can a research essay be in first person

The “no first-person” myth

• First-Person Pronouns
• Research and Publication

In this series, we look at common APA Style misconceptions and debunk these myths one by one.

Many writers believe the “no first-person” myth, which is that writers cannot use first-person pronouns such as “I” or “we” in an APA Style paper. This myth implies that writers must instead refer to themselves in the third person (e.g., as “the author” or “the authors”). However, APA Style has no such rule against using first-person pronouns and actually encourages their use to avoid ambiguity in attribution!

When expressing your own views or the views of yourself and fellow authors, use the pronouns “I” or “we” and the like . Similarly, when writing your paper, use first-person pronouns when describing work you did by yourself or work you and your fellow authors did together when conducting your research. For example, use “we interviewed participants” rather than “the authors interviewed participants.” When writing an APA Style paper by yourself, use the first-person pronoun “I” to refer to yourself. And use the pronoun “we” when writing an APA Style paper with others. Here are some phrases you might use in your paper:

“I think…” “I believe…” “I interviewed the participants…” “I analyzed the data…” “My analysis of the data revealed…” “We concluded…” “Our results showed…”

This guidance can be found in Section 4.16 of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Seventh Edition and in Section 2.16 of the Concise Guide to APA Style, Seventh Edition . It represents a continuation of a long-standing APA Style guideline that began with the second edition of the manual, in 1974.

Keep in mind that you should avoid using the editorial “we” to refer to people in general so that it is clear to readers to whom you are referring. Instead, use more specific nouns such as “people” or “researchers.”

As always, defer to your instructors’ guidelines when writing student papers. For example, your instructor may ask students to avoid using first-person language. If so, follow that guideline for work in your class.

Now that we’ve debunked another myth, go forth APA Style writers, using the first-person when appropriate!

What myth should we debunk next? Leave a comment below.

Related and recent

Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

APA Style Monthly

Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

APA Style Guidelines

Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category

• Abbreviations
• Bias-Free Language
• Capitalization
• In-Text Citations
• Italics and Quotation Marks
• Paper Format
• Punctuation
• Spelling and Hyphenation
• Tables and Figures

Full index of topics

Can a Research Paper Be in First Person?

Can a research paper be in first person? Get to know the rules and instructions for writing a successful paper in the first person.

Writing a research paper requires careful consideration of a range of factors, including structure, content, and language. One common question that arises when writing a research paper is whether or not it is acceptable to use the first person point of view. While there is no precise answer to this question, understanding the benefits of using the first person can help you make an informed decision about how to approach your writing. In this article, we will explore the use of the first person in research papers, including when it is appropriate when it should be avoided, and tips for using personal pronouns effectively. 

What is a Research Paper?

A research paper is a type of academic writing that presents the author’s original research or analysis on a specific topic. It typically involves conducting extensive research and gathering data from various sources, such as primary and secondary sources. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new knowledge or insights to the field, demonstrate the author’s expertise and understanding of the topic, and provide evidence to support their arguments or conclusions. 

Research papers typically follow a specific structure, including an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion . They are often published in academic journals or presented at conferences and are an essential part of the academic research process.

What is the First Person Point of View?

The first person point of view is a narrative perspective in which the author or speaker tells the story or presents their thoughts and experiences using personal pronouns such as “I” “me” “we” and “us”. It is a way of writing that directly involves the reader in the experience of the narrator or protagonist. 

The first person point of view is commonly used in autobiographical writing, personal essays, and memoirs, as it allows the writer to share their personal experiences and perspectives with the reader. It can also be used in fiction writing, where the narrator or protagonist is telling the story from their own perspective, providing insight into their thoughts, emotions, and motivations.

Can You Use “I” in a Research Paper?

In general, it is not recommended to use the first person point of view or “I” in a research paper, as it is considered more formal to use a third person point of view. The focus in academic writing is on presenting objective information and analysis, rather than personal opinions or experiences. Using “I” may imply subjectivity or bias, and can undermine the credibility of the research. 

Then, can a research paper be in first person? However, there may be some exceptions to this rule, such as in certain fields or when writing about personal experiences related to the research topic. It is always important to check the specific guidelines or expectations of the intended audience or publisher before deciding on the appropriate style and voice to use in a research paper.

When Should You Avoid Using the First Person?

It is generally recommended to avoid using the first person point of view in academic and professional writing, especially in formal contexts such as research papers, academic essays, and business reports. Here are some situations when it is best to avoid using the first person:

• In academic writing, it can imply subjectivity or bias and may undermine the credibility of the research.
• In business or professional writing, it can come across as overly personal or informal.
• In technical writing, it can be distracting or confusing for readers who are looking for objective information.
• In writing for a general audience, it may not be appropriate or necessary to use personal pronouns to convey information effectively.
• In situations where it is important to maintain a formal or objective tone, such as in legal or scientific writing.

When to Use the First Person?

There are some situations in which using the first person point of view can be appropriate and effective. Here are some examples of how to use the first person:

Personal narratives

When writing personal narratives or memoirs, using the first person can be appropriate and engaging for the reader, as it helps to convey the writer’s unique perspective and experiences.

Reflective writing

When writing reflective essays or journal entries, using the first person can help to convey the writer’s thoughts, feelings, and insights about a particular topic or experience.

Scientific writing

In some scientific writing, such as case studies or research papers in social sciences or humanities, it may be appropriate to use the first person to convey the researcher’s involvement in the study or to emphasize the importance of the researcher’s perspective.

Persuasive writing

When writing persuasive essays or opinion pieces, using the first person can help to make the writer’s arguments and opinions more compelling and convincing.

Creative writing

In poetry, fiction, or other forms of creative writing, using the first person can help to create a more intimate and personal connection between the writer and the reader.

It is important to note that these are general guidelines, and the decision to use the first person should always be based on the specific context and audience for the writing.

Third Person Pronoun in Research Paper

Can a research paper be in first person? The answer to this question is that the third person point of view is typically used to create an objective and impartial tone. This means that personal pronouns such as “I,” “you,” and “we” are avoided in favor of more objective language, such as “the author,” “the researchers,” or “the participants.” 

By using the third person point of view, the focus is shifted away from the author’s personal experiences and opinions and instead emphasizes the importance of the research topic and findings. This also helps to create a more formal and academic tone, which is appropriate for research papers. Using the third person point of view can help to avoid biases and assumptions that may be present in first or second person writing.

Tips for Using Personal Pronouns

Here are some other tips for using personal pronouns in writing:

Use personal pronouns sparingly

While personal pronouns can be effective in certain contexts, it is generally best to use them sparingly to avoid distracting or confusing the reader.

Vary your pronouns

Instead of using “I” repeatedly, try varying your personal pronouns by using “we” or “you” when appropriate. This can help to create a more engaging and inclusive tone.

Be consistent

If you choose to use personal pronouns, be consistent in your usage throughout the piece. Avoid switching back and forth between first, second, and third person, as this can be jarring for the reader.

Check the guidelines

If you are writing for a particular audience or publication, be sure to check their guidelines or style guide for guidance on the appropriate use of personal pronouns.

Consider the impact on tone and credibility

Before using personal pronouns, consider how they will impact the tone and credibility of your writing. In some cases, using personal pronouns can make your writing more relatable and engaging, while in other cases it may come across as too informal or subjective.

200+ Pre-Made Beautiful Templates For Professional Infographics

Mind the Graph is a platform designed to help scientists create visually stunning and effective presentations, posters, and publications. One of the key features that set Mind the Graph apart is its library of 200+ pre-made beautiful templates for professional infographics. These templates are specifically designed to meet the needs of scientists. Using these templates, scientists can quickly and easily create infographics that are both visually appealing and scientifically accurate.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Sign Up for Free

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

Content tags

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

Can You Use First-Person Pronouns (I/we) in a Research Paper?

Research writers frequently wonder whether the first person can be used in academic and scientific writing. In truth, for generations, we’ve been discouraged from using “I” and “we” in academic writing simply due to old habits. That’s right—there’s no reason why you can’t use these words! In fact, the academic community used first-person pronouns until the 1920s, when the third person and passive-voice constructions (that is, “boring” writing) were adopted–prominently expressed, for example, in Strunk and White’s classic writing manual “Elements of Style” first published in 1918, that advised writers to place themselves “in the background” and not draw attention to themselves.

In recent decades, however, changing attitudes about the first person in academic writing has led to a paradigm shift, and we have, however, we’ve shifted back to producing active and engaging prose that incorporates the first person.

Can You Use “I” in a Research Paper?

However, “I” and “we” still have some generally accepted pronoun rules writers should follow. For example, the first person is more likely used in the abstract , Introduction section , Discussion section , and Conclusion section of an academic paper while the third person and passive constructions are found in the Methods section and Results section .

In this article, we discuss when you should avoid personal pronouns and when they may enhance your writing.

It’s Okay to Use First-Person Pronouns to:

• clarify meaning by eliminating passive voice constructions;
• establish authority and credibility (e.g., assert ethos, the Aristotelian rhetorical term referring to the personal character);
• express interest in a subject matter (typically found in rapid correspondence);
• establish personal connections with readers, particularly regarding anecdotal or hypothetical situations (common in philosophy, religion, and similar fields, particularly to explore how certain concepts might impact personal life. Additionally, artistic disciplines may also encourage personal perspectives more than other subjects);
• to emphasize or distinguish your perspective while discussing existing literature; and
• to create a conversational tone (rare in academic writing).

The First Person Should Be Avoided When:

• doing so would remove objectivity and give the impression that results or observations are unique to your perspective;
• you wish to maintain an objective tone that would suggest your study minimized biases as best as possible; and
• expressing your thoughts generally (phrases like “I think” are unnecessary because any statement that isn’t cited should be yours).

Usage Examples

The following examples compare the impact of using and avoiding first-person pronouns.

Example 1 (First Person Preferred):

To understand the effects of global warming on coastal regions,  changes in sea levels, storm surge occurrences and precipitation amounts  were examined .

[Note: When a long phrase acts as the subject of a passive-voice construction, the sentence becomes difficult to digest. Additionally, since the author(s) conducted the research, it would be clearer to specifically mention them when discussing the focus of a project.]

We examined  changes in sea levels, storm surge occurrences, and precipitation amounts to understand how global warming impacts coastal regions.

[Note: When describing the focus of a research project, authors often replace “we” with phrases such as “this study” or “this paper.” “We,” however, is acceptable in this context, including for scientific disciplines. In fact, papers published the vast majority of scientific journals these days use “we” to establish an active voice.   Be careful when using “this study” or “this paper” with verbs that clearly couldn’t have performed the action.   For example, “we attempt to demonstrate” works, but “the study attempts to demonstrate” does not; the study is not a person.]

Example 2 (First Person Discouraged):

From the various data points  we have received ,  we observed  that higher frequencies of runoffs from heavy rainfall have occurred in coastal regions where temperatures have increased by at least 0.9°C.

[Note: Introducing personal pronouns when discussing results raises questions regarding the reproducibility of a study. However, mathematics fields generally tolerate phrases such as “in X example, we see…”]

Coastal regions  with temperature increases averaging more than 0.9°C  experienced  higher frequencies of runoffs from heavy rainfall.

[Note: We removed the passive voice and maintained objectivity and assertiveness by specifically identifying the cause-and-effect elements as the actor and recipient of the main action verb. Additionally, in this version, the results appear independent of any person’s perspective.] 

Example 3 (First Person Preferred):

In contrast to the study by Jones et al. (2001), which suggests that milk consumption is safe for adults, the Miller study (2005) revealed the potential hazards of ingesting milk.  The authors confirm  this latter finding.

[Note: “Authors” in the last sentence above is unclear. Does the term refer to Jones et al., Miller, or the authors of the current paper?]

In contrast to the study by Jones et al. (2001), which suggests that milk consumption is safe for adults, the Miller study (2005) revealed the potential hazards of ingesting milk.  We confirm  this latter finding.

[Note: By using “we,” this sentence clarifies the actor and emphasizes the significance of the recent findings reported in this paper. Indeed, “I” and “we” are acceptable in most scientific fields to compare an author’s works with other researchers’ publications. The APA encourages using personal pronouns for this context. The social sciences broaden this scope to allow discussion of personal perspectives, irrespective of comparisons to other literature.]

Other Tips about Using Personal Pronouns

• Avoid starting a sentence with personal pronouns. The beginning of a sentence is a noticeable position that draws readers’ attention. Thus, using personal pronouns as the first one or two words of a sentence will draw unnecessary attention to them (unless, of course, that was your intent).
• Be careful how you define “we.” It should only refer to the authors and never the audience unless your intention is to write a conversational piece rather than a scholarly document! After all, the readers were not involved in analyzing or formulating the conclusions presented in your paper (although, we note that the point of your paper is to persuade readers to reach the same conclusions you did). While this is not a hard-and-fast rule, if you do want to use “we” to refer to a larger class of people, clearly define the term “we” in the sentence. For example, “As researchers, we frequently question…”
• First-person writing is becoming more acceptable under Modern English usage standards; however, the second-person pronoun “you” is still generally unacceptable because it is too casual for academic writing.
• Take all of the above notes with a grain of salt. That is,  double-check your institution or target journal’s author guidelines .  Some organizations may prohibit the use of personal pronouns.
• As an extra tip, before submission, you should always read through the most recent issues of a journal to get a better sense of the editors’ preferred writing styles and conventions.

Wordvice Resources

For more general advice on how to use active and passive voice in research papers, on how to paraphrase , or for a list of useful phrases for academic writing , head over to the Wordvice Academic Resources pages . And for more professional proofreading services , visit our Academic Editing and P aper Editing Services pages.

We Vs. They: Using the First & Third Person in Research Papers

Writing in the first , second , or third person is referred to as the author’s point of view . When we write, our tendency is to personalize the text by writing in the first person . That is, we use pronouns such as “I” and “we”. This is acceptable when writing personal information, a journal, or a book. However, it is not common in academic writing.

Some writers find the use of first , second , or third person point of view a bit confusing while writing research papers. Since second person is avoided while writing in academic or scientific papers, the main confusion remains within first or third person.

In the following sections, we will discuss the usage and examples of the first , second , and third person point of view.

First Person Pronouns

The first person point of view simply means that we use the pronouns that refer to ourselves in the text. These are as follows:

Can we use I or We In the Scientific Paper?

