5 Votes
Abuses of Impersonal Scientific Writing
Being an academic, I regularly attend seminars on topics that may not be interesting to anyone else on the planet. Prior to the talk, an abstract is sent out by the speaker to give us an insight into what he/she will be discussing. A good abstract should be no more than an essential summary of what the speaker will discuss; it is usually no more than a paragraph in length, and is often tersely worded. The rare exceptions to this length requirement usually aren’t the best at conveying the essential information. For a seminar I attended recently, the abstract violated this "rule" by weighing in at a whopping four paragraphs. However, even considering this excessiveness, the opening sentence is what really drove me over the edge. The abstract began with the phrase, "One presents a critical analysis…" (Emphasis added).
In the normal course of scientific writing, it is expected there will be a sense of detachment between the experiment and the experimenter. The data is king. After the manner of collection has been accepted as a valid method of demonstrating what is intended, the data drives any and all interpretation – period. The experimenter is expected to be a dispassionate, passive observer, and this shows up in scientific writing as an excessive use of the third person. However, by using "one" as a pronoun indicating himself, this speaker has completely detached himself from even his own presentation!
As I mentioned, I understand the necessity of detaching yourself from your results. The experiment must be able to stand on its own merit, and should not have to be propped up by the personalities of the experimenters. (Cold fusion comes to mind.) In my own writing, I tend to use the pronoun "we," as it provides a sense of detachment. However, I still identify it as my own work without compromising its independence. So, referring to yourself as "one" seems disingenuous and completely out of place, especially in the context of a presentation abstract.
Years ago, while I was still an undergrad, I heard about a movement in the scientific community to improve the mechanics of scientific writing. One of the suggestions was to eliminate many of the bizarre contortions using the third person imposes upon the authors. I am firmly in this camp. While authors must be somewhat dispassionate in their writings, there is no need to completely separate ourselves from our own work in such an egregious manner.
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Experiments To Conduct On Babies, by VnutZ over 2 years ago
- Skin I/O, by VnutZ about 3 years ago
- NASA Photo of Liquid on Titan, by VnutZ over 3 years ago
- Advances with Stem Cells, by JyroBritanniac over 3 years ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
Human Element by gnifyus
Not being an academic I find this post most interesting because, though not exactly the same, some parallels can be drawn in "corporate speak", or the way in which certain things have been presented in my past experience at a large company. One of the first things I picked up on from attending various production meetings was not only the removal of self from any remarks made, but also the omission of any person at all as if all statements were pulled from the ether. An example of this phrasing might be; "The question was asked if the new schedule will be effective this Monday or next Monday." Instead of, "John was wondering if the new schedule will be… (etc)". Or, "It’s been made clear by some that the new procedure is inadequate", instead of who in particular was able to make it clear.
I think this sort of ‘protocol’ is driven from a different place though. It has more to do with not being blamed for something, or not putting yourself or someone else in a position of being responsible for any given statement. Once in a while a Vice President or Director would ask, "Who said that?", and you could see all the faces at the table change a shade of color as the safe little ‘protocol’ was broken.
I once found myself laughing to myself when at one meeting someone began their statement with, "The question was asked….", when I knew darn well it was that very person asking "the question" for the first time.
It’s funny and sort of ironic that this sort of thing actually bugs some of us enough to, in wyldeling’s case, want to write about it, or in mine to remember it after 15 years. To me it shows we still want to be human even though some of our man- made disciplines call for the human element to be removed from view.
Your comment about cold fusion makes no sense by Anonymous
You wrote:
"As I mentioned, I understand the necessity of detaching yourself from your results. The experiment must be able to stand on its own merit, and should not have to be propped up by the personalities of the experimenters. (Cold fusion comes to mind.)"
What do you mean by this? Cold fusion researchers are objective; their experiments stand on their own merits, and I have never heard anyone discuss their personalities. Roughly 2,000 professional scientists have replicated cold fusion and published replications in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. They include many distinguished people, such as members of the Atomic Energy Commissions of India and France, but they are all, as Fleischmann puts it, "painfully conventional scientists."
Perhaps you are under the impression that cold fusion was a mistake or that it was not replicated. If so, you are completely wrong, and I suggest you review the literature before commenting. You will find 600 full-text papers and bibliography of ~3,000 papers on this research, including ~500 peer-reviewed, positive papers, here:
LENR-CANR.org
- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
Language These Days by Anonymous
Was this person from Europe? I ask because many European languages use the third person impersonal very often, even when we in the English language usually would not. This is especially so within the sphere of academics. Perhaps there was something lost in translation.
