No, literature reviews are usually written in third person; use first person only for limited methodological statements.
A literature review synthesizes what scholars have already said, shows where the gaps are, and sets up your study. Readers expect clear synthesis, careful attribution, and steady voice. That’s why third person and past tense tend to carry the load. First person isn’t banned, though. It plays a small, well-defined role when you need to name what you did, what you included or excluded, or how you structured your search. This guide shows when each choice works, so your review reads clean, credible, and grader-proof.
Are Literature Reviews Written In First Person? Variations Across Fields
Different disciplines set different norms. Many social sciences allow a brief “I/we” in methods or scope. Many humanities papers stay fully impersonal. Biology and health sciences lean third person in the review, then permit first person in your study’s method or contribution lines. If you’re writing for a course or journal, the house rules win; always match your target venue.
Quick Field Guide To Voice Choices
Scan this table before you start drafting. It shows the typical person used in literature reviews across common fields and where a small dose of first person can make sense.
| Discipline/Context | Typical Person | Where First Person Fits |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology & Social Sciences | Third person | Brief “I/we” in scope or method lines (e.g., databases searched) |
| Education | Third person | Short “I/we” when stating criteria or positionality statement |
| Nursing & Health | Third person | Small “we” to clarify the review process or inclusion rules |
| STEM (General) | Third person | Occasional “we” to point to your analysis choices |
| Humanities | Third person | Rare; stick to author- and text-led phrasing |
| Business & Management | Third person | Short “we” when stating search strategy or framework built |
| Thesis/Dissertation | Third person | Program-dependent; many allow limited “I/we” in method notes |
| Journal Submission | Third person | Follow author guidelines; some journals invite “we” in methods |
Main Goal Of A Literature Review
The review isn’t a diary of your opinions. It’s a map of the scholarly conversation. You group studies by theme, method, theory, or findings, weigh their strengths, show where they clash, and reveal open questions. To get that tone, third person keeps the focus on sources and claims, not on the author’s presence.
When A Small First Person Works
Use first person with a light touch when you must point to your specific actions. Short, plain statements help:
- Method signalers: “We searched Scopus and PubMed from 2014–2024.”
- Scope boundaries: “I excluded case reports to keep the dataset comparative.”
- Structure choices: “We organized the review by mechanism rather than chronology.”
These lines add clarity and accountability. Keep them brief, then switch back to third person for synthesis.
When Third Person Serves You Better
Most of the review belongs in third person. It centers the evidence rather than the writer:
- Synthesis: “Prior studies link teacher feedback frequency with gains in writing fluency.”
- Evaluation: “The small sample and single site limit transferability.”
- Comparison: “Findings diverge on long-term retention, likely due to design variance.”
Point Of View And Style Guidance From Authorities
Style manuals give room for first person in the right spots. APA’s guidance on first-person pronouns says to use “I/we” when referring to yourself or coauthors, rather than describing yourself in third person. Many university guides describe the literature review as synthesis-forward and source-driven; see the UNC Writing Center handout on literature reviews for structure and purpose cues that pair well with third person. These references line up with the approach here.
Phrase Patterns You Can Copy
Swap vague “I think” lines for crisp, source-anchored claims. The right phrasing keeps your stance clear without turning the review into commentary.
Reliable Third-Person Moves
- “Studies converge on …”
- “Evidence is mixed on …”
- “The strongest effects appear in …”
- “Findings hinge on sample size and task design.”
Careful First-Person Moves (Use Sparingly)
- “We restricted the scope to peer-reviewed studies.”
- “I defined inclusion criteria to exclude single-case designs.”
- “We coded outcomes using a common rubric.”
Are Literature Reviews Written In First Person? Writer’s Checklist
Writers often ask: are literature reviews written in first person? The safest path is third person for synthesis, with tiny, pointed first-person phrases only when you must name your process. Use this checklist while drafting to keep voice consistent and credible.
Voice & Scope
- Third person carries each theme paragraph.
- First person appears only in short method/scope sentences.