Using these, we present the information based on what “we” found. In science and mathematics, this point of view is rarely used. It is often considered to be somewhat self-serving and arrogant . It is important to remember that when writing your research results, the focus of the communication is the research and not the persons who conducted the research. When you want to persuade the reader, it is best to avoid personal pronouns in academic writing even when it is personal opinion from the authors of the study. In addition to sounding somewhat arrogant, the strength of your findings might be underestimated.

For example:

Based on my results, I concluded that A and B did not equal to C.

In this example, the entire meaning of the research could be misconstrued. The results discussed are not those of the author ; they are generated from the experiment. To refer to the results in this context is incorrect and should be avoided. To make it more appropriate, the above sentence can be revised as follows:

Based on the results of the assay, A and B did not equal to C.

Second Person Pronouns

The second person point of view uses pronouns that refer to the reader. These are as follows:

This point of view is usually used in the context of providing instructions or advice , such as in “how to” manuals or recipe books. The reason behind using the second person is to engage the reader.

You will want to buy a turkey that is large enough to feed your extended family. Before cooking it, you must wash it first thoroughly with cold water.

Although this is a good technique for giving instructions, it is not appropriate in academic or scientific writing.

Third Person Pronouns

The third person point of view uses both proper nouns, such as a person’s name, and pronouns that refer to individuals or groups (e.g., doctors, researchers) but not directly to the reader. The ones that refer to individuals are as follows:

• Hers (possessive form)
• His (possessive form)
• Its (possessive form)
• One’s (possessive form)

The third person point of view that refers to groups include the following:

• Their (possessive form)
• Theirs (plural possessive form)

Everyone at the convention was interested in what Dr. Johnson presented. The instructors decided that the students should help pay for lab supplies. The researchers determined that there was not enough sample material to conduct the assay.

The third person point of view is generally used in scientific papers but, at times, the format can be difficult. We use indefinite pronouns to refer back to the subject but must avoid using masculine or feminine terminology. For example:

A researcher must ensure that he has enough material for his experiment. The nurse must ensure that she has a large enough blood sample for her assay.

Many authors attempt to resolve this issue by using “he or she” or “him or her,” but this gets cumbersome and too many of these can distract the reader. For example:

A researcher must ensure that he or she has enough material for his or her experiment. The nurse must ensure that he or she has a large enough blood sample for his or her assay.

These issues can easily be resolved by making the subjects plural as follows:

Researchers must ensure that they have enough material for their experiment. Nurses must ensure that they have large enough blood samples for their assay.

Exceptions to the Rules

As mentioned earlier, the third person is generally used in scientific writing, but the rules are not quite as stringent anymore. It is now acceptable to use both the first and third person pronouns  in some contexts, but this is still under controversy.  

In a February 2011 blog on Eloquent Science , Professor David M. Schultz presented several opinions on whether the author viewpoints differed. However, there appeared to be no consensus. Some believed that the old rules should stand to avoid subjectivity, while others believed that if the facts were valid, it didn’t matter which point of view was used.

First or Third Person: What Do The Journals Say

In general, it is acceptable in to use the first person point of view in abstracts, introductions, discussions, and conclusions, in some journals. Even then, avoid using “I” in these sections. Instead, use “we” to refer to the group of researchers that were part of the study. The third person point of view is used for writing methods and results sections. Consistency is the key and switching from one point of view to another within sections of a manuscript can be distracting and is discouraged. It is best to always check your author guidelines for that particular journal. Once that is done, make sure your manuscript is free from the above-mentioned or any other grammatical error.

You are the only researcher involved in your thesis project. You want to avoid using the first person point of view throughout, but there are no other researchers on the project so the pronoun “we” would not be appropriate. What do you do and why? Please let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

I am writing the history of an engineering company for which I worked. How do I relate a significant incident that involved me?

Hi Roger, Thank you for your question. If you are narrating the history for the company that you worked at, you would have to refer to it from an employee’s perspective (third person). If you are writing the history as an account of your experiences with the company (including the significant incident), you could refer to yourself as ”I” or ”My.” (first person) You could go through other articles related to language and grammar on Enago Academy’s website https://enago.com/academy/ to help you with your document drafting. Did you get a chance to install our free Mobile App? https://www.enago.com/academy/mobile-app/ . Make sure you subscribe to our weekly newsletter: https://www.enago.com/academy/subscribe-now/ .

Good day , i am writing a research paper and m y setting is a company . is it ethical to put the name of the company in the research paper . i the management has allowed me to conduct my research in thir company .

thanks docarlene diaz

Generally authors do not mention the names of the organization separately within the research paper. The name of the educational institution the researcher or the PhD student is working in needs to be mentioned along with the name in the list of authors. However, if the research has been carried out in a company, it might not be mandatory to mention the name after the name in the list of authors. You can check with the author guidelines of your target journal and if needed confirm with the editor of the journal. Also check with the mangement of the company whether they want the name of the company to be mentioned in the research paper.

Finishing up my dissertation the information is clear and concise.

How to write the right first person pronoun if there is a single researcher? Thanks

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Reporting Research
• Industry News
• Publishing Research
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer-Review Week 2023
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

Can You Use I or We in a Research Paper?

4-minute read

• 11th July 2023

Writing in the first person, or using I and we pronouns, has traditionally been frowned upon in academic writing . But despite this long-standing norm, writing in the first person isn’t actually prohibited. In fact, it’s becoming more acceptable – even in research papers.

 If you’re wondering whether you can use I (or we ) in your research paper, you should check with your institution first and foremost. Many schools have rules regarding first-person use. If it’s up to you, though, we still recommend some guidelines. Check out our tips below!

When Is It Most Acceptable to Write in the First Person?

Certain sections of your paper are more conducive to writing in the first person. Typically, the first person makes sense in the abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections. You should still limit your use of I and we , though, or your essay may start to sound like a personal narrative .

 Using first-person pronouns is most useful and acceptable in the following circumstances.

When doing so removes the passive voice and adds flow

Sometimes, writers have to bend over backward just to avoid using the first person, often producing clunky sentences and a lot of passive voice constructions. The first person can remedy this. For example: 

Both sentences are fine, but the second one flows better and is easier to read.

When doing so differentiates between your research and other literature

When discussing literature from other researchers and authors, you might be comparing it with your own findings or hypotheses . Using the first person can help clarify that you are engaging in such a comparison. For example: 

 In the first sentence, using “the author” to avoid the first person creates ambiguity. The second sentence prevents misinterpretation.

When doing so allows you to express your interest in the subject

In some instances, you may need to provide background for why you’re researching your topic. This information may include your personal interest in or experience with the subject, both of which are easier to express using first-person pronouns. For example:

Expressing personal experiences and viewpoints isn’t always a good idea in research papers. When it’s appropriate to do so, though, just make sure you don’t overuse the first person.

When to Avoid Writing in the First Person

It’s usually a good idea to stick to the third person in the methods and results sections of your research paper. Additionally, be careful not to use the first person when:

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

●  It makes your findings seem like personal observations rather than factual results.

●  It removes objectivity and implies that the writing may be biased .

●  It appears in phrases such as I think or I believe , which can weaken your writing.

Keeping Your Writing Formal and Objective

Using the first person while maintaining a formal tone can be tricky, but keeping a few tips in mind can help you strike a balance. The important thing is to make sure the tone isn’t too conversational.

 To achieve this, avoid referring to the readers, such as with the second-person you . Use we and us only when referring to yourself and the other authors/researchers involved in the paper, not the audience.

It’s becoming more acceptable in the academic world to use first-person pronouns such as we and I in research papers. But make sure you check with your instructor or institution first because they may have strict rules regarding this practice.

 If you do decide to use the first person, make sure you do so effectively by following the tips we’ve laid out in this guide. And once you’ve written a draft, send us a copy! Our expert proofreaders and editors will be happy to check your grammar, spelling, word choice, references, tone, and more. Submit a 500-word sample today!

Is it ever acceptable to use I or we in a research paper?

In some instances, using first-person pronouns can help you to establish credibility, add clarity, and make the writing easier to read.

How can I avoid using I in my writing?

Writing in the passive voice can help you to avoid using the first person.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template (2024)

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Capstone Form and Style

Scholarly voice: writing in the first person, first-person point of view.

Since 2007, Walden academic leadership has endorsed the APA manual guidance on appropriate use of the first-person singular pronoun "I," allowing the use of this pronoun in all Walden academic writing except doctoral capstone abstracts, which should not contain a first-person pronoun.

In addition to the pointers below, the APA manual provides information on the appropriate use of first person in scholarly writing (see APA 7, Section 4.16).

APA Style and First-Person Pronouns

APA prefers that writers use the first person for clarity and self-reference.

To promote clear communication, writers should use the first person, rather than passive voice or the third person, to indicate the action the writer is taking.

• This passive voice is unclear as it does not indicate who collected these data.
• This third-person voice is not preferred in APA style and is not specific about who "the researcher" is or which researcher collected these data.
• This sentence clearly indicates who collected these data. Active voice, first-person sentence construction is clear and precise.

Avoid Overusing First-Person Pronouns

However, using a lot of "I" statements is repetitious and may distract readers. Remember, avoiding repetitious phrasing is also recommended in the APA manual.

• Example of repetitive use of "I": In this study, I administered a survey. I created a convenience sample of 68 teachers. I invited them to participate in the survey by emailing them an invitation. I obtained email addresses from the principal of the school…
• We suggest that students use "I" in the first sentence of the paragraph. Then, if it is clear to the reader that the student (writer) is the actor in the remaining sentences, use the active and passive voices appropriately to achieve precision and clarity.

Avoid Second-Person Pronouns

In addition, avoid the second person ("you").

• Example using the second person: As a leader, you have to decide what kind of leadership approach you want to use with your employees.
• It is important for writers to clearly indicate who or what they mean (again back to precision and clarity). Writers need to opt for specificity instead of the second person. Remember, the capstone is not a speech; the writer is not talking to anyone.

Restrict Use of Plural First-Person Pronouns

Also, for clarity, restrict the use of "we" and "our." These should only be used when writers are referring to themselves and other, specific individuals, not in the general sense.

• Example of plural first-person pronoun: We must change society to reflect the needs of current-day children and parents.
• Here, it is important to clarify who "we" means as the writer is not referring to specific individuals. Being specific about the who is important to clarity and precision.

Avoid Unsupported Opinion Statements

When using the first-person "I," avoid opinion statements.

As writers write, revise, and self-edit, they should pay specific attention to opinion statements. The following phrases have no place in scholarly writing:

• I think…
• I believe…
• I feel…

Writers and scholars need to base arguments, conclusions, and claims on evidence. When encountering "I" statements like this, do the following:

• Consider whether this really an opinion or whether this can be supported by evidence (citations).
• If there is evidence, remove the “I think…”, “I believe…”, “I feel…” phrasing and write a declarative statement, including the citation.
• If there is no evidence to cite, consider whether the claim or argument can be made. Remember that scholarly writing is not based on opinion, so if writers cannot support a claim with citations to scholarly literature or other credible sources, they need to reconsider whether they can make that claim.
• Previous Page: Anthropomorphism
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• Admissions Essays
• Books and Manuscripts
• Business Proofreading and Editing
• Dissertations
• Editing Tools
• Personal Statements
• Professional Writing
• Proofreading and Editing
• Thesis Proposals
• Uncategorized
• Working From Home
• Writing Fiction
• Writing Guides

Should I Use First, Second, or Third Person?

Get 400 words proofread and edited for free

 A Definitive Guide to Using Perspective in Academic, Business, and Fiction

Is it OK to use first person (I/my/we/our) in a research paper or job application ? Is all formal writing done in third person (he/she/they/one)? Why does the teacher keep crossing out second person (you/your) in student essays?

The issue here is perspective. First person is direct and personal. Second person is aimed at the audience, as in advertising (“You should buy this car now!”), or is quite informal, as in e-mails to a friend (“So, you know how it is when you don’t have any money?”). Third person doesn’t target anyone, and so it’s the most distant and universal.

It’s pretty easy to avoid second person in formal writing, so the main source of confusion comes from whether to use first or third person.

Get a free sample proofread and edit for your document. Two professional proofreaders will proofread and edit your document.

 Academic Writing

The battle between first and third, at least in academia, stems from the tradition to favor third person in formal writing because it was considered more modest, professional, and (above all) objective. Scientists thought it was better to favor the research, not the researcher, so “I conducted a study on” was changed to “the researcher conducted a study on.”

This business of having to use third person, however, can result in imprecise language and, worse, ambiguity. Most academic styles now recommend first person, with APA leading the way.

Take the following:

“A study was conducted on animals. The researchers utilized a longitudinal study. This paper will examine the mating habits of the fennec fox.”

What at first seems like a nice formal start to a paper is actually quite ambiguous. Regarding the first sentence: what study? Conducted by whom? This passive voice is too imprecise.

The second sentence uses third person, but if your paper is talking about other studies and sources, then you might confuse your reader. Is this your term you’re talking about, or one of the past researchers?

For these reasons and more, first person is now more often being recommended. Of the “big three” (APA, Chicago, MLA) style guides, APA urges first person. The Chicago Manual of Style is also in favor and says under 5.220 (16th ed.), “When you need the first-person singular, use it. It’s not immodest to use it; it’s superstitious not to.”

MLA (used for the humanities) has skirted the issue, but seems to prefer the formality of third person. It doesn’t like self-aware statements like, “I am going to say in this paper…” However, as long as the instructor or client does not mind, MLA finds first person acceptable when necessary.

 Fiction

The question of what perspective to use in a story or novel is a personal one. There are no rules. Generally, writers are recommended to use third person when they’re just starting out because it’s a bit easier to get right. With third person, you can write in a detached, generic way, and when you write fiction in first person, it’s exceedingly real and present. Everyone has a different (and distinct) personality, and that personality leaps out when you write in first. In first person, little mistakes and breaks in personality really stand out for the reader.

It is not accepted in mainstream fiction to mix first person and third person .

Don’t write fiction in second person. Please.

 Autobiographies/Nonfiction

Use first person for such situations as autobiographies (unless you’re Donald Trump), but for most non-fiction work, it’s best to stay detached. Use third person.

 Journalism

AP style for journalism and marketing is strict about not using first person to refer to oneself. Stick to third, try to avoid pronouns, and reserve first person for direct quotes in interviews.