Also, I understand what you say about science being heartless and excessively detached. Steven Hawking is the most creative science author that I have read. You hardly see a single usage of "one," and he presents the scientific journey as that of every inquisative mind. Instead of "one," like yourself, I think he prefers the "we" variant.
I susepct that this dynamic is a result not only of modern science, but also of modernity in general. Heidegger said that those who use this third person impersonal are actually living inauthentically. He went on to say that we humans are so used to being treated as objects today, that we treat language in the same manner. We speak or write at times with little regard for the words of which we make use or for their significance/function. Language has thus lost much of its poetic, meaningful quality.
There is an impoverishment of many modern languages at work involving, for instance, the near loss of certain verb tenses, the narrowing, simplification, and phasing out of vocabulary in lieu of slang, a growing distinction between literary and spoken usage, a lack of courtesy in our everyday parlance, etc. We live in a strange age indeed. It seems that much of language today is being "abused" as you say.
RE: Response to the Cold Fusion Community by wyldeling
There have been several posts from the Cold Fusion Community (1, 2, and 3) that I’d like to address.
First of all, thank you for participating at Omninerd, we appreciate all such participation, and we hope you’ll stick around. I wish it could have been under less acrimonious circumstances, though.
I believe my statement that caused the uproar was
>The experiment must be able to stand on its own merit, and should not have to be propped up by the personalities of the experimenters. (Cold fusion comes to mind.)
As pointed out, the reference to cold fusion research being propped up by the personalities of the experimenters was an opinion, and an unverified one at that. For that, I must apologize. It is inexcusable for a scientist, or a human being for that matter, to spout off opinions without the proper backing. I had not performed the necessary due diligence, and I am sorry.
However, comment 2 made the statement:
>You and this author have no clue what the mainstream science community thinks about cold fusion.
To which, I must disagree. My first real encounter with cold fusion occurred at the APS Centennial meeting where I was handed a copy of Infinite Energy. At the time it read as if it was science by press release. Upon recent reflection, it seems more like a fringe community (deservedly, or not) that was desperately trying to gain recognition in the community at large, in a similar vane to missionaries handing out pamphlets to passerby. And, the cold fusion community still seems to be operating in this mode as indicated by the speed and vituperative nature of the response I have gotten. Simply put, if I were to ask my adviser, or any other member of my department tomorrow, I am fairly sure they would express deep skepticism about cold fusion.
My initial comment of cold fusion being propped up by the personalities of the experimenters is still somewhat true, but in a much different context than I first understood it. In the 2001 April meeting (I think), Scott Chubb talked about the debacle involving the handling of cold fusion within the community at large and within the cold fusion community. In a summary of his talk, he said
bq. 1. Normal scientific discussion about CF ended at a very early stage, 2. The breakdown of Normal scientific discussion not only has not been widely accepted outside the field, but 3. Although the reasons for this breakdown are not clear, the failure by particular individuals or institutions to be held accountable for past actions has been largely responsible for this problem. Implicit in these assertions is an obvious point. Cold Fusion was and is a risky form of science. Discussions about CF have ceased to be normal for precisely this reason. (Ed.: quotes replaced by emphasis)
Chubb goes on to say that most scientists are unaware of the advances that have been made to satisfy the early critics. Clearly, rational scientific discourse has, at least in the recent past, taken a back seat to other less refined forms of communication. So, in a sense, the personalities of those involved have influenced how this topic has been approached, but clearly not in the sense I originally intended.
As to not acting as a physicist, I am able to offer as my only defense that I am human and I am a product of my training, as much as anyone. My training suggests that the Fleischmann-Pons effect should not occur, except under high pressure/temperature conditions where the wavefunction overlap is sufficient for tunneling to occur. And, having not read the literature, I have fallen into the trap that most would have fallen into: I was relying on the opinions of others whom I trusted. With the APS publishing hundreds of articles a month, it is very easy to fall into that trap, and I will be more careful and less flippant in the future.
As to not having a backbone, I will eventually read the papers on LENR-CANR. But, it will not be within the next six to twelve months, so I will happily flop around in grad school until that point.
Make it readable by jaramilr
I agree with the author. Awkward phrasing just to get around using a personal pronoun defeats the purpose of avoiding using personal pronouns. If a sentence is awkward, there is always a better way to rewrite it.
Personally I like the way Scientific American magazine gets around this personal pronoun conundrum. When necessary, authors of articles tend to refer to "the author" or "the authors". The magazine is made of articles about science and not actual scientific papers, but I think "the authors" would be acceptable when necessary in technical writing too.
Someone mentioned Steven Hawking uses personal pronouns. This is perfectly acceptable and expected in popular science writing which is a way to explain scientific research to a general audience. I bet he never uses personal pronouns in his research papers.