Maintaining Objectivity and Scholarly Distance
This session builds on Session 1 by focusing on tone and perspective. You will learn to establish empirical neutrality, manage point of view, eliminate value-laden language, and build scholarly credibility through balanced framing.
By the end of this session, you will be able to:
- Apply the third-person point of view as the primary academic convention, while recognising disciplined uses of the first person.
- Eliminate second-person pronouns (you, yours) to avoid projecting unsubstantiated assumptions onto the reader.
- Identify and neutralise value-laden, emotional, or hyperbolic vocabulary in scholarly contexts.
- Reframe critical evaluations of literature using non-judgmental academic phrasing to build scholarly ethos.
The Principle of Scholarly Distance
Objective tone requires removing personal emotional investment so that the primary focus remains on empirical evidence, methodology, and logical reasoning. It should not include the writer’s feelings about the topic.
Empirical neutrality
Academic prose presents findings directly and straightforwardly, without hyperbole. The data and the logical structure of the argument should do the persuading, not emotive language or personal enthusiasm.
Why distance builds trust
A reader who senses personal bias or emotional investment starts to question whether the writer selected evidence fairly. Scholarly distance signals that conclusions follow from the data rather than from what the writer wanted to find. This does not mean writing has to sound cold or lifeless. It just means removing anything that reveals the writer’s personal stake in the outcome.
| Emotionally invested | Scholarly distance |
|---|---|
| “This amazing result proves our theory.” | “This result supports the proposed theory.” |
| “Sadly, the data didn’t support our hopes.” | “The data did not support the hypothesis.” |
| “We were thrilled to discover a strong link.” | “A strong correlation was identified.” |
Quick swap bank: emotive words and neutral alternatives
| Emotive or exaggerated | Neutral alternative |
|---|---|
| amazing, incredible, fantastic | notable, significant, substantial |
| terrible, awful, disastrous | unfavourable, poor, inadequate |
| shocking, surprising | unexpected, unanticipated |
| proves, shows beyond doubt | supports, indicates, suggests |
| obviously, clearly, of course | (delete, or show the evidence instead) |
| a huge increase | a substantial increase, an increase of 40 per cent |
| unfortunately, sadly | (delete, and state the fact) |
Extra practice
“This is a really amazing discovery that will totally change medicine.”
“Unfortunately, the experiment failed.”
“The authors’ brilliant analysis clearly shows that sleep affects memory.”
“The shocking results of this terrible policy clearly prove how dangerous it is.”
“We were thrilled to find that students loved the new app. Sadly, a few people said it was boring. Obviously, the app is a total success.”
Point of View and Perspective Rules
The third-person standard
Writing in the third person (the study, researchers, the findings, the data) keeps the focus on the research phenomenon rather than on the individual writer. This is the default convention for most academic prose.
Eliminating second-person pronouns
Second-person pronouns (you, yours) are strictly excluded from academic prose. They project assumptions onto the reader and sound overly casual, as if the writer is speaking directly to one person rather than presenting findings to a scholarly audience.
| Second-person (avoid) | Third-person (academic) |
|---|---|
| “You can see the results improve over time.” | “The results improve over time.” |
| “If you look closely, the trend is obvious.” | “A closer examination reveals a clear trend.” |
| “Your understanding of the topic will deepen.” | “Understanding of the topic is deepened.” |
Disciplined first-person usage
The rules on first person have shifted over time. Traditionally, personal pronouns (I, we) were discouraged entirely, to maintain complete impersonality. Modern style guides take a more nuanced view.
Modern conventions (APA 7th / CMOS 18th)
First-person pronouns are now permitted when describing specific, active methodological choices — for example, “We interviewed 40 participants” or “I coded the transcripts independently.” This is especially common in co-authored empirical research where the researchers’ actions need to be described clearly.
Unacceptable first-person usage
Expressions of unverified belief or personal feeling remain prohibited regardless of style guide — for example, “I feel that…” or “In my personal opinion…”. These phrases signal subjective conviction rather than evidence-based conclusion.
“When you read the transcript, you notice how often participants mentioned stress.”
Quick swap bank: from personal to scholarly phrasing
| Personal or direct | Scholarly alternative |
|---|---|
| you can see that … | Table 1 shows that … / it can be seen that … |
| you should note that … | it should be noted that … |
| if you compare the groups … | a comparison of the groups reveals … |
| I think / I feel / I believe … | the evidence suggests that … / it can be argued that … |
| in my opinion … | the findings indicate that … |
| we were surprised that … | the result was unexpected … |
Check the guidelines. Modern style guides allow “I” and “we” for describing what the researchers did, but some disciplines, journals and instructors still prefer an impersonal style. Always follow the guidelines of your target journal or course.
Extra practice
“You can see from Table 1 that sales increased.”
“I think the results are not reliable because the sample was small.”
“In my opinion, the policy should be changed.”
(a) “I analysed the data using statistical software.” (b) “I believe the results are amazing.” (c) “We feel this is the best method.” (d) “We randomly assigned participants to two groups.”