 Resumes

Don’t refer to yourself in the third person in resumes. Just as in life (unless you’re Trump) you wouldn’t say, “John develops synergistic platitudes,” when you’re John. In a resume, just assume the first person is understood. Under current job duties, say “Develop synergetic programs,” not “Develops.”

With business, there are no hard and fast rules. Gear your writing to your purpose and what level of formality you think is appropriate. Perspective can increase and decrease that level. For example, look at this formal sentence:

“Microsoft is looking to expand into new areas. It aims to attract talented new people.”

Formally, organizations use “it,” not “they” or “we.”

However, some people might say that looks too stiff, so look at this more easy-going and personal version:

“Microsoft is looking to expand into new areas. We are looking to attract talented new people.”

Second person can also be useful in business writing, especially when giving orders or advice:

“Microsoft is looking to expand into new areas. Be sure to attract talented new people.”

Just remember that choosing your person-perspective has real consequences. Be careful, and good luck.

 Nick S .

Get a Free Sample

We will get your free sample back in three to six hours!

We proofread documents 24/7 Support 888-833-8385

Customer Service

Get in touch.

ProofreadingPal LLC 105 Iowa Ave., Ste. 214 Iowa City, IA 52240

Call Us 888-833-8385

Live Customer Support Hours Sun.-Thurs. 8 a.m. to midnight CT and Fri.–Sat. 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. CT

Submit Documents 24/7

© 2010 - 2020 ProofreadingPal LLC - All Rights Reserved.

The Vocative Comma Is Important, People!  ·  September 25, 2022

8 Tips to Make Your Writing Sound More Formal  ·  August 29, 2022

Worlde Tips and Tricks  ·  March 10, 2022

Worlde Tips and Tricks  ·  February 25, 2022

Top 4 Misspelled Words  ·  November 5, 2021

How to Capitalize Medicine  ·  October 1, 2021

How to Capitalize Medicine  ·  August 18, 2021

4 Fixes for Comment Boxes in MS Word  ·  January 17, 2021

How to Avoid Wordiness  ·  July 15, 2020

Write an Effective Blog Post  ·  June 9, 2020

Proofreading Services Rates  ·  April 19, 2020

How to Make Your Writing More Inclusive  ·  March 5, 2020

How to Make Your Writing More Inclusive  ·  February 27, 2020

Guide to Olde English  ·  December 27, 2019

Guide to Olde English  ·  December 26, 2019

Common Apostrophe Errors  ·  December 19, 2019

Guide to Olde English  ·  December 18, 2019

Capitalization in APA, Chicago, MLA, and AP  ·  August 27, 2019

Avoiding Common Capitalization Errors  ·  July 31, 2019

Using “I” in Academic Writing

Traditionally, some fields have frowned on the use of the first-person singular in an academic essay and others have encouraged that use, and both the frowning and the encouraging persist today—and there are good reasons for both positions (see “Should I”).

I recommend that you not look on the question of using “I” in an academic paper as a matter of a rule to follow, as part of a political agenda (see webb), or even as the need to create a strategy to avoid falling into Scylla-or-Charybdis error. Let the first-person singular be, instead, a tool that you take out when you think it’s needed and that you leave in the toolbox when you think it’s not.

Examples of When “I” May Be Needed

• You are narrating how you made a discovery, and the process of your discovering is important or at the very least entertaining.
• You are describing how you teach something and how your students have responded or respond.
• You disagree with another scholar and want to stress that you are not waving the banner of absolute truth.
• You need “I” for rhetorical effect, to be clear, simple, or direct.

Examples of When “I” Should Be Given a Rest

• It’s off-putting to readers, generally, when “I” appears too often. You may not feel one bit modest, but remember the advice of Benjamin Franklin, still excellent, on the wisdom of preserving the semblance of modesty when your purpose is to convince others.
• You are the author of your paper, so if an opinion is expressed in it, it is usually clear that this opinion is yours. You don’t have to add a phrase like, “I believe” or “it seems to me.”

Works Cited

Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin . Project Gutenberg , 28 Dec. 2006, www.gutenberg.org/app/uploads/sites/3/20203/20203-h/20203-h.htm#I.

“Should I Use “I”?” The Writing Center at UNC—Chapel Hill , writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/should-i-use-i/.

webb, Christine. “The Use of the First Person in Academic Writing: Objectivity, Language, and Gatekeeping.” ResearchGate , July 1992, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01974.x.

J.S.Beniwal 05 August 2017 AT 09:08 AM

I have borrowed MLA only yesterday, did my MAEnglish in May 2017.MLA is of immense help for scholars.An overview of the book really enlightened​ me.I should have read it at bachelor's degree level.

Your e-mail address will not be published

Dr. Raymond Harter 25 September 2017 AT 02:09 PM

I discourage the use of "I" in essays for undergraduates to reinforce a conversational tone and to "self-recognize" the writer as an authority or at least a thorough researcher. Writing a play is different than an essay with a purpose.

Osayimwense Osa 22 March 2023 AT 05:03 PM

When a student or writer is strongly and passionately interested in his or her stance and argument to persuade his or her audience, the use of personal pronoun srenghtens his or her passion for the subject. This passion should be clear in his/her expression. However, I encourage the use of the first-person, I, sparingly -- only when and where absolutely necessary.

Eleanor 25 March 2023 AT 04:03 PM

I once had a student use the word "eye" when writing about how to use pronouns. Her peers did not catch it. I made comments, but I think she never understood what eye was saying!

Join the Conversation

We invite you to comment on this post and exchange ideas with other site visitors. Comments are moderated and subject to terms of service.

If you have a question for the MLA's editors, submit it to Ask the MLA!

Using the First Person in Academic Writing: Can I Use "I"?

#scribendiinc

Written by  Anthony Granziol

Bringing Yourself Back to Your Academic Writing: Pronouns and Perspective

When academic writing is discussed, objectivity usually crops up. Researchers are expected to perform their research in a way that prevents bias, undue influence, and incorrect results. That can mean blinding research subjects from other subjects, preventing observers from having certain information about their subjects (e.g., age, gender, race, political affiliation), and even taking the person writing the final report out of the phrasing so the information presented is not treated as an opinion.

How important is it to remove the first person in academic writing? This article will look at whether the first or third person should be used when writing academically. You may be surprised by just how much the answer depends on the context of what is being written.

The Case against Using the First Person in Academic Writing

Back in the 17th century, Francis Bacon and other like-minded scientists were trying to figure out how scientific information should be shared. Bacon supported the idea of empiricism, which translates roughly to "seeing is believing." Though Bacon wasn't the first to espouse this perspective (it has been around since roughly 600 BCE), he did formalize it. He said there was only one way to ensure the human subjectivity of such vision: write down every single step taken when performing an experiment and provide justification for each step being the way it is. Sound familiar? Bacon was trying to keep scientists from misleading themselves while experimenting, seeing what they wanted to see rather than what actually was. That remains a goal of academic writing to this day.

For most scientists, using the third person in academic writing is essential. A first-person pronoun is a warning—a sign that only a specific person or group can perform a given experiment. Using the third person takes that subjectivity out of the picture, allowing anyone to do the work. "I" did not do the work; the work just happened, or "they" did it, and "they" could be anybody, making the action universal. Does "they" refer to a male research student in Saudi Arabia or a female Asian postdoctoral fellow in Scotland or a non-binary Aboriginal biological chemistry professor in Canada? Yes.

In Support of the First Person: The Passive Problem

The problem that most schools and publishers have with the third person in academic writing is one of voice, specifically the  passive voice . Using the first person in academic writing practically guarantees the active voice will be used, since we seldom refer to ourselves passively. Nathan Sheffield pointed this out with an example for the Duke Graduate School's  Scientific Writing Resource  that is summarized here.

Active example: "We then analyzed the DNA using qPCR." The sentence is in the active voice, with "we" analyzing "DNA" with a tool, "qPCR." Simple and straightforward.

Passive example: "The DNA was then subjected to qPCR analysis." This sentence is in the passive voice, and the verb has been nominalized (turned into a noun), making the sentence bulkier with two unnecessary verbs and other words.

Yes, the nominalization could be done away with by using "The DNA was then analyzed using qPCR," but that raises the question of who performed the action. Using the third person carries ambiguity with it, and context will not always permit conciseness unless surrounding sentences explain who is doing the acting.

The Importance of Striking the Right Tone

So where does that leave you if you want to write academically? It depends on what you want to write. Some contexts will permit the use of the passive voice to maintain an objective tone (which uses the third person). Other contexts will permit a subjective tone (which uses the first person) if, and this is a big "if," you can justify it. The best way to justify a subjective tone is to make it helpful by using it to show agency (e.g., "While previous studies have focused on X, I have taken a Y perspective…") or progress (e.g., "We noted X after the reaction began…").

When it comes to writing, the terms "voice" and "tone" can be confusing. They may sound similar, but they are not. They are, however, easy to distinguish from each other if you know what to look for. Think of your voice as your writing style. Most academic writers will have a style provided to them before they start writing and will have to tailor their words and referencing to match that style. Voices are clearly defined and are recognizable when reading the work of a particular author or publisher. Think of your favorite fiction writer or a news source you like. You can recognize their voice in the words they repeat and the cadence of their writing. Even journals have voices, with some providing factual descriptions with little context (so the reader can focus on described experiments), while others offer rich backgrounds before giving details on what was tested, ensuring the reader can understand the subtleties at play in the presented study.

Tone, by contrast, changes depending on content and audience. You wouldn't talk to your parents in the same tone you would use to address a first-year class or to attend a job interview. All of these situations have different audiences and information in play, so we tailor our tone accordingly. Tone is where pronouns are determined and where the choice between first or third person gets made. Since academic writing has a consistent audience (fellow authors/students seeking supported arguments on a subject they're familiar with), it should be fairly easy for you to choose a suitable tone once you know your content.

Knowing When to Use the First or Third Person

The easiest way to write for your audience and content is to answer this question: If you were picking up your article for the first time, what tone would you prefer? On the way to writing your article, you likely read several articles on the same subject. What did you notice about them? Did they all take a passive tone with careful syntax so they provided information that could not possibly be considered biased? Did they each have a different perspective denoted by the authors' writing in the first person? These are your fellow authors, so treat their work with the respect it deserves, and don't be afraid to borrow their tone while also citing their facts.

Philosophy and arts articles tend to use personal experience to illustrate ideas or point out parallels between current and past work. Gender studies usually draw on specific perspectives that can be bolstered by personal experience. So trot out the "I" and "we" if writing about these subjects or if you are offering a subjective disagreement, giving instruction on how to teach, offering a narration, or describing someone's reactions.

If you are going to be writing on religious subjects (where personal devotions can draw accusations of bias) or scientific information (where the focus is duplicating your research instead of your perspective), use the third person. If you want to convince the reader of your argument's validity, "I" is not your friend , because it will be too easy for a detractor to label your logic as an opinion.  

Final Words

In summary, using the first person in academic writing successfully requires a careful assessment of context, situation, and tone. But it can be done. At the end of the day, you are the writer. If you haven't been asked to adhere to a particular style, you can use whatever literary tools are necessary to show your enthusiasm and academic worth. You can seek outside advice, including professional editing and proofreading , to help you polish your work. However, the final choice on whether to mention yourself in your writing rests with you.

Happy writing!

Image source: sokkete/envato.elements.com

Put Your Best Work Forward

Hire an expert academic editor , or get a free sample, about the author.

A Scribendi in-house editor, Anthony is happily putting his BA in English from Western University to good use with thoughtful feedback and incisive editing. An avid reader and gamer, he can be found during his off hours enjoying narrative-driven games and obscure and amusing texts, as well as cooking for his family.

Have You Read?

"The Complete Beginner's Guide to Academic Writing"

Related Posts

6 ESL Writing Activities to Improve Your English Skills

Time Management for College Students

When to Spell Out Numbers in Writing: Guide and Examples

Upload your file(s) so we can calculate your word count, or enter your word count manually.

We will also recommend a service based on the file(s) you upload.

English is not my first language. I need English editing and proofreading so that I sound like a native speaker.

I need to have my journal article, dissertation, or term paper edited and proofread, or I need help with an admissions essay or proposal.

I have a novel, manuscript, play, or ebook. I need editing, copy editing, proofreading, a critique of my work, or a query package.

I need editing and proofreading for my white papers, reports, manuals, press releases, marketing materials, and other business documents.

I need to have my essay, project, assignment, or term paper edited and proofread.

I want to sound professional and to get hired. I have a resume, letter, email, or personal document that I need to have edited and proofread.

 Prices include your personal % discount.

 Prices include % sales tax ( ).

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Use of first person in a PhD Thesis

Is there a non written rule to which person to use in the PhD thesis, 5 years of using "We" in the papers have brought me to the innate necessity to do it every time I describe something.

Recently, though, one of my lab-mates told me that I should use I, since it is your work, if the thesis were co-written, then it would be a different story.

Is there any standard in your universities, or do you have any preferred practice.

• writing-style

• 6 What does your university style guide say? What does your supervisor say? –  410 gone Commented Nov 28, 2012 at 7:06
• 13 But using we makes us feel so royal . . . –  geometrian Commented Oct 20, 2014 at 0:39
• 2 Use the first person singular for acknowledgements: ``we thank our parents'' would be distinctly odd, even if `we' are not an only child. –  Shane O Rourke Commented May 17, 2015 at 13:00
• 7 This one strongly objects to being forced to refer to itself in the third person, and will avoid such references completely in preference to needless circumlocution. –  keshlam Commented Aug 20, 2015 at 17:06
• I suspect this is where programming discussion gets the 'we' thing from. –  Pharap Commented Mar 30, 2018 at 3:24

7 Answers 7

I generally avoid "I" in scientific texts altogether, though some authors are in fact using it if they are the sole author. I can't remember seeing it in a thesis though. In texts with a sole author, I usually understand "we" as meaning the author and the reader, and I'd suggest that it's fine to use it in places where it can have that meaning. For example something like "When substituting a by b, we get ..."

A generally useful advice would be to read into some of the theses written in your group, department, and university (in decreasing relevance), and see whether there is a common pattern.

