I would like to say that I completely agree with Dorit Amir's arguments about why to write in first person.
I have been working as a professor of Music Therapy at undergraduate and graduate programs for seven years and many, many times I had quarrels with colleagues about the writing style, specially when my students have to write the essay/dissertation to conclude the course (even if the essay/dissertation has the form of a case study or is purely theoretical ).
I think that the first person style is more appropriate to either describe a music therapy session or make a reflection of music therapy theory or practice due to the fact that everything that is said about something (a session, a model of practice, a theory) is said by an observer (that had really participated in the session, had seen a video of a session, had read the transcript of a session, had read a text or something else). It is always someone's point of view and, therefore, the observer (and the writer of the essay/ dissertation) has to take the full responsibility for what he/she has observed (and written).
Moreover, as a clinician that follows an humanistic approach, I can not be neutral in the session, I have to show myself because it is the relationship that occurs in the music (considering music not as an object but as an territory) between the client and the therapist (myself) that enables the client to search and facilitate his/her own growth.
We have to consider that the scientific paradigm is changing, therefore, the scientific writing style has to change in accordance.
Thanks for bringing up this subject to discussion,
Sincerely,
Renato Tocantins Sampaio
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to the music therapy field, I have struggled with the "scholarly" style of third person writing, because it seemed so withdrawn and abstract from the therapeutic process and relationships that lie therein.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.
Response to "The Use of 'First Person' Writing Style in Academic Writing"
Writing in the first person not only allows me to feel as if I am playing with ideas, but allows me to actually play with ideas, in the moment.
In contrast, to write in the contemporary journal style I have first to calm my play down, then smooth it out, then iron it flat.
Scientific journals have always required high standards of ironing for very good reason: - the idiosyncratic creases of a personal perspective have little relevance to scientific enquiry; the testing out of a general hypotheses and the subsequent analysis of detailed results require nothing less than objectivity.
However, I doubt very much whether the writings of Freud (himself a scientist) would have remained resonant for so long, had he chosen to eradicate his own personal voice. Freud's fears, hesitations, apologies and concerns are felt throughout his writing. Perhaps it is the human quality in his 'thinking out loud' that allows generations of readers to reflect upon their own practice, so many years later on.
In a recent chapter I decided to write what I thought, in exactly the way I wanted, based on my own experience. I did not give in to any requests for quotations or references. A creative editor then made some small, yet sensible, suggestions for cutting things back. I still enjoy reading that work.
However, it is important to be able to write in both styles, and this applies particularly to music therapy students who need both sets of skills in understanding and communicating their work. For example, it is useful to write a case study twice using the opposite approach. You learn to extrapolate your own input from the situation and in so doing are more able to analyse its effect.
We do need to feel inspired by our reading, sometimes it is quite difficult to find that inspiration when the person writing becomes hidden behind the required style.
Like baking bread, one needs the space to make a mess and knead the ideas about, then ignore them and leave them to rise, then knead them back some more - just so long as the yeast itself does not die in the process.