use the first person. The published literature in your specific field is a more accurate guide than any general rule, because it reflects the exact convention your readers expect. For a course assignment, the instructor's guidelines or a direct question to the instructor settles it.

When the First Person Works, and When It Does Not

Even within a field that accepts the first person, not every use is equally appropriate. The pronoun works best for specific functions and works poorly for others. The distinction is whether the first person keeps the focus on the research or shifts it to the writer.

The first person works well when it identifies who performed an action or made a decision that the reader needs to attribute. "We chose a longitudinal design because the research question concerned change over time" is clearer and more honest than "a longitudinal design was chosen," which hides the deciding agent. In methods and in passages explaining analytical choices, naming the researcher is informative. It tells the reader that a human made a judgment, which is exactly the kind of thing reviewers want to be able to evaluate.

The first person works poorly when it foregrounds the writer's feelings or presence in a way that adds nothing. "I think this result is really interesting" injects opinion and informality where the result should speak through the evidence. "I will now discuss" is a weaker signpost than a sentence that simply makes the transition. The test is functional: if the first person identifies a relevant agent or decision, it earns its place; if it merely announces the writer's presence or opinion, it usually weakens the sentence. This connects to the broader question of academic voice, where objectivity means letting evidence rather than the writer's feelings carry the argument.

Alternatives to the First Person

When you are writing in a field or document that avoids the first person, you need ways to express the same content without it. There are three main strategies, and each has trade-offs.

The passive voice. "The samples were analyzed" instead of "I analyzed the samples." This is the standard alternative in scientific writing and is often exactly right, since the focus belongs on the samples. Its risk is overuse: a methods section that is entirely passive can become hard to follow and can obscure who did what. The choice between active and passive is a craft decision in its own right, covered in the cluster's active vs. passive voice guide.
Naming the agent as a thing. "This study examines," "the analysis shows," "the data suggest." Attributing action to the study, the paper, or the data keeps the sentence active and concrete while avoiding the first person. This is often the cleanest alternative, since it stays in the active voice without putting the writer in the sentence.
Recasting around the finding. Instead of "I found that X," write "X occurred" or "the results indicate X." Shifting the subject of the sentence to the finding itself removes the need for the first person and often sharpens the claim.

One alternative to avoid is the artificial third person for the author, such as "the researcher" or "the present author," used to refer to yourself. "The researcher conducted interviews" is more awkward and no more objective than "I conducted interviews" or "interviews were conducted." If your field avoids the first person, use the passive or recast the sentence rather than referring to yourself in the third person.

A Note on "We"

The pronoun "we" carries an extra complication: it can refer to the authors, or it can be the editorial or inclusive "we" that tries to pull in the reader. Multi-author papers naturally use "we" for the author team, which is widely accepted where the first person is allowed at all. The use to watch is the inclusive "we" in a single-authored paper, as in "we can see that the data support this." This is really direct address to the reader in disguise. It carries the same informality as "you can see," and where the first person is restricted, this inclusive "we" is restricted too. Reserve "we" for the actual authors of the work.

When Professional Editing Helps

First-person conventions are subtle, discipline-specific, and easy to apply unevenly, and a writer often cannot tell whether their own use reads as appropriate or as informal within their field. A professional academic editor who works in scholarly writing knows the conventions of different disciplines. They can flag first-person use that does not fit, smooth inconsistent application across a document, and recast sentences that lean on the first person where the field prefers an alternative, all while keeping the meaning intact.

Editor World's academic editing and professional proofreading services calibrate first-person use to your field's conventions and apply it consistently across the document. You choose your own editor by discipline and verified client ratings, and you can message any editor before submitting. Every document is edited entirely by a qualified native English editor, with no AI tools used at any stage. For specific document types, see our journal article editing and dissertation editing services. For the broader conventions of scholarly writing, see the do's and don'ts of academic writing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you use "I" in academic writing?

It depends on your discipline, your document, and the function the pronoun performs. The old blanket rule against the first person has softened, but it has not disappeared. Many humanities fields accept "I," and argument-driven essays often expect it, as in "I argue that." Many social sciences, particularly under APA style, accept the first person to describe the researcher's own actions and decisions. STEM fields and the most formal academic genres still tend to avoid it in favor of impersonal constructions. The reliable way to know is to read recent articles in your target journal or field and notice how they handle the first person, since the published literature reflects the exact convention your readers expect.

Why was I taught never to use the first person?