• 1 I also personally prefer "we", though I agree with silvado that the best advice is to check what is done in your research area. That is, in principle, the audience you're writing for, and the ones that will read it for your examination. –  Luke Mathieson Commented Nov 28, 2012 at 8:44
• 36 When you discuss an experiment being done, you can hardly use “we” as “author and reader”. Compare “we can derive B from A” to “I synthesized 3 grams of product K”. –  F'x Commented Nov 28, 2012 at 12:56
• 7 @F'x: I'm typically not writing about experiments, but reading sometimes, and I hardly see the use of either "I" or "we" in this context. To me it appears that most authors use passive voice in such descriptions. I think the reasons is that these protocols should be "de-personalized", focussing on the activity, not the person that does it. –  silvado Commented Nov 29, 2012 at 8:31
• 1 @MHH I agree. Generally the style of experimental papers is very different from theoretical papers. –  silvado Commented Feb 9, 2014 at 8:25
• 5 @begueradj I would still use "we" since it includes the author(s) and reader. It makes the reader feel like he/she is part of the discussion (i.e. the paper that is being read). –  Ryan Dougherty Commented Aug 4, 2014 at 17:43

Summary: Think about the habits and traditions in your field, think about the nature of your field and do not hesitate to take responsibility for your own (possibly not that great) ideas.

Now, let me elaborate more:

The question encourages personal opinions for a good reason. Various sources on writing research papers differ vastly, though it seems majority does not favor the first person "I" form. For one of the more serious in computer science not in favour of "I", see e.g., Knuth's Mathematical Writing (pg.4) - although later on, the material also discusses the opposite (pg.62 and 113).

Now to a personal position. I do make use of "I" in some contexts. Namely, when I write a paper as a single author and I did so in my PhD thesis. At the same time, you should have clear rules when to mix it with "we" and how. For the dissertation, I explained those rules very early on in the preface: I use "I" whenever the text speaks about my own decisions and choices I made and is the default voice. It means, that it's me who is to blame for whatever incorrect decisions exposed in the thesis. Only if I can show that there is an external force which would push anybody on my place to take the same route, I would use "we" to mean the (research) community, or humankind. I use "we", whenever the discourse is explanatory, such as an exposition of a proof. Therein, "we" stands for "me and the reader". I also strictly use "we", whenever I speak about an insight, or a result which was produced in a collaboration, such as developed in a joint research paper with somebody else. As a side-effect, since this voice is not the default one, occurrence of such "we" always enforces a citation to the joint work, which is a Good Thing .

My personal opinion also is that third person is very bad writing style, since it offloads responsibility for the presented results to some external entity. As if it wasn't me who made the stupid decision to push that other guy from the cliff, but the guy was (somehow) pushed from the cliff. In my opinion, "we" solves that problem only a little bit, because now the writer admits a bit of responsibility for the act, but still dilutes it by taking into the game somebody else (either the reader, or the abstract research community). Saying "I did this and that and by doing it I personally found this and that" for me is fully taking responsibility for my results. It's not about bragging, or so. Now in some fields, this might be inappropriate, e.g., in pure mathematics, one studies a problem and is not pushed into any arbitrary decisions (e.g., regarding experimental setup), so a style "we" = "the two of us, you, the reader, and me, the writer" is more appropriate.

• I second that and would add: Think about the habits and traditions in your country respectively language area. In my case, I'm a computer scienctist from Germany, using "I" and "we" in scientific works is an absolute no-no. In contrast, I've seen quite a lot articles in English language which use "I" and "we". –  Stefan Surkamp Commented Aug 20, 2015 at 15:12
• 4 @StefanSurkamp I wrote the original answer being a computer scientist who did his PhD in Germany :-). –  walkmanyi Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 21:38
• @walkmanyi Using "I" in the contexts you outlined is absolutely appropriate for a CS PhD thesis written in the English language. –  apriori Commented Jul 3, 2019 at 13:37

It is interesting to see what Charles Darwin did in his scientific writing.

According to Serendip Studio:

Darwin usually speaks in the first person plural when analyzing empirical evidence he has collected and only uses the first person singular when he is specifically speaking about his own actions, such as, "..many special facts which I have collected," or when he is speaking about his own qualms, such as "I am well aware that there are on, on this view, many cases of difficulty, some of which I am trying to investigate." However, when analyzing his evidence, he always uses "we", such as "we notice", or "we understand"(2). Darwin's change in footing when he is explaining his theory places himself and the reader on the same level and makes him a more "humble" presenter, allowing us to suspend disbelief for at least the time being and trust him.

When Darwin is speaking as the scientist, he uses "we" , and when he is speaking as the human being, he uses "I" . I really like that distinction.

I find the forced use of "we" when you mean "I" misplaced. It is important to sound as natural as possible in your writing - just look at Richard Feynman . You don't have to use convoluted language to win a Nobel prize. Clarity is king.

The first rule, as usual, is: what is expected of you? Ask your advisor, read earlier theses from your group, etc. to get an idea of what is the established practice.

The advice I give, and which I try to follow myself, is to mix the use of “we” and “I” depending on context. Most of the experimental or simulation work is a team effort, so “we” makes a lot of sense to describe that:

From the results of the simulation, we have calculated the spatial dispersion of ∆, which is presented in Figure 42

However, a PhD thesis should show that the applicant has a clear understanding and autonomy in a given research project, and thus is capable of making technical and strategic decisions (though not always alone, of course). As such, I encourage the use of “I” to describe such decisions , orientations and reflexion. I try to give an example:

After consideration of the points discussed above, I decided to focus my effort for the most part in optimizing the gigawattage of the circuit, which I consider based on all the data gathered to be the factor with the largest potential for improvement.

Silvado gave an answer that is, in my opinion, perfectly applicable to mathematical derivations, and the discussion of results. In those cases, you can safely use “we” to mean “the author and reader”, as in “we thus derive theorem X from lemma Y”, or “we see on Figure 42 a clear correlation between A and B”.

• Mixing "we" and "I" can be very confusing, particularly if they're in proximity to one another. The use of "we" can often be omitted through clever rewriting: "Using result A, X leads directly to Y." The use of "I" is probably harder to eliminate, and I would argue it shouldn't be. –  aeismail Commented Nov 28, 2012 at 13:43
• 1 Mixing “we” and “I” is confusing if you use them interchangeably, but not if there is a logic to it. I have now seen it used in quite a few theses, and it works fine. I agree with you that clarity is the one true criterion. –  F'x Commented Nov 28, 2012 at 14:05
• @aeismail That "clever rewriting", to use the passive voice, almost always makes prose harder to understanding and less clear, thereby reducing the value of the piece of writing. –  Ian Sudbery Commented Aug 6, 2020 at 10:27
• 1 The use of first person singular is essential to correctly identify in a thesis the work of the candidate and dissociate it from the work of done in collaboration. –  ZeroTheHero Commented Aug 7, 2020 at 3:01

I always view "we" as "you and the reader" and you and your reader journey through the subject together.

• 2 I think this was already covered quite well by @silvado. Also, as I noted below his answer: when you discuss an experiment being done, you can hardly use “we” as “author and reader”. Compare “we can derive B from A” to “I synthesized 3 grams of product K”. –  F'x Commented Nov 28, 2012 at 20:15

I was told that my PhD thesis should be written in the third person. In cases where it was nessacery to reffer to ones-self the term "the author" could be used but use of this term was discoured. The theory goes that the emphasis in acadmic writing should be on what was done rather than who did it.

Personally I dislike this style. IMO it makes it much harder to be clear about what you did verses what is already common knowlage.

My PhD was in Electrical Engineering at the University of Manchester in the UK.

• Third person - masculine or feminine? –  Floris Commented Feb 10, 2017 at 13:49

I am a retired professor. I was taught, and I always required, that theses and dissertations be written in 3rd person or, on rare occasions, in 1st person plural. Towards the end of my career, I had students increasingly writing in first person singular. This grated on my nerves enormously. Why? It seemed arrogant and ignored the substantial assistance provided by the committee and the funding agency. Also, it flew in the face of unspoken tradition: that scientists did their work with humility for the betterment of society. Any recognition of the scientist should come later from society at large and the community of scientists.

• 2 We sound like a retired professor. –  henning no longer feeds AI Commented Aug 6, 2020 at 20:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd thesis writing writing-style grammar ..

• Featured on Meta
• Introducing an accessibility dashboard and some upcoming changes to display...
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• What does "you must keep" mean in "you must keep my covenant", Genesis 17:9?
• Is there mutable aliasing in this list of variable references?
• Is threatening to go to the police blackmailing?
• Small adjustment or fix to a toilet float to fix constant draining?
• English equilvant to this hindi proverb "A washerman's dog belongs neither at home nor at the riverbank."?
• Vector Clock Diagrams for Distributed Systems using TikZ
• Significance of negative work done
• Have King Shark and Killer Croc fought before?
• How do Driftgloom Coyote and Sugar Coat interact?
• Why did Jesus give Pilate "no answer" to the question “Where are You from?” (John 19:9)?
• dealing with the feeling after rejection
• Are story points really a good measure for velocity
• Can a wizard learn a spell from a cleric or druid?
• How does Chakotay know about the mirror universe?
• Reference for the proof that Möbius transformations extend to isometries of hyperbolic 3-space
• Question about Three mobile operator cellular network coverage in Oban UK
• How to get this fencing wire at a [somewhat] equal tension
• What is the anti-trust argument made by X Corp's recent lawsuit against advertisers that boycotted X/Twitter
• In Europe, are you allowed to enter an intersection on red light in order to allow emergency vehicles to pass?
• Design patterns - benefits of using with Apex code
• What does "No camping 10-21" mean?
• Challenges to complete apple ID account to download Apps when in an unsupported country
• What would "doctor shoes" have looked like in "Man on the Moon"?
• "Seagulls are gulling away."

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

Can I Use First Person In a Research Paper? (Quick Answer)

by  Antony W

June 6, 2024

High school teachers, college tutors, and university professors often frown assignments that include personal pronouns. That’s so because writing in first, second, or third person demonstrates an author’s point of view, which, in many cases, tends to be unacceptable.

With the exception of college admission essays , personal statements , and persuasive essays , the use of personal pronoun in academic writing is something you should avoid completely.

One of the questions we get a lot at Help for Assessment is can I use first person in a research paper?

We understand how difficult choosing the right language for research paper writing can be, particularly because there are many language rules that you need to observe. So our goal with this guide is to help you learn more about personal pronouns in research paper.

By the time you finish reading this article, you will have a very clear picture on the issue of using first person in your research paper assignment. 

What’s First Person Pronoun? 

In written and spoken communication, the use of first person pronoun refers to incorporating text that refers to oneself in an assignment. The reference can be in singular or plural form. First person singular include “I”, “Me”, “Mine”, and “My” and first person plural are “we”, “us”, “our”, and “ours”.

Can I Use First Person in a Research Paper? 

The use of first person in a research paper indicates presentation of information based on what you’ve found from your research.

Unfortunately, you can’t and shouldn’t use first person pronoun in your research assignment. From a scientific and mathematical standpoint, the pronoun presents you to your target audience as a self-serving and arrogant person.

Keep in mind that the purpose of a research paper is to provide a comprehensive analysis and response to the research question . The focus is therefore on the research, not the person conducting the research.

We understand that you might want to persuade readers to consider a certain aspect of your research, especially if it’s a personal opinion you want to give. However, you can do so without necessarily sounding personal.

Another reason why it’s a bad idea to use first person pronouns in your research paper is that they to make your overall assignment. Precisely, the first person pronoun can easily underestimate the findings of your research as readers might wonder whether you based your conclusions on facts or just personal opinions.

What’s Second Person Pronoun? 

The second person pronoun is any word that refers to the reader. These pronouns are “you”, “your”, and “yours”.

This point of view is helpful in the context of providing advice, guides, and tutorials to a given audience.

For example, students searching for programming assignment help online will often land on written and video tutorials that use the second person point of view to give direction on setting up projects and writing code.

Using, the goal of using the second person point of view is to engage an audience to a discussion or a guide, and it tends to serve its purpose quite well.

Can I Use Second Person Pronoun in a Research Paper? 

The problem with the second person pronoun is that it gives instructions to an audience, which means it’s not quite effective in academic writing. As such, you should not use the second person pronoun in your research paper.

What’s Third Person Pronoun?

This point of view can use pronouns of individuals or groups or a person’s name. Words such as “he”, “she”, and “one” refers to individuals and words such as  “everyone”,  “they” and “them” refer to a group of people.

Can I Use Third Person Pronoun in a Research Paper? 

The third person pronoun is usually the most appropriate option to use in scientific paper. However, you need to be very careful with how you integrate them in your writing.

First, you have to use indefinite pronoun to refer back to the subject. Second, you should avoid using feminine or masculine terminologies when using third person point of view. So instead of using him, her, him, or her in your research paper, make the subject plural.

What are the Exceptions to these Rules? 

The argument among academics is that it’s fine to use first person in a research paper. To be precise, you can use the term “I” in the abstract, introduction , discussion, and conclusion in some research papers. However, it’s best to avoid this completely.

If you must use personal pronouns in the assignment, “we” would be the most appropriate.

Also, be careful with how you write the methods and results section. If you must use personal pronouns here, the third person point of view will be most appropriate.

Another important exception that we can’t ignore is the assignment brief. Even if you know certain that personal pronouns are not appropriate in research paper writing, look at the assignment guidelines to figure out what your teacher wants. Your instructor might ask you to use personal pronouns in the assignment, so make sure you don’t skip this part.

When Writing Your Research Paper 

The third person point of view, and particularly referring to subjects and entities by their names (or title) is the acceptable option when writing a research paper.

Another important point worth mentioning is that you need to make sure you’re consistent in your writing. Switching from one point of view to another can only make your research paper hard to read since leads to distraction.

Makes sure you check the assignment guideline provided by your teacher to make sure you’re on the right track as far as using first person pronoun in your assignment is concerned.

Get Help with Research Paper Writing 

Is your research paper almost due but you haven’t started working on it yet? Or maybe you started but you have other urgent assignments to complete? You can take advantage of our  research paper writing service  and get professional academic writing help that enables students to score high grades.

It doesn’t matter if your research topic is complicated or you can’t find the right sources for the assignment. We’re here to help.

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

Encyclopedia

Writing with artificial intelligence, the first person.

• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 by Frederik DeBoer

The first person—“I,” “me,” “my,” etc.—can be a useful and stylish choice in academic writing, but inexperienced writers need to take care when using it.

There are some genres and assignments for which the first person is natural. For example, personal narratives require frequent use of the first person (see, for example, “ Employing Narrative in an Essay ). Profiles, or brief and entertaining looks at prominent people and events, frequently employ the first person. Reviews, such as for movies or restaurants, often utilize the first person as well. Any writing genre that involves the writer’s taste, recollections, or feelings can potentially utilize the first person.

But what about more formal academic essays? In this case, you may have heard from instructors and teachers that the first person is never appropriate. The reality is a little more complicated. The first person can be a natural fit for expository, critical, and researched writing, and can help develop style and voice in what can often be dry or impersonal genres. But you need to take care when using the personal voice, and watch out for a few traps.

First, as always, listen to your teacher, instructor, or professor. Follow the guidelines given to you; if you’re not supposed to use the first person in a particular class or assignment, don’t! Also, recognize that, while it is not universally valid or helpful, the common advice to avoid the first person in academic writing comes from legitimate concerns about its misuse. Many instructors advise their students in this way due to experience with students misusing the first person.

Why do teachers often counsel against using the first person in an academic paper? Used too frequently or without care, it can make a writer seem self-centered, even self-obsessed. A paper filled with “I,” “me,” and “mine” can be distracting to a reader, as it creates the impression that the writer is more interested in him- or herself than the subject matter. Additionally, the first person is often a more casual mode, and if used carelessly, it can make a writer seem insufficiently serious for an academic project. Particularly troublesome can be constructions like “I think” or “in my opinion;” overused, they can make a writer appear unsure or noncommittal. On issues of personal taste and opinion, statements like “I believe” are usually inferred, and thus repeatedly stating that a statement is only your opinion is redundant. (Of course, if a statement is someone else’s opinion, it must be responsibly cited.)

Given those issues, why is the first person still sometimes an effective strategy? For one, using the first person in an academic essay reminds the audience (and the author) of a simple fact: that someone is writing the essay, a particular person in a particular context. A writer is in a position of power; he or she is the master of the text. It’s easy, given that mastery, for writers and readers alike to forget that the writer is composing from a limited and contingent perspective. By using the first person, writers remind audiences and themselves that all writing, no matter how well supported by facts and evidence, comes from a necessarily subjective point of view. Used properly, this kind of reminder can make a writer appear more thoughtful and modest, and in doing so become more credible and persuasive.

The first person is also well-suited to the development of style and personal voice. The personal voice is, well, personal; to use the first person effectively is to invite readers into the individual world of the writer. This can make a long essay seem shorter, an essay about a dry subject seem more engaging, and a complicated argument seem less intimidating. The first person is also a great way to introduce variety into a paper. Academic papers, particularly longer ones, can often become monotonous. After all, detailed analysis of a long piece of literature or a large amount of data requires many lines of text. If such an analysis is not effectively varied in method or tone, a reader can find the text uninteresting or discouraging. The first person can help dilute that monotony, precisely because its use is rare in academic writing.

The key to all of this, of course, is using the first person well and judiciously. Any stylistic device, no matter its potential, can be misused. The first person is no exception. So how to use the first person well in an academic essay?

• First, by paying attention to the building blocks of effective writing. Good writing requires consistency in reference. Don’t mix between first, second, and third person. Although referring to yourself in the third person in an academic essay is rare (I hope!), sometimes references to “the author” or “this writer” can pop up and cause confusion. “This author feels it is to my advantage…” is a good example of mixing third person references (this author) with first person reference (my advantage). If you must use the third person, keep it consistent throughout your essay: “This author feels it is to his advantage…” Be aware, however, that such references can often sound pretentious or inflated. In most cases it will be better to keep to the simpler first person voice: “I feel it is to my advantage.”
• Similarly, be cautious about mixing the second and first person. Second person reference (“You feel,” “you find,” “it strikes you,”) can be a useful tool, particularly when trying to build a confessional or conversational tone. But as with the third person, mixing second and first person is an easy trap to fall into, and confuses your prose: “I often feel as if you have no choice….” While such constructions can potentially be grammatically correct, they are unnecessarily confusing. When in doubt, use only one form of reference for yourself or your audience, and be clear in distinguishing them. Again, use caution: as the second person essentially speaks for your readers, it can seem presumptuous. In most cases, the first person is a better choice.
• Finally, consistency is important when employing either the singular or plural first person (“we,” “us,” “our”). The first person plural is often employed in literary analysis: “we have to balance Gatsby’s story with Nick’s skepticism.” Here, I would recommend maintaining consistency not just within a sentence or paragraph, but within the entire text. Shifting from speaking about what I feel or think to what we feel or think invites the question of what, exactly, has changed. If a writer has made observations of the type “we know,” and then later of the type “I believe,” it suggests that the writer has lost some perspective or authority.

Once you’ve assured that you’re using the first person in a consistent, grammatically correct fashion, your most important tools are restraint and caution. As I indicated above, part of the power of the first person in an academic essay is that it is a rarely used alternative to the typical third person mode. This power only persists if you use the first person in moderation. Constantly peppering your academic essays with the first person dilutes its ability to provoke a reader. You should use the first person rarely enough to ensure that, when you do, the reader notices; it should immediately contrast with the convention you’ve built in your essay.

Given this need for restraint, student writers would do best to use the first person only when they have a deliberate purpose for using it. Is there something different about the particular passage, paragraph, or moment into which you want to introduce the first person? Do you want to call attention to a particular issue or idea in your paper, particularly if you feel less certain about that idea, or more personally connected to it? Finally, have you established a consistent use of the third person, so that using the first person here represents a meaningful change? After a long, formal argument, the first person can feel like an invitation for the reader to get a little closer.

Think of the first person as a powerful spice. Just enough can make a bland but serviceable dish memorable and tasty. Too much can render it inedible. Use the first person carefully, when you have a good reason to do so, and it can enliven your academic papers.

Use the First Person

Using first person in an academic essay: when is it okay.

Brevity – Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence – How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow – How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity – Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style – The DNA of Powerful Writing

Suggested Edits

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Featured Articles

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing

We should use ‘I’ more in academic writing – there is benefit to first-person perspective

Lecturer in Critical Thinking; Curriculum Director, UQ Critical Thinking Project, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement

Peter Ellerton is affiliated with the Centre for Critical and Creative Thinking. He is a Fellow of the Rationalist Society of Australia.

University of Queensland provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

The use of the word “I” in academic writing, that is writing in the first person , has a troublesome history. Some say it makes writing too subjective, others that it’s essential for accuracy.

This is reflected in how students, particularly in secondary schools, are trained to write. Teachers I work with are often surprised that I advocate, at times, invoking the first person in essays or other assessment in their subject areas.

In academic writing the role of the author is to explain their argument dispassionately and objectively. The author’s personal opinion in such endeavours is neither here nor there.

As noted in Strunk and White’s highly influential Elements of Style – (first published in 1959) the writer is encouraged to place themselves in the background.

Write in a way that draws the reader’s attention to the sense and substance of the writing, rather than to the mood and temper of the author.

This all seems very reasonable and scholarly. The move towards including the first person perspective, however, is becoming more acceptable in academia.

There are times when invoking the first person is more meaningful and even rigorous than not. I will give three categories in which first person academic writing is more effective than using the third person.

1. Where an academic is offering their personal view or argument

Above, I could have said “there are three categories” rather than “I will give three categories”. The former makes a claim of discovering some objective fact. The latter, a more intellectually honest and accountable approach, is me offering my interpretation.

I could also say “three categories are apparent”, but that is ignoring the fact it is apparent to me . It would be an attempt to grant too much objectivity to a position than it deserves.

In a similar vein, statements such as “it can be argued” or “it was decided”, using the passive voice, avoid responsibility. It is much better to say “I will argue that” or “we decided that” and then go on to prosecute the argument or justify the decision.

Taking responsibility for our stances and reasoning is important culturally as well as academically. In a participatory democracy, we are expected to be accountable for our ideas and choices. It is also a stand against the kinds of anonymous assertions that easily proliferate via fake and unnamed social media accounts.

Read more: Post-truth politics and why the antidote isn't simply 'fact-checking' and truth

It’s worth noting that Nature – arguably one of the world’s best science journals – prefers authors to selectively avoid the passive voice. Its writing guidelines note:

Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice (“we performed the experiment…”) as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly.

2. Where the author’s perspective is part of the analysis

Some disciplines, such as anthropology , recognise that who is doing the research and why they are doing it ought to be overtly present in their presentation of it.

Removing the author’s presence can allow important cultural or other perspectives held by the author to remain unexamined. This can lead to the so-called crisis of representation , in which the interpretation of texts and other cultural artefacts is removed from any interpretive stance of the author.

This gives a false impression of objectivity. As the philosopher Thomas Nagel notes, there is no “ view from nowhere ”.

Philosophy commonly invokes the first person position, too. Rene Descartes famously inferred “I think therefore I am” ( cogito ergo sum ). But his use of the first person in Meditations on First Philosophy was not simply an account of his own introspection. It was also an invitation to the reader to think for themselves.

3. Where the author wants to show their reasoning

The third case is especially interesting in education.

I tell students of science, critical thinking and philosophy that a phrase guaranteed to raise my hackles is “I strongly believe …”. In terms of being rationally persuasive, this is not relevant unless they then go on tell me why they believe it. I want to know what and how they are thinking.

To make their thinking most clearly an object of my study, I need them to make themselves the subjects of their writing.

I prefer students to write something like “I am not convinced by Dawson’s argument because…” rather than “Dawson’s argument is opposed by DeVries, who says …”. I want to understand their thinking not just use the argument of DeVries.

Read more: Thinking about thinking helps kids learn. How can we teach critical thinking?

Of course I would hope they do engage with DeVries, but then I’d want them to say which argument they find more convincing and what their own reasons were for being convinced.

Just stating Devries’ objection is good analysis, but we also need students to evaluate and justify, and it is here that the first person position is most useful.

It is not always accurate to say a piece is written in the first or third person. There are reasons to invoke the first person position at times and reasons not to. An essay in which it is used once should not mean we think of the whole essay as from the first person perspective.

We need to be more nuanced about how we approach this issue and appreciate when authors should “place themselves in the background” and when their voice matters.

• Critical thinking
• First person
• Academic writing
• Essay writing

Professor and Head of School, School of Communication and Arts

Service Delivery Consultant

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

Get the Reddit app

Discussions about the writing craft.

In a research paper, is it generally okay to use the first person?

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Louis Jacobson, PolitiFact Louis Jacobson, PolitiFact

Amy Sherman, PolitiFact Amy Sherman, PolitiFact

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-tim-walzs-past-statements

Looking back at Tim Walz’s record and past statements

This fact check originally appeared on PolitiFact .

Vice President Kamala Harris has tapped Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, capping a historically compressed vice presidential search.

Walz rocketed up the list of finalists on the strength of his folksy relatability, gubernatorial experience and congressional record representing a conservative-leaning district.

READ MORE: Harris selects Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as running mate

“I am proud to announce that I’ve asked @Tim_Walz to be my running mate,” Harris posted on X Aug. 6. “As a governor, a coach, a teacher, and a veteran, he’s delivered for working families like his. It’s great to have him on the team. Now let’s get to work.”

Walz rose to the rank of command sergeant major over 24 years in the U.S. Army National Guard and worked as a teacher and football coach. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives by ousting a Republican incumbent in a heavily rural district in 2006. Walz was elected governor in 2018 and was reelected in 2022.

“He’s a smart choice if they deploy him in two specific ways,” said Blois Olson, a political analyst for WCCO radio in Minneapolis-St. Paul. “Send him to rural areas to counter the polarization and the idea that only Republicans can win there. And have him keep the deep left base satisfied, which could be an issue with a very moody voting bloc.”

Olson said Walz’s rural experience and regular-guy vibes might be able to shave 2 to 4 percentage points off GOP electoral performance in rural Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three states considered crucial to a Democratic victory in November.

WATCH LIVE: Harris holds first rally with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz after choosing him as running mate

“The most recent Survey USA poll taken last month for KSTP-TV had Walz’ job approval at a healthy 56 percent,” said Steve Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota. “That said, Minnesota is quite a polarized state, and Republicans in the state despise him. He initially campaigned as a moderate in 2018 but has governed as a progressive.”

Walz was one of several potential vice presidential options floated since President Joe Biden announced he’d cede the nomination and endorsed Harris. Other frequently cited names were Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Now that he is Harris’ running mate, we are on the lookout for claims by and about Walz to fact-check — just as we are for Harris and former President Donald Trump and his vice presidential pick, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio. Readers can email us suggestions to [email protected].

READ MORE: Fact-checking JD Vance’s past statements and relationship with Trump

Republicans have already begun to question Walz’s handling of the rioting following the murder of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody. Walz clashed with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over how to handle the unrest, but he sent the Minnesota National Guard to aid local law enforcement.

Who is Tim Walz?

Walz grew up in Nebraska but moved with his wife, Gwen, to Minnesota in 1996 to teach high school geography and coach football; his teams won two state championships.

He was 42 when he ran for Congress, a decision sparked by a 2004 incident at an appearance by President George W. Bush. “Walz took two students to the event, where Bush campaign staffers demanded to know whether he supported the president and barred the students from entering after discovering one had a sticker for Democratic candidate John Kerry,” according to the Almanac of American Politics. “Walz suggested it might be bad PR for the Bush campaign to bar an Army veteran, and he and the students were allowed in. Walz said the experience sparked his interest in politics, first as a volunteer for the Kerry campaign and then as a congressional candidate.”

Walz’s ideological profile is nuanced. The other highest-profile finalist for Harris’ running mate, Shapiro, was pegged as somewhat more moderate and bipartisan than Walz. An Emerson College poll released in July found Shapiro with 49 percent approval overall in his state, including a strong 46 percent approval from independents and 22 percent from Republicans.

When he was elected to Congress, Walz represented a district that had sent Republicans to Washington for 102 of the previous 114 years, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Representing that constituency, Walz was able to win the National Rifle Association’s endorsement and he voted for the Keystone XL pipeline — two positions that have become highly unusual in today’s Democratic Party.

During his first gubernatorial term, Walz worked with legislative Republicans, which produced some bipartisan achievements, including $275 million for roads and bridges, additional funds for opioid treatment and prevention, and a middle-income tax cut.

