Third Person Dissertation Writing Guide
Written By
Daniel Kingsley
✔️ 97% Satisfaction | ⏰ 97% On Time | ⚡ 8+ Hour Delivery
Contents
There's persistent confusion around first person versus third person in academic writing. Many students believe all academic writing must be third person. In UK dissertations, this is both partly true and complex. Most programmes now accept first person for reflexive sections but expect third person for findings presentation.
The relationship between your research question and your theoretical framework is one of the most important aspects of any dissertation, as the theoretical perspective you adopt will influence how you collect data and interpret your findings. Students sometimes treat theory as an abstract exercise that is disconnected from the practical work of research, but in reality your theoretical framework provides the conceptual tools that allow you to make sense of what you observe. Reviewing the theoretical literature in your field will help you identify the major schools of thought that have shaped current understanding and will allow you to position your own research within that intellectual landscape. Your marker will expect you to demonstrate not only that you are aware of the relevant theoretical debates in your field but also that you have thought carefully about how those debates relate to your own research design and findings.
When Third Person Is Expected
In your findings or results chapter, present data and findings in third person. "The data revealed three key themes" rather than "I found three key themes". "Participants described..." rather than "My participants described...". "Analysis shows..." rather than "I show...".
In your discussion of existing literature, use third person. "Smith (2020) argues that..." not "I read in Smith...". "Research suggests..." not "I believe...".
In your theoretical analysis, use third person. "Social capital theory proposes..." not "I think social capital theory...".
In your conclusion, mostly third person. Though your conclusion can include more reflection, the substantive claims should be third person. "The research demonstrates..." rather than "I've shown...".
The point of third person in these sections is to present your findings and analysis as evidence-based rather than opinion-based. Third person creates distance between you and your claims. The claims stand on the evidence, not on your personal belief.
The scope of your dissertation, meaning the boundaries you set around what your research will and will not investigate, is one of the most important decisions you will make before you begin your writing. A dissertation that attempts to cover too much ground will inevitably lack the depth and focus that markers expect, while one that is too narrowly focused may struggle to generate findings that are meaningful or considerable. Defining your scope clearly in the introduction of your dissertation, and returning to it in the methodology chapter to justify the limits you have set, demonstrates to your marker that you have thought carefully about the design of your study. It is perfectly acceptable for your scope to change slightly as your research progresses, provided that you reflect on those changes honestly and explain in your dissertation why you decided to adjust the boundaries of your investigation.
When First Person Is Acceptable and Increasingly Encouraged
In your methodology chapter, particularly in sections on research design choices and researcher positionality, first person is increasingly accepted and sometimes encouraged.
"I chose qualitative methodology because..." is now acceptable in most UK programmes. "The researcher's positionality is important to acknowledge: I came to this research with a background in social work, which shaped my understanding of welfare policy..." This is more engaging than "The researcher came to this research with a background..."
First person is particularly important in reflexivity sections. Reflexivity means thinking about how your own background, beliefs, and position shaped your research. First person is clearer here. "I recognised bias in my initial coding when I noticed I was interpreting ambiguous statements more sympathetically from participants with similar backgrounds to me" is clearer than "The researcher recognised bias...".
Some programmes now prefer first person throughout, arguing that it's more honest about researcher involvement and more engaging to read. But third person remains the default for findings and discussion in most UK programmes.
Check your programme's guidance. Some are explicit about this.
What Third Person Actually Looks Like
Here's a paragraph from a findings section written in third person:
"Analysis of interview transcripts revealed three distinct ways that participants understood their benefit removal. First, participants described the process as abrupt and unanticipated. The majority of respondents reported receiving minimal warning before benefit cessation. Second, participants interpreted the decision as unjust. They described their applications for reconsideration or appeal as meeting barriers that felt insurmountable. Third, participants reported substantial practical consequences. Most described falling into debt or housing insecurity within weeks of benefit removal."
Notice how "participants", "analysis", "the majority", and "the decision" are the subjects of sentences, not "I" or "we". This creates the sense that the findings are standing alone, not filtered through the researcher's personal lens.