The rule comes from a real historical convention. For much of the twentieth century, academic writing, especially scientific writing, strongly favored an impersonal style that removed the author from the text, on the reasoning that science should sound objective and observer-independent. A generation of students learned this as an absolute rule. That consensus has since weakened, and many style guides and journals now accept or even prefer limited first-person use because it is clearer and more honest about who did what. The American Psychological Association, for example, endorses the first person to describe the researcher's own actions. This is why a student may be taught the old rule and then read current journals that break it constantly: both describe real conventions, from different moments and different fields.

Which disciplines allow first-person pronouns?

Conventions fall on a spectrum. Much of the humanities, including literature, history, and philosophy, accepts the first person and in some genres expects it, since humanities essays often advance a reading that is explicitly the author's. Many social sciences, particularly under APA style, accept the first person to describe the researcher's own choices, and qualitative research often uses it deliberately as part of being transparent about method. Much of the natural and physical sciences and engineering still leans toward impersonal constructions in formal journal writing, keeping the focus on materials, methods, and results. Even there the rule is softening. Because the variation is this wide, reading published work in your specific field is the most accurate guide.

When does using the first person actually improve a sentence?

The first person works well when it identifies who performed an action or made a decision the reader needs to attribute. "We chose a longitudinal design because the research question concerned change over time" is clearer and more honest than "a longitudinal design was chosen," which hides the deciding agent. In methods sections and passages explaining analytical choices, naming the researcher is informative, because it tells the reader a human made a judgment that reviewers can evaluate. The first person works poorly when it foregrounds the writer's feelings or mere presence, as in "I think this result is interesting." The functional test is whether the pronoun identifies a relevant agent or decision, in which case it earns its place, or simply announces the writer, in which case it usually weakens the sentence.

How do I avoid the first person when my field requires it?

There are three main strategies. The passive voice, as in "the samples were analyzed" instead of "I analyzed the samples," is standard in scientific writing and often exactly right, though overuse can make a methods section hard to follow. Naming the agent as a thing, as in "this study examines" or "the data suggest," keeps the sentence active and concrete while avoiding the first person, and is often the cleanest option. Recasting around the finding, as in "the results indicate X" instead of "I found that X," shifts the subject to the finding itself and often sharpens the claim. One approach to avoid is referring to yourself in the third person as "the researcher," which is awkward and no more objective than the alternatives.

Should I call myself "the researcher" instead of "I"?

Generally no. Referring to yourself in the third person as "the researcher" or "the present author" is more awkward than the first person and no more objective. "The researcher conducted interviews" reads as stilted, and it is not clearer than either "I conducted interviews" or "interviews were conducted." If your field accepts the first person, use it. If your field avoids it, use the passive voice or recast the sentence around the action or finding instead. The artificial third person for the author tends to combine the disadvantages of both options, the awkwardness of avoiding the first person and the self-reference of using it, without the benefits of either.

Is it acceptable to use "we" in a single-author paper?

Use "we" only for the actual authors of the work. In a multi-author paper, "we" naturally refers to the author team and is widely accepted wherever the first person is allowed. The use to watch is the inclusive or editorial "we" in a single-author paper, as in "we can see that the data support this." This is really direct address to the reader in disguise, and it carries the same informality as "you can see." Where a field restricts the first person, this inclusive "we" is restricted along with it. In a single-author paper, reserve "we" for cases where it genuinely refers to you as the author, and recast inclusive uses to focus on the evidence instead.

Does APA style allow the first person?

Yes. APA style, which dominates psychology, education, and much of the social sciences, explicitly endorses the first person to describe the researcher's own actions. The reasoning is that a construction like "the experiment was designed" hides an agent the reader can reasonably want identified, so "we designed the experiment" or "I designed the experiment" is clearer and more accurate. APA does still expect the first person to be used purposefully, for the author's genuine actions and decisions, rather than for opinion or filler. If you are writing under APA style, using "I" or "we" to describe what you actually did is not only allowed but often preferred over an impersonal construction that obscures who did the work.

This article was reviewed by Editor World's editorial team. Founded in 2010 by Patti Fisher, PhD, a graduate of The Ohio State University, Editor World is a human-only editing and proofreading marketplace serving academic researchers, doctoral candidates, faculty, graduate students, and business professionals worldwide. It has held BBB A+ accreditation since 2010 and maintains 5.0/5 Google Reviews and 5.0/5 Facebook Reviews. Editor World has edited more than 140 million words for over 8,000 clients across 65+ countries and is a multiple Gold and Bronze Stevie Award winner. Its native English editors come from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, with subject-matter expertise spanning the social sciences, the natural and physical sciences, medicine, engineering, computer science, and the humanities. Fewer than 5% of applicants are accepted to the editor panel. Editor World is recommended by the Boston University Economics Department, the University of San Diego, the University of Michigan, UCLA, the University of Missouri, and more. No AI tools are used at any stage.