In 2022, Walz won a second term by a 52 percent to 45 percent margin. Democrats also flipped the state Senate, providing him with unified Democratic control in the Legislature. This enabled Walz to enact a progressive wish list of policies, including classifying abortion as a “fundamental right,” a requirement that utilities produce carbon-free energy by 2040, paid family leave and legalizing recreational marijuana. He also signed an executive order safeguarding access to gender-affirming health care for transgender residents.

After Harris’ announcement, the Trump campaign attacked Walz’s legislative record in a campaign email: “Kamala Harris just doubled-down on her radical vision for America by tapping another left-wing extremist as her VP nominee.”

Olson noted that Walz “only has one veto in six years. He doesn’t say ‘no’ to the left, after being a moderate. That’s a reason he’s now beloved by the left.”

Democrats have controlled the Minnesota state Legislature’s lower chamber during Walz’ entire tenure. However, Republicans controlled the state Senate for his first four years in office.

Walz’s meteoric three-week rise on the national scene stemmed after calling Trump, Vance and other Republicans in their circle “weird.”

In a July 23 interview on MSNBC, Walz predicted that Harris would win older, white voters because she was talking about substance, including schools, jobs and environmental policy.

“These are weird people on the other side,” Walz said. “They want to take books away. They want to be in your exam room. That’s what it comes down to. And don’t, you know, get sugarcoating this. These are weird ideas.”

Days later on MSNBC , Walz reiterated the point: “You know there’s something wrong with people when they talk about freedom. Freedom to be in your bedroom. Freedom to be in your exam room. Freedom to tell your kids what they can read. That stuff is weird. They come across weird. They seem obsessed with this.”

Other Democrats, including the Harris campaign, amplified the “weird” message, quickly making Walz a star in online Democratic circles.

Walz also attracted notice for being a self-styled fix-it guy who has helped pull a car out of a ditch and given advice about how to save money on car repairs . He staged a bill signing for free breakfast and lunch for students surrounded by cheering children .

Schier said he expects Walz to be a compatible ticket-mate who won’t upstage the presidential nominee. “Walz will be a loyal companion to Harris,” Schier said.

One thing Walz does not bring to the table is a critical state for the Democratic ticket. In 2024, election analysts universally rate Minnesota as leaning or likely Democratic. By contrast, Shapiro’s state of Pennsylvania is not only one of a handful of battleground states but also the one with the biggest haul of electoral votes, at 19. Another finalist, Kelly, represents another battleground state with nine electoral votes, Arizona.

Fact-checking Walz

We have not put Walz on our Truth-O-Meter. However, days after Floyd’s murder, we wrote a story about how a false claim about out-of-state protestors was spread by Minnesota officials, including Walz, and then national politicians, including Trump.

At a May 2020 news conference, Walz said he understood that the catalyst for the protests was “Minnesotans’ inability to deal with inequalities, inequities and quite honestly the racism that has persisted.” But there was an issue with “everybody from everywhere else.”

“We’re going to start releasing who some of these people are, and they’ll be able to start tracing that history of where they’re at, and what they’re doing on the ‘dark web’ and how they’re organizing,” Walz said. “I think our best estimate right now that I heard is about 20 percent that are Minnesotans and about 80 percent are outside.”

The statistic soon fell apart.

Within hours, local TV station KARE reported that Minneapolis-based police tallies of those arrested for rioting, unlawful assembly, and burglary-related crimes from May 29 to May 30 showed that 86 percent of those arrested listed Minnesota as their address. Twelve out of 18 people arrested in St. Paul were from Minnesota.

Confronted with these numbers, the officials walked back their comments that evening or did not repeat them. In a news conference, Walz did not repeat his earlier 80 percent assertion. KARE-TV wrote that Walz said the estimate was based in part on law enforcement intelligence information and that the state would monitor developments.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 26 July 2024

Seventh patient ‘cured’ of HIV: why scientists are excited

• Smriti Mallapaty

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Mutations in the gene that encodes a receptor called CCR5 can stop HIV (blue) entering immune cells. Credit: NIAID/National Institutes of Health/SPL

A 60-year-old man in Germany has become at least the seventh person with HIV to be announced free of the virus after receiving a stem-cell transplant 1 . But the man, who has been virus-free for close to six years, is only the second person to receive stem cells that are not resistant to the virus.

“I am quite surprised that it worked,” says Ravindra Gupta, a microbiologist at the University of Cambridge, UK, who led a team that treated one of the other people who is now free of HIV 2 , 3 . “It’s a big deal.”

The first person found to be HIV-free after a bone-marrow transplant to treat blood cancer 4 was Timothy Ray Brown , who is known as the Berlin patient. Brown and a handful of others received special donor stem cells 2 , 3 . These carried a mutation in the gene that encodes a receptor called CCR5, which is used by most HIV virus strains to enter immune cells. To many scientists, these cases suggested that CCR5 was the best target for an HIV cure .

The latest case — presented at the 25th International AIDS Conference in Munich, Germany, this week — turns that on its head. The patient, referred to as the next Berlin patient, received stem cells from a donor who only had one copy of the mutated gene, which means their cells do express CCR5, but at lower levels than usual.

The case sends a clear message that finding a cure for HIV is “not all about CCR5”, says infectious-disease physician Sharon Lewin, who heads The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity in Melbourne, Australia.

Ultimately, the findings widen the donor pool for stem-cell transplants, a risky procedure offered to people with leukaemia but unlikely to be rolled out for most individuals with HIV. Roughly 1% of people of European descent carry mutations in both copies of the CCR5 gene, but some 10% of people with such ancestry have one mutated copy 5 .

The case “broadens the horizon of what might be possible” for treating HIV, says Sara Weibel, a physician-scientist who studies HIV at the University of California, San Diego. Some 40 million people are living with HIV globally.

Six years HIV-free

The next Berlin patient was diagnosed with HIV in 2009. He developed a type of blood and bone-marrow cancer known as acute myeloid leukaemia in 2015. His doctors could not find a matching stem-cell donor who had mutations in both copies of the CCR5 gene. But they found a female donor who had one mutated copy, similar to the patient. The next Berlin patient received the stem-cell transplant in 2015.

“The cancer treatment went very well,” says Christian Gaebler, a physician-scientist and immunologist at the Charité — Berlin University Medicine, who presented the work. Within a month, the patient’s bone-marrow stem cells had been replaced with the donor’s. The patient stopped taking antiretroviral drugs, which suppress HIV, in 2018. And now, almost six years later, researchers can’t find evidence of HIV replicating in the patient.

Shrunken reservoir

Previous attempts to transplant stem cells from donors with regular CCR5 genes have seen the virus reappear weeks to months after the people with HIV stopped taking antiretroviral therapy, in all but one person 6 . In 2023, Asier Sáez-Cirión, an HIV researcher at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, presented data on an individual called the Geneva patient, who had been without antiretroviral therapy for 18 months 7 . Sáez-Cirión says the person remains free of the virus, about 32 months later.

Researchers are now trying to work out why these two transplants succeeded when others have failed.

They propose several mechanisms. First, antiretroviral treatment causes the amount of virus in the body to drop considerably. And chemotherapy before the stem-cell transplant kills many of the host’s immune cells, which is where residual HIV lurks . Transplanted donor cells might then mark leftover host cells as foreign and destroy them, together with any virus residing in them. The rapid and complete replacement of the host’s bone-marrow stem cells with those of the donor’s might also contribute to the swift eradication. “If you can shrink the reservoir enough, you can cure people,” says Lewin.

The fact that both the next Berlin patient and his stem cell donor had one CCR5 gene copy with a mutation could have created an extra barrier to the virus entering cells, says Gaebler.

The case also has implications for therapies currently in early-stage clinical trials, in which the CCR5 receptor is sliced out of a person’s own cells using CRISPR–Cas9 and other gene-editing techniques , says Lewin. Even if these therapies don’t get to every single cell, they could still have an impact, she says.

Nature 632 , 235-236 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02463-w

Gaebler, C. et al. 25th Int. AIDS Conf. Abstract 12163 (International AIDS Society, 2024).

Gupta, R. et al. Nature 568 , 244–248 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gupta, R. K. et al. Lancet HIV 7 , E340–E347 (2020).

Hütter, G. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. 360 , 692–698 (2009).

McLaren, P. J. & Fellay, J. Nature Rev. Genet. 22 , 645–657 (2021).

Salgado, M. et al. Lancet HIV 11 , E389–E405 (2024).

Sáez-Cirión, A. et al. 12th IAS Conf. on HIV Science Abstract 5819 (International AIDS Society, 2023).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

Second patient free of HIV after stem-cell therapy

The HIV epidemic 40 years on

• HIV infections

Stunning trial shows twice-yearly shots can prevent HIV infection

Research Highlight 02 AUG 24

Blockbuster obesity drug leads to better health in people with HIV

News 11 MAR 24

The HIV capsid mimics karyopherin engagement of FG-nucleoporins

Article 24 JAN 24

Recruitment of Talent Positions at Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University

Call for top experts and scholars in the field of science and technology.

Shenyang, Liaoning, China

Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University

The Recruitment of Fuyao University of Science and Technology

This recruitment of Fuyao University Technologyof Science andUcovers 7 departments including the 6 Schools and the Faculty of Fundamental Disciplines.

Fuzhou, Fujian (CN)

Fuzhou FuYao Institute for Advanced Study

Educational Consultant

You will build and maintain strong relationships with local representatives, key distributors, schools, Ministries of Education, etc.

Riyadh - hybrid working model

Springer Nature Ltd

Senior Marketing Manager – Journal Awareness

Job Title: Senior Marketing Manager – Journal Awareness Location(s): London, UK - Hybrid Working Model Closing date: 25th August 2024             A...

London (Central), London (Greater) (GB)

Faculty Positions& Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Optical and Electronic Information, HUST

Job Opportunities: Leading talents, young talents, overseas outstanding young scholars, postdoctoral researchers.

Wuhan, Hubei, China

School of Optical and Electronic Information, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Attacks on Walz’s Military Record

By Robert Farley , D'Angelo Gore and Eugene Kiely

Posted on August 8, 2024 | Corrected on August 9, 2024

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino .

In introducing her pick for vice presidential running mate, Kamala Harris has prominently touted Tim Walz’s 24 years of service in the Army National Guard. Now, however, GOP vice presidential nominee JD Vance and the Trump campaign are attacking Walz on his military record, accusing the Minnesota governor of “stolen valor.”

We’ll sort through the facts surrounding the three main attacks on Walz’s military record and let readers decide their merit. The claims include:

• Vance claimed that Walz “dropped out” of the National Guard when he learned his battalion was slated to be deployed to Iraq. Walz retired to focus on a run for Congress two months before his unit got official word of impending deployment, though the possibility had been rumored for months.
• Vance also accused Walz of having once claimed to have served in combat, when he did not. While advocating a ban on assault-style weapons, Walz said, “We can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.”
• The Republican National Committee has criticized Walz for misrepresenting his military rank in campaign materials. The Harris campaign website salutes Walz for “rising to the rank of Command Sergeant Major.” Walz did rise to that rank, but he retired as a master sergeant because he had not completed the requirements of a command sergeant major.

A native of West Point, Nebraska, Walz joined the Nebraska Army National Guard in April 1981, two days after his 17th birthday. When Walz and his wife moved to Minnesota in 1996, he transferred to the Minnesota National Guard, where he served in 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery.

“While serving in Minnesota, his military occupational specialties were 13B – a cannon crewmember who operates and maintains cannons and 13Z -field artillery senior sergeant,” according to a statement released by Army Lt. Col. Kristen Augé, the Minnesota National Guard’s state public affairs officer.

According to MPR News , Walz suffered some hearing impairment related to exposure to cannon booms during training over the years, and he underwent some corrective surgery to address it.

On Aug. 3, 2003, “Walz mobilized with the Minnesota National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery … to support Operation Enduring Freedom. The battalion supported security missions at various locations in Europe and Turkey. Governor Walz was stationed at Vicenza, Italy, during his deployment.” Augé stated. The deployment lasted about eight months.

“For 24 years I proudly wore the uniform of this nation,” Walz said at a rally in Philadelphia where he was announced as Harris’ running mate on Aug. 6. “The National Guard gave me purpose. It gave me the strength of a shared commitment to something greater than ourselves.”

Walz’s Retirement from the National Guard

In recent years, however, several of his fellow guard members have taken issue with the timing of Walz’s retirement from the National Guard in May 2005, claiming he left to avoid a deployment to Iraq.

Vance, who served a four-year active duty enlistment in the Marine Corps as a combat correspondent, serving in Iraq for six months in 2005, advanced that argument at a campaign event on Aug. 7.

“When the United States of America asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it,” Vance said. “When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him, a fact that he’s been criticized for aggressively by a lot of the people that he served with. I think it’s shameful to prepare your unit to go to Iraq, to make a promise that you’re going to follow through and then to drop out right before you actually have to go.”

In early 2005, Walz, then a high school geography teacher and football coach at Mankato West High School, decided to run for public office. In a 2009 interview Walz provided as part of the Library of Congress’ veterans oral history project, Waltz said he made the decision to retire from the National Guard to “focus full time” on a run for the U.S. House of Representatives for Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District (which he ultimately won in 2006). Walz said he was “really concerned” about trying to seek public office and serve in the National Guard at the same time without running afoul of the Hatch Act , which limits political speech by federal employees, including members of the National Guard.

Federal Election Commission records show that Walz filed to run for Congress on Feb. 10, 2005.

On March 20, 2005, Walz’s campaign put out a press release titled “Walz Still Planning to Run for Congress Despite Possible Call to Duty in Iraq.”

Three days prior, the release said, “the National Guard Public Affairs Office announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard. … The announcement from the National Guard PAO specified that all or a portion of Walz’s battalion could be mobilized to serve in Iraq within the next two years.”

According to the release, “When asked about his possible deployment to Iraq Walz said, ‘I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on specifics of the deployment.’ Although his tour of duty in Iraq might coincide with his campaign for Minnesota’s 1st Congressional seat, Walz is determined to stay in the race. ‘As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq.'”

On March 23, 2005, the Pipestone County Star reported, “Detachments of the Minnesota National Guard have been ‘alerted’ of possible deployment to Iraq in mid-to-late 2006.”

