Yes, first person can appear in a literature review when your style guide or supervisor allows it, used sparingly for methods or stance.
Writers often hear a blanket “no I or we in academic work.” That rule isn’t universal. Whether you can use first-person voice in a review section depends on your discipline, the target venue, and the style guide you follow. This guide lays out when it fits, when it distracts, and how to make smart choices that keep your review clear, credible, and consistent.
Why This Question Comes Up
A review section synthesizes what others have argued, tested, or reported. Because the job centers on sources, many teachers steer students toward a neutral, third-person voice. Still, some style authorities permit first-person pronouns in limited spots, especially when you describe your own scope, method, or reasons for including or excluding bodies of work.
Using First Person In A Literature Review — Style Rules
Before you draft, check the governing rules. Two sources shape expectations for many courses and journals:
- APA’s “no first-person” myth notes that writers may use I/we where it clarifies author actions and avoids awkward third-person self-reference.
- Purdue OWL on literature reviews explains that the genre centers on synthesis; voice choice should serve that aim.
Programs and advisors also set norms. Some prefer a fully impersonal tone; others welcome brief, purposeful first-person lines that state scope or claim responsibility for evaluative choices.
Discipline Snapshot: What The Guides Say
Here’s a quick-glance view of common guides and how they treat first-person voice when used carefully in a review section. Always follow the specific journal, department, or instructor policy.
| Style/Field | First-Person Stance | Typical Use In Reviews |
|---|---|---|
| APA (social sciences) | Permitted in measured, task-based statements (I/we) per APA guidance. | Clarify selection criteria, define scope, state synthesis approach. Source: APA blog on first-person myth. |
| MLA (humanities) | Case-by-case; voice varies by instructor and venue. | Occasional first-person lines for argumentative framing; keep analysis source-driven. See MLA overview via Purdue OWL. |
| Chicago/Turabian | No blanket ban; opinions differ; some venues accept restrained use. | Brief statements of method or stance when needed; otherwise third-person summary. See CMOS/Turabian notes. |
When First Person Works
Use I/we when the sentence must show author action or responsibility. Short, targeted lines prevent clunky phrasing and keep agency honest.
Good Fits
- Method signposts: “I searched three databases and screened 412 records.”
- Scope decisions: “We limited the corpus to peer-reviewed work from 2015–2024.”
- Analytic stance: “I synthesize findings using a thematic scheme with three strands.”
- Definitions you set: “We use the term ‘program fidelity’ for consistency with X and Y.”
When Third Person Fits Better
Most of a review summarizes and synthesizes prior studies. In those passages, the research—not the writer—belongs in the foreground.
Best Uses Of Third Person
- Source claims: “Smith (2022) reports gains after twelve weeks.”
- Comparisons: “Across mixed-methods studies, sample sizes ranged from 28 to 310.”
- Trends: “Recent work clusters around teacher training, assessment design, and equity.”
- Gaps: “Few studies test long-term retention beyond six months.”
Keep It Measured: Tone And Frequency
Even when allowed, overuse of I/we shifts attention from evidence to the author. Aim for an occasional first-person line that earns its keep. Most sentences should point to sources, patterns, and claims in the literature.
Clarity Over Workarounds
Old advice pushed writers to dodge I/we with phrases like “the author conducted” or “this paper will argue.” Those workarounds can feel stiff and vague. When you need to name an action you took, a short first-person clause is cleaner than a third-person detour.
Test Your Voice With These Checks
Scope Check
Ask, “Does this sentence describe my process or the field’s findings?” If it’s your process, a brief first-person line can be apt. If it’s the field, keep the focus on sources.
Agency Check
Avoid attributing actions to papers or studies (“the review argues”). People argue; documents don’t. A short “I argue” line is cleaner than a forced passive construction.
Consistency Check
Pick a voice pattern and keep it steady. A review that jumps between I/we/the author without reason feels uneven.
Editorial Expectations And Course Rules
Many journals post author guidelines; some ask for first-person plural in multi-author work, while others prefer a neutral narration. In courses, instructors may set a stricter rule for grading consistency. When unsure, match the posted guide and ask early.
Helpful Guideposts
- APA resources endorse first-person statements that prevent awkward self-reference. See the APA blog linked above.
- Chicago/Turabian notes that opinions differ, which leaves room for measured use when it serves clarity.
- Humanities venues tied to MLA vary; many accept writer presence in argumentative openings, yet still expect source-driven synthesis.