Here's the same paragraph in first person:
"In my analysis of interview transcripts, I identified three distinct ways that participants understood their benefit removal. First, most of my respondents reported that the process was abrupt and unanticipated, with minimal warning before benefit cessation. Second, the participants I interviewed interpreted the decision as unjust, describing their applications for reconsideration as meeting insurmountable barriers. Third, I found that most of my participants experienced substantial practical consequences, falling into debt or housing insecurity within weeks of benefit removal."
Both are clear. The first feels more objective; the second feels more personal. Your programme will have a preference.
The Passive Construction as an Alternative
In some STEM fields and some traditional academic writing, passive voice is used as an alternative to third person.
"Data were collected using semi-structured interviews." "Participants were recruited through disability charities." "Results were analysed using thematic analysis."
This removes any personal agent entirely. It's impersonal. It's used heavily in experimental science dissertations.
Passive voice can feel stilted in social science and humanities writing. "It was found that participants experienced difficulties" is weaker than "Participants experienced difficulties" or "The analysis revealed that participants experienced difficulties."
Most modern guidance suggests using active voice even when you want to avoid first person. "The analysis revealed..." is active and third person. It's clear and strong.
Why the Distinction Matters
The distinction between first and third person matters because it signals something about knowledge. Third person suggests the findings are objective and evidence-based. First person suggests they're your interpretation.
This isn't actually true. All research is interpreted by researchers. Your positionality, your background, your decisions shape your analysis. Third person doesn't make findings more objective; it just presents them as if they're.
But academically, this convention persists. Third person in findings sections is the default in most UK academic programmes because it follows established conventions about how academic knowledge is presented.
This is changing gradually. More researchers are arguing that honesty requires acknowledging researcher involvement. Some programmes now encourage first person throughout, arguing it's more transparent.
Your job is to follow your programme's expectations. If your programme prefers third person for findings, use third person. If it's moving towards acceptance of first person, talk to your supervisor about their preference.
How to Check Your Writing
Go through your findings chapter and circle every instance of "I" or "we". Ask yourself: does this sentence need to be in first person? If it's a sentence like "I conducted interviews", third person works fine: "Interviews were conducted" or "This study involved interviews". If it's a sentence like "I recognised bias in my analysis", first person works better and might belong in a reflexivity section anyway.
Check your discussion chapter. The same principle applies. Can you remove "I" without losing clarity? Can you convert "I argue that..." to "The evidence suggests..." or "This analysis proposes..."?
Read your draft aloud. First person jumps out to the ear. If you're hearing "I" repeatedly and your programme expects third person, that's feedback to revise.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can I use "we" instead of "I" to avoid first person? A: "We" is first person plural, so it has the same issue as "I". It was traditionally used to make the researcher feel less prominent ("We conducted interviews"), but modern guidance suggests it's awkward because often only one person conducted the research. Avoid "we" unless multiple people genuinely did the research collaboratively. Use third person or "I" instead.
Q: Is it unprofessional to use "I" in my dissertation? A: No. Increasingly, first person is considered professional and honest. The idea that academic writing must be impersonal is outdated. Many top academic journals now encourage first person. Check your programme's guidance and your supervisor's preference. If your programme accepts or encourages first person, using "I" isn't unprofessional.
Q: What if my supervisor says one thing and my programme's guidance says another? A: Follow your supervisor's guidance. They're assessing your dissertation. If they've a preference that differs from the general guidance, follow their preference. That said, if this happens, ask your supervisor to clarify the reasoning so you understand their position.
---
---
Choosing an appropriate research methodology is one of the most consequential decisions you will make during your dissertation, as the methods you select will shape every aspect of your data collection and analysis process. Qualitative research methods are generally most appropriate when you are trying to understand the meanings, experiences, and perspectives of participants, while quantitative methods are better suited to testing hypotheses and measuring relationships between variables. Many dissertations combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches in what is known as a mixed-methods design, which can provide a richer and more complete picture of the research problem than either approach could achieve alone. Whatever methodology you choose, you must be able to justify your selection clearly and demonstrate that your chosen approach is consistent with your research question, your philosophical assumptions, and the practical constraints of your study.
Need Expert Help With Your Dissertation?
Our UK based experts are ready to assist you with your academic writing needs.
Order NowYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
20% OFF!