“Major Kevin Olson of the Minnesota National Guard said a brigade-sized contingent of soldiers could be expected to be called to Iraq, but he was not, at this time, aware of which batteries would be called,” the story said. “All soldiers in the First Brigade combat team of the 34th Division, Minnesota National Guard, could be eligible for call-up. ‘We don’t know yet what the force is like’ he said. ‘It’s too early to speculate, if the (soldiers) do go.’

“He added: ‘We will have a major announcement if and when the alert order moves ahead.’”

ABC News spoke to Joseph Eustice, a retired command sergeant major who served with Walz, and he told the news organization this week that “he remembers Walz struggling with the timing of wanting to serve as a lawmaker but also avoiding asking for a deferment so he could do so.”

“He had a window of time,” Eustice told ABC News. “He had to decide. And in his deciding, we were not on notice to be deployed. There were rumors. There were lots of rumors, and we didn’t know where we were going until it was later that, early summer, I believe.”

Al Bonnifield, who served under Walz, also recalled Walz agonizing over the decision.

“It was a very long conversation behind closed doors,” Bonnifield told the Washington Post this week. “He was trying to decide where he could do better for soldiers, for veterans, for the country. He weighed that for a long time.”

In 2018, Bonnifield told MPR News that Walz worried in early 2005, “Would the soldier look down on him because he didn’t go with us? Would the common soldier say, ‘Hey, he didn’t go with us, he’s trying to skip out on a deployment?’ And he wasn’t. He talked with us for quite a while on that subject. He weighed that decision to run for Congress very heavy. He loved the military, he loved the guard, he loved the soldiers he worked with.”

But not all of Walz’s fellow Guard members felt that way.

In a paid letter to the West Central Tribune in Minnesota in November 2018, Thomas Behrends and Paul Herr — both retired command sergeants major in the Minnesota National Guard — wrote, “On May 16th, 2005 he [Walz] quit, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; without its senior Non-Commissioned Officer, as the battalion prepared for war. His excuse to other leaders was that he needed to retire in order to run for congress. Which is false, according to a Department of Defense Directive, he could have run and requested permission from the Secretary of Defense before entering active duty; as many reservists have.”

“For Tim Walz to abandon his fellow soldiers and quit when they needed experienced leadership most is disheartening,” they wrote. “When the nation called, he quit.”

Walz retired on May 16, 2005. Walz’s brigade received alert orders for mobilization on July 14, 2005, according to the National Guard and MPR News . The official mobilization report came the following month, and the unit mobilized and trained through the fall. It was finally deployed to Iraq in the spring of 2006.

The unit was originally scheduled to return in February 2007, but its tour was extended four months as part of President George W. Bush’s “surge” strategy , the National Guard reported. In all, the soldiers were mobilized for 22 months.

Responding to Vance’s claim that Walz retired to avoid deploying to Iraq, the Harris-Walz campaign released a statement saying, “After 24 years of military service, Governor Walz retired in 2005 and ran for Congress, where he was a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform – and as Vice President of the United States he will continue to be a relentless champion for our veterans and military families.”

Walz on Carrying a Weapon ‘in War’

Vance also called Walz “dishonest” for a claim that Walz made in 2018 while speaking to a group about gun control.

“He made this interesting comment that the Kamala Harris campaign put out there,” Vance said, referring to a video of Walz that the Harris campaign posted to X on Aug. 6. “He said, ‘We shouldn’t allow weapons that I used in war to be on America’s streets.’ Well, I wonder, Tim Walz, when were you ever in war? What was this weapon that you carried into war given that you abandoned your unit right before they went to Iraq and he has not spent a day in a combat zone.”

In the video , Walz, who was campaigning for governor at the time, talked about pushing back on the National Rifle Association and said: “I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt. … I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can do [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] research. We can make sure we don’t have reciprocal carry among states. And we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.”

But, as Vance indicated, there is no evidence that Walz carried a weapon “in war.”

As we said, Augé, in her statement, said Walz’s battalion deployed “to support Operation Enduring Freedom” on Aug. 3, 2003, and “supported security missions at various locations in Europe and Turkey.” During his deployment, Walz was stationed in Vicenza, Italy, and he returned to Minnesota in April 2004, Augé said. There was no mention of Walz serving in Afghanistan, Iraq or another combat zone.

In the 2009 interview for the veterans history project, Walz said he and members of his battalion initially thought they would “shoot artillery in Afghanistan,” as they had trained to do. That didn’t happen, he said, explaining that his group ended up helping with security and training while stationed at an Army base in Vicenza.

“I think in the beginning, many of my troops were disappointed,” Walz said in the interview. “I think they felt a little guilty, many of them, that they weren’t in the fight up front as this was happening.”

In a statement addressing his claim about carrying weapons “in war,” the Harris campaign noted that Walz, whose military occupational specialties included field artillery senior sergeant, “fired and trained others to use weapons of war innumerable times” in his 24 years of service.

Walz’s National Guard Rank

The Republican National Committee has criticized Walz for saying “in campaign materials that he is a former ‘Command Sergeant Major’ in the Army National Guard despite not completing the requirements to hold the rank into retirement.”

Walz’s biography on the Harris campaign website correctly says that the governor “served for 24 years” in the National Guard, “rising to the rank of Command Sergeant Major.” 

Walz’s official biography on the Minnesota state website goes further, referring to the governor as “Command Sergeant Major Walz.”

“After 24 years in the Army National Guard, Command Sergeant Major Walz retired from the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion in 2005,” the state website says. 

Walz did serve as command sergeant major , but Walz did not complete the requirements to retire with the rank of command sergeant, Augé told us in an email. 

“He held multiple positions within field artillery such as firing battery chief, operations sergeant, first sergeant, and culminated his career serving as the command sergeant major for the battalion,” Augé said. “He retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.”

This isn’t the first time that Walz’s National Guard rank has come up in a campaign. 

In their 2018 paid letter to the West Central Tribune, when Walz was running for governor, the two Minnesota National Guard retired command sergeants major who criticized Walz for retiring before the Iraq deployment also wrote: “Yes, he served at that rank, but was never qualified at that rank, and will receive retirement benefits at one rank below. You be the judge.”

Correction, Aug. 9: We mistakenly said a 2007 “surge” strategy in Iraq occurred under President Barack Obama. It was President George W. Bush.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through  our “Donate” page . If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

• Open access
• Published: 08 August 2024

Evidence for motivational interviewing in educational settings among medical schools: a scoping review

• Leonard Yik Chuan Lei 1 ,
• Keng Sheng Chew 1 ,
• Chee Shee Chai 1 &
• Yoke Yong Chen 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  856 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a person-centred approach focused on empowering and motivating individuals for behavioural change. Medical students can utilize MI in patient education to engage with patients’ chronic health ailments and maladaptive behaviours. A current scoping review was conducted to 1) determine the types of MI (conventional, adapted, brief and group MI) education programs in medical schools, delivery modalities and teaching methods used; 2) classify educational outcomes on the basis of Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy; and 3) determine the key elements of MI education via the FRAMES (feedback, responsibility, advice, menu of options, empathy, self-efficacy) model.

This scoping review was conducted via the framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley. Two online databases, CINAHL and MEDLINE Complete, were searched to identify MI interventions in medical education. Further articles were selected from bibliography lists and the Google Scholar search engine.

From an initial yield of 2019 articles, 19 articles were included. First, there appears to be a bimodal distribution of most articles published between the two time periods of 2004--2008 and 2019--2023. Second, all the studies included in this review did not use conventional MI but instead utilized a variety of MI adaptation techniques. Third, most studies used face-to-face training in MI, whereas only one study used online delivery. Fourth, most studies have used a variety of interactive experiences to teach MI. Next, all studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 2, but only 4 studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 3. According to the FRAMES model, all studies ( n =19; 100%) reported the elements of responsibility and advice. The element that was reported the least was self-efficacy ( n = 12; 63.1%).

Our findings suggest that motivational interviewing can be taught effectively in medical schools via adaptations to MI and a variety of teaching approaches. However, there is a need for further research investigating standardized MI training across medical schools, the adequate dose for training in MI and the implementation of reflective practices. Future studies may benefit from exploring and better understanding the relationship between MI and self-efficacy in their MI interventions.

Peer Review reports

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a person-centred approach that focuses on empowering and motivating individuals for behavioural change [ 1 ]. Undoubtedly, the empathetic approach of MI in clinical settings fosters a supportive environment that encourages discussion of the benefits of enhanced self-care [ 2 ]. In this context, MI practitioners utilize a set of essential skills encapsulated by the acronym “OARS”, which stands for O = open-ended questions, A = affirmations, R = reflections and S = summaries to promote active listening [ 3 ]. MI was developed primarily for the treatment of addiction disorders but has since progressed to include other physical and mental ailments as well [ 4 ]. In a study on MI interventions in alcoholism, Miller & Sanchez [ 68 ] identified six common motivational elements that should be covered, represented by the acronym “FRAMES”, where F = feedback (e.g., personalized feedback on the impacts of alcoholism on the client’s own experiences, as opposed to providing generic information); R = responsibility (e.g., empowering clients to make their own choices and take responsibility for their change process); A = advice (e.g., effectively given in a nondirective and noncoercive manner); M = menu (e.g., offering a variety of choices on transition methods and plans); E = empathy (e.g., rendering empathic, reassuring and reflective listening); and S = self-efficacy (e.g., supporting clients to succeed in a specified goal). This review used the FRAMES model to determine the key elements of MI education. FRAMES was a predecessor to MI and was initially designed to address drinking problems [ 5 ]; however, it is also used in other health issues, such as decreasing stroke risk [ 6 ], substance use screening and brief intervention [ 7 ]. The FRAMES model offers a structure that can be used to improve the delivery of MI by ensuring that key elements of MI are present in educational interventions.

Mechanisms of motivational interviewing

Frey et al. [ 8 ] developed mechanisms of the motivational interviewing (MMI) framework and described the mechanisms of fidelity of practice in MI, including a technical component, a relational component and MI-inconsistent practices [ 8 ]. The technical component consists of the interviewer’s ability to evaluate the participant’s language relating to a specific behaviour change target and then build a conversation that evokes change talk. The relational component includes respect for the participant’s self-determination, appropriate empathy, and equal partnership. Non-MI consistent behaviours include confrontation, offering unsolicited advice, and persuasion. Additionally, it is important to identify and understand the mechanisms of change so that MI users and researchers can focus on these mechanisms during training, which can lead to improved outcomes and fidelity [ 8 ].

Types of motivational interviewing

MI can be categorized into four types: conventional, adaptive, brief, and group. Conventional MI is an evidence-based approach and directive form of interviewing developed by Miller & Rollnick [ 9 ]. Throughout the course of MI, four important tasks occur: engaging (building mutual relationships), focusing (setting goals), evoking (developing clients’ motivations for change) and planning (negotiating change) [ 9 ]. In this review, the term conventional MI is defined as an approach that utilizes MI-consistent tasks and behaviours in multiple sessions that target an identified population of clients.

Adapted MI consists of culturally sensitive MI and digitally supported interventions that can be used as adjunct interventions to the primary behavioural program [ 10 ]. This review defines the term adapted MI to include any adaptations made to adapt MI culturally to the setting or delivered by technology through various types of technologies and content (e.g., computers, smartphones, applications, videos and audio). Additionally, it also includes adaptations made to structured curricula, such as using role plays or real patient interactions to facilitate the learning of MI.

Brief MI is a type of MI with varying lengths, ranging from 5--90 minutes in duration, emphasizing the lack of an accepted definition of brief MI [ 10 ]. This review defines the term brief MI as an MI that provides brief consultations centred on typically fewer sessions (e.g., 1--2 sessions) than conventional MI (e.g., 3--4 sessions or more).

Group MI can be defined as groups of clients that apply the MI spirit, processes and methods to increase motivation for change and promote beneficial collaboration among participants and practitioners in a shared location to encourage change [ 11 ]. This review defines the term group MI as MI that is adapted for group format and is MI consistent (e.g., applying MI principles, spirit and techniques in its delivery).

Additionally, MI can be used in patient education to help patients better handle their chronic health conditions and maladaptive behaviours. Therefore, behavioural change is vital in the recovery course of different mental and physical disorders, as a change to a healthier lifestyle has been shown to result in a significant decrease in chronic disease risk [ 12 ]. More than 120 studies have demonstrated the efficacy of MI in addressing a wide range of problematic behaviours, such as substance abuse and risky behaviour, as well as promoting healthy behaviours [ 13 ]. There is specific evidence regarding the effectiveness of MI across different health behaviours (substance abuse, risky behaviours and promoting health behaviours), according to the types of MI: conventional, adaptive, brief and group. For conventional MI, research has shown effectiveness in treating substance abuse [ 14 ], reducing risky behaviours in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive men [ 15 ] and promoting physical activity in older adults [ 16 ]. Adaptive MI has demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing alcohol problems in women [ 17 ], reducing risky sexual behaviours and psychological symptoms in HIV-positive older adults [ 18 ] and promoting self-management to reduce BMI and improve lifestyle adherence with a computer assistant [ 19 ]. Brief MI has been effective in reduction in alcohol misuse in college students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [ 20 ] and improvement in the engagement of physical activity in patients with low physical activity levels [ 21 ]. Research has revealed that group MI is effective in treating drug use among women [ 22 ], reducing risky sexual behaviour among adolescents [ 23 ] and improving self-efficacy and oral health behaviours among pregnant women [ 24 ].

Unhealthy lifestyle-linked behaviours characterize common preventable risk factors that lead to the majority of noncommunicable diseases and their associated mortality and morbidity [ 25 ]. MI provides an approach for healthcare providers to assist patients in investigating and resolving their ambivalence toward changing unhealthy lifestyle behaviour [ 27 ]. Studies have reported the effectiveness of teaching MI to medical students [ 4 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Therefore, considering the prevalence and widespread application of MI in health care settings, this underscores the importance of MI being taught in the initial stages of medical education.