“We interviewed 40 teachers, and I feel they were honest, so you can trust the findings.”
“When you look at the survey, you will notice that most students liked the course. I feel the teachers did an excellent job. In my opinion, you should keep the course. We sent the survey to 300 students.”
Eliminating Value-Laden and Emotive Language
Subjective adjectives and adverbs undermine scientific neutrality, even when they are not technically inaccurate. Words like revolutionary, disastrous, obviously, terrible, and genius insert the writer’s judgement where the evidence should speak for itself.
| Value-laden | Neutral |
|---|---|
| obviously | (often removable, or: “the data indicate”) |
| disastrous | unsuccessful / did not meet expectations |
| completely overlooked | did not address |
| revolutionary | notable / significant |
| foolishly ignored | does not account for |
Neutralising literature critiques
When evaluating opposing studies or identifying research gaps, aggressive or emotional verbs must be replaced with neutral academic phrasing. This is one of the most common places writers unintentionally reveal bias, because critique invites strong language.
Biased / judgmental: “Gerard completely overlooked the data.”
Neutral academic: “Gerard did not address the data.”
Biased / judgmental: “Smith foolishly ignored key economic variables.”
Neutral academic: “Smith’s model does not account for key economic variables.”
“Patel’s terrible analysis completely ignored the most obvious confounding variables.”
More value-laden words and neutral alternatives
| Value-laden | Neutral |
|---|---|
| groundbreaking, brilliant | notable, well designed (only if the evidence shows it) |
| ridiculous, absurd, stupid | inconsistent with the data, not supported by the evidence |
| awful, useless | of limited use, unfavourable |
| totally, completely, utterly | (delete) |
| proves, is clearly wrong | is not supported by the evidence |
Neutral frames for critique
“X does not account for …”
“X is limited by …”
“X did not examine …”
“It remains unclear whether …”
“The evidence is mixed / inconclusive.”
“Although X reported …, the small sample limits the generalisability of the findings.”
Extra practice (optional)
“Smith’s ridiculous model totally ignores climate data.”
“This groundbreaking study proves that sleep is vital for memory.”
“The company’s catastrophic decision to cut research funding ruined the programme.”
“The authors’ foolish sampling strategy produced awful, useless data.”
“Jones is clearly wrong. His terrible experiment totally failed to control for age, and his conclusions are absurd.”
A study reported a 15% productivity gain, but it surveyed only 45 employees.
Building Scholarly Ethos Through Balanced Framing
Constructing ethos
Acknowledging valid alternative viewpoints or limitations presents an image of an unbiased, rigorous thinker. A writer who only ever dismisses opposing views looks less credible than one who engages with them fairly.
Avoid dismissive polarities
Presenting counter-evidence with professional respect strengthens the writer’s intellectual credibility rather than weakening the thesis. Dismissing an opposing study outright, without engaging with its actual claims, tends to make an argument look defensive rather than confident.
| Dismissive | Balanced, credible framing |
|---|---|
| “Lee’s flawed study is completely wrong about this.” | “Lee’s findings differ from those reported here, possibly due to differences in sample size.” |
| “This outdated theory has no relevance today.” | “This theory has been challenged by more recent findings, though it remains influential in the field.” |
“This theory is obviously wrong, and the people who still support it are ignoring the facts.”
Balanced framing phrases
“Although X …, Y …”
“While X suggests …, Y indicates …”
“X offers a useful starting point; however, …”
“These findings differ from those of X, possibly because of …”
“X has been questioned by more recent work, though it remains influential.”
“Despite its limitations, X provides preliminary evidence for …”
Extra writing practice
“Kim’s study is garbage because it only had 20 people.”
“Only a fool would still believe the old theory.”
“Davis says remote work is great, but he’s totally wrong because his data is old.”
“My results prove that the other researchers are wrong.”
“Singh wrongly claims that class size has no effect on results.”
Your survey had a low response rate (22%), but the results were consistent with earlier studies.
Park (2020) found that online classes improved grades. Wu (2022) found no effect.
“Everyone knows the old method is useless. Nguyen’s team was stupid to use it. Our new method is obviously much better, so no one should use the old one.”
Neutralisation Workshop
Transform each biased or inappropriately phrased sentence into neutral, objective academic prose. Apply everything from this session: remove second-person address, eliminate value-laden language, and adjust point of view.
Objectivity and Perspective Audit
Rewrite the passage below as an objective, third-person paragraph that maintains scholarly distance. Remove personal bias, second-person address, emotional adjectives, and subjective criticism, replacing them with non-judgmental evaluation frames.
Session 2 Summary Sheet
Download a one-page PDF summarising the point-of-view rules, value-laden vocabulary swaps, and ethos-building guidelines from this session.
Session 2: Maintaining Objectivity and Scholarly Distance
Point of view rules · value-laden language swaps · neutral critique framing · ethos guidelines
Session 2 complete
You have covered scholarly distance, point of view, value-laden language, and ethos-building through balanced framing. Download your takeaway summary any time from the previous step.