Let’s deal with my first idiotic question as more will follow.
I have to write a paper answering a series of questions. All of which is fine and I can write the whole thing in the third person, but one section requires me to say how I would have done something in contrast to how it was actually done.
Would you use the first person? (I just don’t think I should), but if I should not, how would I describe what I would do as opposed to Lord cardigan…
What happened:
“he led them in to the valley of death”
What I would do:
? How would I describe it with out saying " I would not have led them… Etc"
I deal with this all the time writing history papers for reviewed journals. So from a history writing perspective:
History: Benjamin Grubb Humphries’ 21st Mississippi broke off from the right flank of Barksdale’s charge across the Emittsburg Road in order to attempt to capture a Federal battery engaging the brigade from their right flank.
Author’s insertion/opinion into history: As Barksdale was one of the few officers on horseback during the charge, he should have been able to see Humphries’ 21st Mississippi breaking off to the right denying him one quarter of his combat power just as he entered the Peach Orchard and began their assault on the Federal line.
rendering a counter factual judgement based on the author’s opinion is a delicate balance between what should have happened or might have happened—and judging the past from today’s perspectives and values which is mere presentism.
Lord Cardigan erred in listening to his asshat brother in law. What he should have done was send a runner to confirm the order since it is suicidal to send light cavalry against entrenched gun placements. Had Lord Cardigan implemented this simple prudent confirmation instead of rigidly following orders passed to him by a known asshat many lives would have been saved, although the world would be deprived of a great poem and Errol Flynn movie.
ETA I forget if Cardigan or his brother in law was the incompetent boob. But you get the drift for writing.
in the land of publishing stuff, it tends to be field-dependent. I’m in mathematics education and we tend to write in first person. Not sure what your subject is but I suspect it would be fine to switch to first person… what’s the topic?
I tend to avoid first person in discussion or implications. Why? Because it is already implied as the author. It seems redundant to state “I think that the CEO should…” or “I feel a better approach…” As the reader, we know you think and feel that way because you wrote it.
I do, however, tend to switch verb tenses. Writing becomes a bit more passive voice. “Leadership should have considered…xyz” or “In future considerations, leadership may wish to…” Some of it also comes from finding your own voice in writing. One of the more difficult things to do in academic writing is to make strong statements that aren’t backed up by theory or literature. That comes with time. Don’t shy away from taking strong stands. Just support them “Leadership should have considered xyz which support the findings of Andrewmc (2010) linking a to b.”
Be sure to throw in a comment regarding how Trump would have botched something. That should gain you a few extra points.
Here in the LR, when I begin arguments with gratuitous Trump insults they are way less likely to be met with any objection. You leave out the insults and people get pissed off.
I’m in the same boat! Unfortunately writing is not my strong suit. I’m working on my paper too and I decided to apply to website that writes papers to help me wit that task. Good luck with your writing, man!
Reasonable approach. Remember that you’re writing to fulfill an assignment/course requirement not actually explain or solve a problem. You seem to have that pretty well figured out though.