Academic voice: On feminism, presence, and objectivity in writing

Abstract

Academic voice is an oft-discussed, yet variably defined concept, and confusion exists over its meaning, evaluation, and interpretation. This paper will explore perspectives on academic voice and counterarguments to the positivist origins of objectivity in academic writing. While many epistemological and methodological perspectives exist, the feminist literature on voice is explored here as the contrary position. From the feminist perspective, voice is a socially constructed concept that cannot be separated from the experiences, emotions, and identity of the writer and, thus, constitutes a reflection of an author's way of knowing. A case study of how author presence can enhance meaning in text is included. Subjective experience is imperative to a practice involving human interaction. Nursing practice, our intimate involvement in patient's lives, and the nature of our research are not value free. A view is presented that a visible presence of an author in academic writing is relevant to the nursing discipline. The continued valuing of an objective, colorless academic voice has consequences for student writers and the faculty who teach them. Thus, a strategically used multivoiced writing style is warranted.

Constructing Writing Practices in Nursing

“…In product perspectives, the author and text are separate entities and the author is invisible and thought to not exist in the product. Product assessments decode writing for its grammar, syntax, and structure-the surface elements of writing-which are limiting to our understanding of the complexities inherent in the act of composing written work (Elton, 2010;Mitchell, 2017).…”

“…Disciplinary discourse perspectives of writing recognize that writers situate the language choices they make, their stance, and their knowledge within the tacit social context of their discipline (Hyland, 2004). However, generic instruction assumes the writing act is objective, formulistic, and positivist in nature (Gimenez, 2012;Mitchell, 2017;Webb, 1992)-a stance that Ryan, Walker, Scaia, and Smith (2014) referred to as insular, and which is also incongruent with the nursing value of relationality. Positivism, as applied to academic writing, assumes that it is possible for the author to separate themselves from past experience, emotional response to the content, and the context in which the writing takes place.…”

“…Positivists see writing as mechanical and linear, and thus measurable through quantitative methods (St. Pierre, 2014). The author is expected to remain invisible in the work (Mitchell, 2017). Passive voice, avoidance of first person, and a disengaged narrative are considered features of positivist writing (Tierney, 2002).…”

“…The goal of writing should be to create meaning and knowing. Writing that has meaning to practitioners, students, and the public requires considering factors, including disciplinary and writing context (Allen et al, 1989;Dieklemann & Ironside, 1998;Gimenez, 2012;Webb, 1992), creativity (Hanson Diehl, 2007;Rolfe, 1997), emotional responses (Chaudior, Lasiuk, & Trepanier, 2016;Parboteeah & Anwar, 2009), audience needs (Rolfe, 1997;Ryan, Walker, Scaia, & Smith, 2014), reflexivity (Mullhall, 1997;Ryan et al, 2014), and writer identity and voice (Mitchell, 2017;Ryan et al, 2014;Webb, 1992). These are only a sampling of citations from nurse writers who have previously connected the values of nursing to the writing process, although interdisciplinary authors looking at writing's social constructs present similar factors (e.g., Flower, 1994;Game & Metcalfe, 1996;Ivanič, 1998;Nightingale, 1988;Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005).…”

Five Steps to Writing More Engaging Qualitative Research

“…We assimilate these barbs into our identities, and our writing suffers via safe, stilted, disengaged prose (Sword, 2012). Creative word choices, elegant turns of phrase, or heaven forbid, saying exactly what we really mean, are cast as risks that descend us into academic purgatory: labeled as biased, unprofessional, and not taken seriously (Mitchell, 2017). In a world in which academic writing matters to us so much, counts for so much in our work, but is often so unengaging (Sword, 2012), how can our qualitative research writing improve?…”