by H. Kalpana Rao
In recent years, an important aspect in research documents is the use of personal pronouns which has made me reflect regarding the attitudes within academia in our universities. This reflection was spurred by the distinct approaches taken by two scholars, one female and one male, in the articulation of their theses.
In a past instance, a female scholar boldly opted for the consistent use of the personal pronoun ‘I’ throughout her thesis. This departure from the traditional practice of employing the term ‘researcher’ was a deliberate choice, demonstrating her ownership of the conceptualized research and positioning her identity as a woman within the context of victimization and oppression. While I applauded her for this personalized approach, the examiner during the defence took exception, emphasizing the need for objectivity and the conventional use of ‘researcher.’
Conversely, a male scholar in a subsequent instance adhered to the conventional terminology of ‘researcher,’ despite my encouragement to embrace the personal pronoun. These divergent approaches compelled me to ponder the underlying motivations and attitudes shaping the researcher’s relationship with their work.
Upon further exploration of research works by various scholars, a pattern emerged among my female researchers who leaned towards utilizing the personal pronoun. It became apparent that they sought to infuse their dissertations with a personal touch, an act of appropriation that goes beyond the so-called objectivity. While research demands objectivity, it should never be rendered voiceless. Research, at its core, is an endeavour to engage with a subject, to raise compelling questions and concerns.
Consider, for instance, a literary analysis of “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.” When adopting the role of a researcher, detached from the narrative, one can explore the symbolism of fairness, beauty, and the nuanced meanings within the dwarfs, the woods, or any other contextual element. Alternatively, embracing the ‘I’ presence allows for a more fluid generation of queries, as the researcher becomes the referent, fostering a unique perspective.
It is crucial to recognize that utilizing personal pronouns does not negate the value of researchers who prefer the conventional label. However, in the humanities, it is imperative that we cultivate a platform where the ‘I’ can coexist alongside the researcher, enabling scholars to express their perspectives and articulate their voices. This imperative becomes even more pronounced for women researchers, as they navigate the challenge of articulating and establishing their distinct voices within the academic discourse.
In conclusion, humanities research is a dynamic process rather than a static endpoint. Researchers in this field contribute to the evolution of thought, analyzing literary texts and cultural norms to create a network of diverse meanings. Consequently, the use of personal pronouns emerges as a meaningful and valid choice, enhancing the richness and depth of the research work.