Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
For example, in “it is shown that stable graphs are closed”, the reader may have
difficulty deciding who is doing the showing, and in “it is hypothesized that”, the
reader will be unsure whether the hypothesis was posed in your paper or elsewhere.
Use of “we” can allow some kinds of statements to be simplified—consider “we
show” versus “in this paper it is shown that”. “We” is preferable to pretentious
expressions such as “the authors”.
Some authors use phrases such as “this paper shows” and “this section argues”.
These phrases, with their implication that the paper, not the author, is doing the
arguing, should generally be avoided.
In some cases the use of “we” is wrong.
When we conducted the experiment it showed that our conjecture was correct.
Here, the use of “we” seems to hint that the outcome might be different if the exper-
iment was run by someone else.
The experiment showed that our conjecture was correct.
I do not particularly like the use of “I” in scientific writing, except when it is used to
indicate that what follows is the author's opinion. The use of “I” in place of “we” in
papers with only one author is uncommon.
Use of personal pronouns has been a contentious issue in technical writing. Some
people argue that it undermines objectivity by introducing the author's personality
and is therefore unacceptable, even unscientific. Others argue that to suggest that
a paper is not the work of individuals is intellectually dishonest, and that use of
personal pronouns makes papers easier to read. Although opinions on this topic are
divided, use of “we” is an accepted norm.
TheUpperHand
Some authors seem to have a superiority complex—a need to prove that they know
more or are smarter than their readers. Perhaps the most appropriate word for this
behaviour is swagger. One form of swagger is implying familiarity with material
that most scientists will never read; an example is reference to philosophers such as
Wittgenstein or Hegel, or statements such as “the argument proceeds on Voltarian
principles”. Another form is the unnecessary inclusion of difficult mathematics, or
offhand remarks such as “analysis of this method is of course a straightforward
application of tensor calculus”. Yet another form is citation of obscure, inaccessible
references.
This kind of showing off, of attempting to gain the upper hand over the reader,
is snobbish and tiresome. Since the intention is to make statements the reader won't
understand, the only information conveyed is an impression of the author's ego. Write
for an ordinary reader, as your equal.