Write Crisp First-Person Lines
When you do use I/we, keep sentences short and concrete. Name the action, the object, and the reason.
Templates You Can Adapt
- “I include studies that meet three criteria: peer review, K–12 settings, and pre/post measures.”
- “We exclude single-case reports because they do not fit the comparison goal.”
- “I group findings by research design to show where results converge.”
- “We define ‘novice teacher’ as 0–3 years to align with X.”
Avoid Common Missteps
- Over-narrating your process: Keep process notes concise; move details to Methods if the venue separates sections.
- Hedging with filler: Phrases like “I believe” or “I feel” add little. State the claim and back it with sources.
- Slipping into evaluation without evidence: Pair any judgment with citations and criteria.
- Switching person mid-paragraph: Stay steady within a passage unless you shift tasks (e.g., from process to synthesis).
Editor-Ready Process You Can Follow
Step 1: Confirm The Rule Set
Check the journal or assignment brief. Note any language about voice, person, or stance. If the brief names a style (APA, MLA, Chicago), open that guide and scan sections on point of view.
Step 2: Map Where Author Action Appears
List the places where you, not the sources, act: search strategy, screening, inclusion rules, synthesis method. These are the few spots that may warrant I/we.
Step 3: Draft Source-Led Paragraphs First
Build synthesis blocks that track patterns across studies. Keep verbs tied to authors and findings.
Step 4: Add Brief Author Cues
Insert short first-person lines where they prevent clunky phrasing or mark your method choices. Keep them rare.
Step 5: Smooth For Consistency
Scan for mixed voice and fix stray references to “the author” when you mean you. Trim any self-referential lines that don’t carry weight.
Sample Openings You Can Borrow
Neutral Opening (No First Person)
This review surveys assessment studies published from 2015 to 2024, grouping results by design and context to trace where findings align.
Measured Presence (With First Person)
I survey assessment studies from 2015 to 2024 and group results by design and context to show where findings align.
Both versions set scope and method. Pick the one that matches the rule set you confirmed earlier.
Sentence Moves For Synthesis
- “Across randomized trials, intervention effects cluster near small to moderate.”
- “Qualitative studies point to three recurring barriers: time, training, and tool access.”
- “When samples include adult learners, completion rates climb.”
- “Where studies track outcomes past six months, gains fade.”
Reader Experience: Keep Friction Low
Short paragraphs help readers scan quickly. Use verbs that show action. Keep tables tidy and narrow. Link sparingly to high-authority resources that confirm rules or define terms—a couple of strategic links beat a long list of low-value pages.
Pros And Trade-Offs Of First Person In Review Sections
| Benefit | Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Clear agency for methods and choices. | Shifts focus from sources to the writer. | Limit to brief process lines; keep synthesis source-led. |
| Prevents awkward third-person self-reference. | Voice can feel informal in strict venues. | Check venue rules; switch to third person where required. |
| Matches guides that permit author presence. | Inconsistent person within paragraphs jars readers. | Set a rule for yourself; apply it across the draft. |
Discipline Nuance: Social Sciences, Humanities, STEM
Social science venues tied to APA often accept I/we for process and scope. Humanities venues linked to MLA may welcome writer presence in argument set-ups yet still expect source-driven prose in the body. STEM outlets vary; many keep the review impersonal and move any author-action lines to a Methods section. Chicago/Turabian acknowledges this spread and leaves room for editorial choice.
Quick Repair Kit For Common Sentences
From Wordy To Clean
- Wordy: “The author of this paper will examine prior research…”
- Clean third person: “This review examines prior research…”
- Clean first person: “I examine prior research…”
From Passive To Direct
- Passive: “It was decided that only peer-reviewed sources would be included.”
- Direct first person: “We included only peer-reviewed sources.”
- Direct third person: “The review includes only peer-reviewed sources.”
How To Cite Your Guideposts
When you state a rule that comes from a style authority, cite it. Link the exact page, not a homepage. Up top, you saw links to an APA page on first-person pronouns and a Purdue OWL page that explains the review genre. Use links like those in your manuscript or reference list as the venue requires.
Final Take
First-person voice in a review section isn’t a blanket “yes” or “no.” It’s a tool. Use it when you must show author action—screening, inclusion choices, synthesis plan—and keep the rest of the prose centered on sources. Match the posted guide, follow your venue’s rules, and let clarity lead the way.