When to use “We” in Academic Writing: A Guide for Authors

---

In academic writing, clarity and tone are critical to convey, and nothing sparks more debate than the use of first-person pronouns like we. For decades, writers were taught and discouraged from using we, I, or us, largely to maintain an air of objectivity. But writing conventions evolve, and so do opinions on how to best engage with readers and represent research accurately.

So, is it okay to use “we” in scholarly writing? In our view: yes — when used judiciously.

While some style guides and reviewers still frown upon it in certain contexts, others now accept or even encourage first-person usage for clarity and engagement. This post will unpack the reasoning behind both viewpoints and offer practical guidance on when and how to use ‘we’ effectively in academic writing.

Why Is the use of “We” Controversial in Academic Writing?

Historical preference for objectivity and passive voice

Traditionally academic writing emphasized impersonality, objectivity and passive constructions, especially in the sciences. Authors were encouraged to write things like:

“The experiment was conducted…” rather than “We conducted the experiment…”

The rationale was to keep focus on the research and not the researcher through a neutral and objective tone.

Evolving standards and stylistic flexibility

However, more recently in the humanities, social sciences, and applied sciences, active voice is now not only acceptable but increasingly encouraged for clarity, even when that means using first-person pronouns. As Gopen and Swan note in their seminal article on scientific writing, “complexity of thought need not lead to impenetrability of expression… improving the quality of writing actually improves the quality of thought” (Gopen & Swan, 1990)

The shift we are beginning to see acknowledges that trying to avoid “we” can lead to awkward, passive writing that hinder readability; what good is high quality research if poor readability limits comprehension?

When Using “We” Is Acceptable (or Even Preferred)

Collaborative authorship in research

In most multi-author papers, using we is both accurate and natural. It reflects the shared effort behind the study and helps avoid vague or overly complex phrasing:

“We analyzed the data using SPSS.”  vs.  “The data were analyzed using SPSS.”

The former is clearer, more direct, and avoids hiding responsibility behind passive voice.

Rhetorical clarity and reader engagement

Using we can also create a sense of dialogue with the reader, especially in conceptual or theoretical work. Phrases like:

“We now turn to the implications of this model...”

“We propose a new framework for...”

...help guide the reader through the argument. This rhetorical we is often used to indicate writer-reader alignment, not just authorial voice.

When to Avoid “We” in Academic Writing

1) Avoid using we when it’s unclear to the reader who is being referred to or with incomplete context

2) Avoid using we when it introduces ambiguity or presumes agreement among parties that may not be shared

3) Depending on the discipline and formatting style, the use of we in single author papers may be discouraged

4) In highly formal or technical contexts, especially in grant proposals, clinical reports, or lab manuals, third-person passive constructions may still be preferred.

Style Guide Recommendations

Use of 'We' in APA Style

APA encourages use of first-person pronouns when appropriate. It explicitly permits "we" or "I" to improve clarity, especially in methods and results sections.

Use of 'We' in the Chicago Manual of Style

CMS allows for flexibility, especially in the humanities. It advises that first-person pronouns may be used if they do not distract or disrupt formality.

Use of 'We' in the MLA Style

MLA is generally open to first-person usage, particularly when analyzing text or reflecting on methods. It emphasizes clarity and authorial responsibility.

Final Thoughts: Use “We” Wisely

Used thoughtfully, we can clarify meaning, enhance flow, and reflect collaborative authorship. Used carelessly, it can introduce vagueness or undermine formality.

What makes the most sense to us is the judicious use of we, balancing clarity, discipline norms, and audience expectations. When in doubt, however, we suggest you consult your target journal’s guidelines or reference the appropriate style manual for more tailored advice.

---