- Past tense for findings; present tense for enduring theory or definitions.
Clarity & Flow
- Group sources by theme, method, or theory; avoid one-study-per-paragraph book reports.
- Lead each section with a claim, then back it with sources.
- Use topic sentences and signposts (“Two strands emerge …”).
Writing A Literature Review In First Person: When It Works
Sometimes an assignment or journal prefers direct voice. In that case, fold in first person for transparency, not opinion. Keep each “I/we” tied to an action or decision that affects the review’s shape. Then shift back to third person so the discussion stays source-centered.
Sample Sentences You Can Adapt
- “We searched ERIC and PsycINFO using controlled vocabulary and keywords.”
- “I included only quasi-experimental and randomized designs to track causal claims.”
- “We defined ‘engagement’ as behavioral and cognitive indicators recorded during class.”
Pitfalls That Make A Review Sound Off
Voice is one piece; the bigger danger is poor synthesis. Watch out for these habits that sink quality:
- List without synthesis: Paragraphs that just summarize one article at a time.
- Opinion drift: Long first-person takes without evidence.
- Scope creep: Sources outside your time frame or domain clog the narrative.
- Over-quotation: Heavy quoting crowds out your synthesis language.
Compact Voice Rules You Can Memorize
Use these short rules to keep your tone steady:
- Keep the review’s body in third person.
- Drop in first person for search, screening, coding, or structure choices.
- State claims, then cite evidence that backs each claim.
- Trim filler words that don’t move the argument.
Side-By-Side Voice Tweaks
Here are quick rewrites that keep your meaning while shifting the focus to sources and evidence.
| Purpose | First-Person Line | Third-Person Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| Report a pattern | “I found consistent gains in reading fluency.” | “Multiple studies report gains in reading fluency.” |
| Note disagreement | “We saw conflicting results across cohorts.” | “Results conflict across cohorts.” |
| Flag a limitation | “I think small samples limit claims.” | “Small samples limit claims.” |
| Define scope | “We included only peer-reviewed studies.” | “Only peer-reviewed studies are included.” |
| Explain structure | “I organize by mechanism, not year.” | “Sections are organized by mechanism, not year.” |
| Credit a gap | “We saw few long-term trials.” | “Few long-term trials are available.” |
| State implication | “I argue that sample bias drives effects.” | “Sample bias may drive effects.” |
Sentence Frames For Theme-Led Paragraphs
Mix and match these frames to build paragraphs that read smoothly:
- “Across classroom studies, two trends appear: ___ and ___.”
- “Evidence favors ___ under lab conditions, while field work points to ___.”
- “Method choices explain much of the spread in results.”
- “Later work revises the early claim by adding ___.”
Verb Tense Choices That Read Clean
Use past tense for the actions and results reported in prior studies. Use present tense for general truths or definitions. Examples:
- Past: “Smith (2019) reported gains after six weeks.”
- Present: “Cognitive load theory predicts a trade-off.”
Active Voice Without Overexposure
Active voice keeps sentences short and direct. You don’t need first person to get that punch. “The trial showed higher retention” reads cleaner than “It was shown that retention was higher.”
Instructor Or Journal Rules Always Win
When a professor or journal gives a template, follow it. If the guide allows first person in set places, use it. If it bans first person outright, stick to third person. The question “are literature reviews written in first person?” always bends to the audience you’re writing for.
Mini Style Map You Can Keep Near Your Keyboard
Do
- Center claims on sources and evidence.
- Use “I/we” only when you must describe your review steps.
- Keep tone neutral and measured.
- Prefer short sentences and plain verbs.
Don’t
- Pad paragraphs with opinion.
- Shift person mid-paragraph without a reason.
- Overuse passive voice to dodge clarity.
- Drop unsourced claims about effects or prevalence.
Final Take
For nearly every assignment and journal, a literature review reads best in third person with rare, purposeful first-person lines to label your process. Keep “I/we” short and functional, then move right back to evidence-led synthesis. That blend gives readers what they came for: a clear picture of what the field already knows, what’s contested, and where your study fits.