Response to "The Use of 'First Person' Writing Style in Academic Writing"
As a student, struggling to find my authentic voice in academic writing, Dorit Amir's article titled, The Use of "First Person:" Writing Style in Academic Writing, struck a chord in me. I would like to thank Amir for her professionalism and in making the point that conforming to traditional conventions of writing should not be at the expense of an authentic voice of a therapist and respecter of persons. I believe many students and therapists, in recent years; have noticed this slow move towards using first person writing style, in their readings. As a student still new to the music therapy field, I have struggled with the "scholarly" style of third person writing, because it seemed so withdrawn and abstract from the therapeutic process and relationships that lie therein.
I agree with Amir in that first person writing welcomes the reader more fully into the therapeutic environment and process. There are times, such as in medical charting, assessments, etc., when the traditional third person style is very appropriate. Yet when I read case studies, I feel more in tune with the author and their narrative of the experience when I encounter the first person style of writing. Titles and labels such as "the therapist" and "the client" appear more abstract and impersonal and are harder for me to relate to than actual names (whether they are false or just initials).
In academic writing, one should not to have to sacrifice one's view and voice to conform to a specific style that may hinder the expression of writing. It is very possible to be objective, specific, and scholarly in a more personal and approachable manor.
If I imagine myself in the role of "the client" and read my case study written in third person, I think I would have a negative reaction to being labeled "the client" at all times. As Amir points out in her article, we as therapist or clients are all equal and imperfect in our own right. If I told my stories, thoughts and reactions to a therapist and he/she labeled them from "the client" I would feel uneasy with that because those feelings and reactions belong to an individual person who has a name, whether it is a nickname or my initials. As a therapist I value my client's humanity, individuality, and trust and so I feel this should be expressed in a more equal, representative and humanistic way.
A fellow student of mine said "language evolves" and she is right. As culture changes, so does professions, and with that how we express our experiences. I admire Dorit Amir for challenging those with traditional views who would rather see writing in a specific style than listen to the voice of the author. Amir's article presents many reasons and ideas that I believe every professional and student should note. I praise her for shedding light on this controversial subject and urge everyone to consider this article and views on first person writing.
About Cindy Williams
Biography
Music therapy student, University of Louisville, USA.
Response to "The Use of 'First Person' Writing Style in Academic Writing"
As a student, struggling to find my authentic voice in academic writing, Dorit Amir's article titled, The Use of "First Person:" Writing Style in Academic Writing, struck a chord in me. I would like to thank Amir for her professionalism and in making the point that conforming to traditional conventions of writing should not be at the expense of an authentic voice of a therapist and respecter of persons. I believe many students and therapists, in recent years; have noticed this slow move towards using first person writing style, in their readings. As a student still new to the music therapy field, I have struggled with the "scholarly" style of third person writing, because it seemed so withdrawn and abstract from the therapeutic process and relationships that lie therein.
I agree with Amir in that first person writing welcomes the reader more fully into the therapeutic environment and process. There are times, such as in medical charting, assessments, etc., when the traditional third person style is very appropriate. Yet when I read case studies, I feel more in tune with the author and their narrative of the experience when I encounter the first person style of writing. Titles and labels such as "the therapist" and "the client" appear more abstract and impersonal and are harder for me to relate to than actual names (whether they are false or just initials).
In academic writing, one should not to have to sacrifice one's view and voice to conform to a specific style that may hinder the expression of writing. It is very possible to be objective, specific, and scholarly in a more personal and approachable manor.
If I imagine myself in the role of "the client" and read my case study written in third person, I think I would have a negative reaction to being labeled "the client" at all times. As Amir points out in her article, we as therapist or clients are all equal and imperfect in our own right. If I told my stories, thoughts and reactions to a therapist and he/she labeled them from "the client" I would feel uneasy with that because those feelings and reactions belong to an individual person who has a name, whether it is a nickname or my initials. As a therapist I value my client's humanity, individuality, and trust and so I feel this should be expressed in a more equal, representative and humanistic way.
A fellow student of mine said "language evolves" and she is right. As culture changes, so does professions, and with that how we express our experiences. I admire Dorit Amir for challenging those with traditional views who would rather see writing in a specific style than listen to the voice of the author. Amir's article presents many reasons and ideas that I believe every professional and student should note. I praise her for shedding light on this controversial subject and urge everyone to consider this article and views on first person writing.