In a recent systematic review, Kaltman and Tankersley [ 31 ] reviewed MI curricula in undergraduate medical education (UME) and revealed important findings. Their research findings suggest that generally being involved in an MI curriculum can be linked to enhanced MI-related knowledge and skills in the short term. Additionally, they noted that 1) the MI curricula were heterogeneous in nature; 2) the curricula were different in terms of timing, duration and number of sessions; 3) the curricula employed in studies were multiple pedagogies; and 4) the quality of the evaluations and research evidence varied. However, this review by Kaltman and Tankersley [ 31 ] was limited to reporting only on MI-specific outcomes such as knowledge, skills, attitudes towards, and self-efficacy in implementing MI. Kaltman and Tankersley [ 31 ] systematic review did not stratify and explore in detail studies on the types of MI (conventional, adaptive, brief, or group). Furthermore, the systematic review did not investigate the key elements of MI education as described by the FRAMES model. The scoping review aimed to bridge the knowledge gap on types of MI (conventional, adapted, brief, group MI) and key elements of MI education covered via the FRAMES model. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to 1) determine the types of MI education programs in medical schools, the delivery modalities, and the teaching methods used; 2) classify educational outcomes on the basis of Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy [ 32 ]; and 3) determine the key elements of MI education covered via the FRAMES model.

This study adopted the methodological 5-step framework of Arksey and O’Malley for this scoping review. The five steps are as follows: 1) define our research objectives; 2) identify relevant studies; 3) identify studies based on our selection criteria; 4) chart and analyse the data; and 5) collate, summarize, and disseminate the results.

Eligibility criteria

Relevant peer-reviewed articles on MI studies conducted in medical education settings, published in academic journals only, in the English language, with no time limit imposed on the publication period, were identified. Studies involving nonmedical students as well as grey literature, such as conference proceedings, technical reports, videos, and informal communications, were excluded. Studies in languages other than English were also excluded. The search strategy was guided by the methodology of Aromataris and Riitano [ 33 ]. The Boolean operators and keywords used in this search strategy were ("medical education" OR "medical teaching*" OR "medical graduate*" OR "medical postgraduate*” OR “medical student*”) AND ("motivational interview*" OR "motivational enhanc*" OR "motivational chang*" OR "motivational behavior”) AND ("psycholog*" OR "health*"). The search utilized databases from the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE Complete) and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Complete) databases via the EBSCOHost database search query, covering all study designs (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and mixed studies). The protocol was developed a priori before the search process was conducted, including establishing the objectives and eligibility criteria for determining the studies selected. The reference lists of the selected studies were further checked for additional sources, including traditional and systematic reviews. Articles that met the eligibility criteria were selected through a consensus among the authors and were charted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [ 34 ]. The first author conducted the searches and screened the articles using the search strategy and the inclusion and exclusion criteria stated above. This process resulted in the identification of 59 articles. The decision process resulted in 19 studies for inclusion in this review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were extracted and charted by the first author. Notably, the following data were extracted: 1) the study characteristics of the identified articles (publication year, country of origin, type of MI, and medical student phase) and 2) a detailed description of the key findings of the articles (i.e., author, year, objectives, participants, delivery, duration, teaching methods, assessments, and educational outcomes based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy). Proforma was developed by all the authors and used to extract and chart the data. The study characteristics are then charted in Table 1 , and detailed descriptions of the key findings of the articles are charted in Table 2 . The other authors assisted in identifying specific data elements to be charted onto Tables 1 and 2 . All the authors contributed to analysing the charted data to ensure the consistency and accuracy of the analysis. The outcomes of educational intervention were classified under the four levels of Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy. Studies classified as Level 3 consists of simulations and observations of behaviours in activities (e.g., roleplay, standardized patients, real patients) after a learning activity such as a workshop. Although Level 3 is usually linked to students applying what they have acquired in training to job settings, our classification extends to controlled settings simulating real-life applications. The most recent search of MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete and Google Scholar was carried out in October 2023.

From an initial pool of 2,019 articles, after removing duplicates and screening for relevance, 19 articles were included in this review. The detailed selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram in Fig. 1 .

Prism flow diagram

Characteristics of the identified articles

The study characteristics, country of origin, and phase of study are presented in Table 1 . The detailed descriptions of the key findings of these articles (i.e., author, year, objectives, participants, delivery, duration, teaching methods, assessments, and educational outcomes based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy) are provided in Table 2 . Most of the studies were published between 2004–2008 and 2019–2023, with each period accounting for 31.5% of the total articles. The majority of MI studies originated from the US (57.8%).

Types and characteristics of MI

With respect to the first research objective, none of the 19 studies in this scoping review conducted conventional MI. Rather, most studies in this scoping review used adapted MI ( n =8; 42.1%) [ 4 , 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 ], followed by group MI ( n =7; 36.8%) [ 26 , 29 , 35 , 40 , 45 , 48 , 39 ] and brief MI ( n =4; 21%) [ 37 , 41 , 43 , 50 ].

Adapted motivational interviewing was utilized in 8 studies. This approach includes any adaptations utilized to adjust MI culturally to the situation or facilitated by technology via different types of content and technologies (e.g., computers, smartphones, applications, videos and audio). Additionally, it also includes adaptations made to structured curricula, such as using role plays via standardized patients or real patient interactions to facilitate the learning of MI. Adapted MI was reported in 8 studies. Specifically, 5 studies [ 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 47 ] adapted their curricula to teach MI via role playing standardized patients or real patients. Additionally, 3 studies [ 4 , 46 , 49 ] utilized technological adaptations and blended learning (face-to-face and online) to teach motivational interviewing.

In group MI, this approach consists of MI that is adapted for group format and is MI consistent (e.g., applying MI principles, spirit and techniques in its delivery). Group MI was carried out in 7 studies. Two studies [ 26 , 45 ] used training workshops to teach and practice MI in smaller groups. The remaining 5 studies [ 29 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 48 ] used a small group format to teach MI skills consisting of lectures, roleplay, a case-based curriculum and demonstrations.

Brief MI provides brief consultations centred on typically shorter number sessions (e.g., 1--2 sessions) than conventional MI (e.g., 3--4 sessions or more). A brief MI was conducted in 4 studies. Two studies [ 41 , 51 ] delivered a single session of MI training within two hours. Another study [ 50 ] conducted four (10–15 minute) sessions teaching MI, with a total of less than 1 hour of training. Opheim et al. [ 43 ] conducted a four-hour workshop on MI, which is a relatively brief training intervention.

More than half of the studies focused on clinical medical students ( n =10; 52.6%) [ 4 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 49 ], and the least studied was the combination of preclinical and clinical students ( n =2; 10.5%) [ 40 , 47 ]. There was a diverse number of participants, ranging from 17 to 339 students. The median number of participants in these studies was 93. The most common delivery mode identified was face-to-face learning ( n =15; 78.9%) [ 26 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 51 ], followed by blended learning ( n =3; 15.7%) [ 4 , 46 , 49 ], and the least common delivery mode was online learning ( n =1, 5.2%) [ 50 ]. The duration of intervention for brief MI ( n =4; 21.0%) [ 37 , 41 , 43 , 50 ] ranged from 10 minutes to 2 hours per session. The duration of adapted MI ( n =8; 42.1%) [ 4 , 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 ] and group MI ( n =7; 36.8%) [ 26 , 29 , 35 , 40 , 39 , 45 , 48 ] ranged from 3 hours to 12 hours. The teaching methods include workshops, lectures, videos, role plays, demonstrations, interviews, interactive exercises, small and large group activities, simulated patients, and online forums.

Classifying educational outcomes based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy

With respect to the second research objective (i.e., classifying educational outcomes on the basis of Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy [ 32 ]), all 19 studies [ 4 , 26 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ] were categorized at Kirkpatrick’s Level 2 (knowledge/skills/attitudes). This is followed by 16 out of 19 studies [ 4 , 26 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ] categorized at Kirkpatrick’s Level 1. Only 4 out of 19 studies [ 35 , 38 , 41 , 47 ] are categorized at Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 (Behaviour). One of the studies [ 38 ] compared the effectiveness of standardized patients versus role plays from colleagues and reported that both were equally effective for teaching basic MI skills among medical students. The students were evaluated in a simulated environment and demonstrated their MI skills in terms of student roleplay or standardized patients. The study reported that standardized patient role play is as effective as student role play in teaching basic MI skills. The sessions focused on demonstrating skills in a simulated setting, suggesting that the student’s behaviour (i.e., adherence to MI skills) was evaluated and improved via the educational intervention. In another study, Bell et al. [ 35 ] investigated the use of a curriculum to teach medical students the principles of MI to increase their knowledge, skills and confidence in counselling patients with the aim of health behaviour change. The research indicated that video-recorded interactions between students and patients enabled students to effectively apply MI skills to real-life patients. None of the studies included reported outcomes at Level 4 (results).

Key elements of the reported FRAMES model and assessment methods used

With respect to the third research objective, all 6 elements in the FRAMES model were covered in 9 out of 19 studies [ 4 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 44 , 45 , 51 ], 5 elements were identified in another 4 studies [ 26 , 41 , 48 , 49 ], and 4 elements were identified in 4 studies [ 42 , 43 , 46 , 47 ]. The most reported element in all 19 studies was responsibility and advice ( n =19; 100%), and the least reported element was self-efficacy in only 12 studies ( n =12; 63.1%) [ 4 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 51 ]. Figure 2 shows additional details on the important elements present in the MI interventions.

Important elements of MI interventions ( n  = 19) identified as “reported” via the FRAMES model

The primary assessment method used across the studies was the use of pre- and posttest surveys, which are used to measure knowledge ( n =10, 52.6%), skills ( n =5, 26.3%) and attitudes ( n =3, 15.8%) pertaining to MI. Moreover, the specific instruments employed for focused assessments were (1) MITI to measure fidelity of MI in 5 out of 19 studies ( n =5, 26.3%), (2) Video Assessment of Simulated Encounters (VASE-R) to measure MI skills in 2 out of 19 ( n =2, 10.5%) (3) Behaviour Change Counselling Index (BECCI) to measure practitioner’s skill and competence in delivering effective MI in 2 studies out of 19 ( n =2, 10.5%), (4) Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) to measure clinical competence in 2 studies out of 19 ( n =2, 10.5%), (5) Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test (MIKAT) to measure the practitioner’s knowledge and attitude pertaining to MI in 1 study out of 19 ( n =1, 5.2%), (6) Motivational interviewing skill code (MISC) to measure adherence to MI in 1 study out of 19 ( n =1, 5.2%), (7) the Calgary-Cambridge Observation Guide (C-CG) to measure communication skills between practitioners and patients was used in 1 study out of 19 ( n =1, 5.2%), (8) Motivational interviewing confidence scale (MICS) to measure confidence in health behaviour change dialogues in 1 study out of 19 ( n =1, 5.2%) and (8) the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE) to measure empathy in patient care among health practitioners in 1 study out of 19 ( n =1, 5.2%).

Our scoping review sheds light on the current trends and key findings to determine the types of MI education programs in medical schools, the delivery modalities and teaching methods used, classify educational outcomes on based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy [ 32 ] and determine the key elements of MI education covered via the FRAMES model. First, there appears to be a bimodal distribution of most articles published between the two time periods of 2004--2008 and 2019--2023. Second, all the studies included in this review did not use conventional MI but instead utilized a variety of MI adaptation techniques. Third, most studies used face-to-face training in MI, whereas only one study used online delivery. Fourth, most studies have used a variety of interactive experiences to teach MI. Next, all studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 2, but only 4 studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 3. Finally, the most covered elements of MI training in these studies were responsibility and advice ( n = 19; 100%), and the least covered element in MI training was self-efficacy ( n = 12; 63.1%) [ 4 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 51 ]. This review expands on the evidence of MI interventions among medical schools. The results of our findings generally suggest that MI can be effectively taught in medical schools. Furthermore, we have provided several recommendations for further research to improve the implementation of MI in medical schools.

There appears to be a bimodal distribution of published articles between the two time periods, i.e., between 2004 and 2008 and between 2019 and 2023. A decline in the number of articles published was observed between 2009 and 2019. This decline could be due to the shift in the applications of MI beyond treating addictive behaviours to include a broad range of other behavioural conditions [ 52 ], such as its expanded applications in school education [ 53 , 54 , 55 ], lifestyle coaching [ 56 , 57 , 58 ], probation and parole [ 59 , 60 ] and digital health care and telemedicine [ 61 , 62 ]. From 2019 onwards, however, there was an increasing trend in the number of published articles on MI training for medical students. This could be attributed to the MI Network of Trainers (MINT) making it mandatory to attend MI training during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide virtual training in 2020 and 2021 [ 52 ], which has facilitated remote participation.

Types of MI education programs in medical schools

All the studies included in this review did not use conventional MI but utilized a variety of MI adaptation techniques. Most studies [ 4 , 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 ] have used adapted MI to conduct their MI training, possibly because of the need to tailor MI programs to fit medical school curricula. Medical students have been linked to extensive academic responsibilities and clinical rotations [ 63 ], contributing to this adaptation of MI. In fact, the lack of harmonization of training methods among medical schools has led to challenges in understanding the optimal approach to teach MI among medical students [ 31 ]. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the standard dose of training in MI that is adequate or mandatory for learners to acquire sufficient skilfulness in the practice of MI [ 9 ]. Moreover, medical schools have time constraints and limited MI teaching opportunities because of their hectic medical curriculum schedules [ 41 ]. This may lead to a variety of adaptations of MI, as noted in this review. Future research can focus on addressing the lack of harmonization in MI training methods and emphasize building and employing standardized MI training with adequate dosing across medical schools.

Delivery modalities and teaching methods used

In the present review, the delivery modalities used to train medical students in MI varied across the studies. Most studies [ 26 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 51 ] have focused on delivering face-to-face training on MI to clinical medical students. This aligns with the current literature, which suggests that MI is a complex communication skill [ 57 ] and is reported to be taught more effectively in face-to-face sessions [ 64 ]. In this review, only one study [ 50 ] used a fully online approach to teach MI to medical students. A systemic study suggested that for an online MI intervention to be effective, it requires significant emphasis on fidelity and training procedures [ 65 ]. In a recent comparative study, Schaper et al. [ 66 ] reported similar effects of training MI among general practitioners in both online and face-to-face training in MI skills and spirit. Future studies could focus on the implementation of online versus face-to-face training for medical students with an emphasis on fidelity and training procedures for MI.

A large proportion of the studies in this review report the use of a variety of teaching approaches (e.g., workshops, role-play, standardized patients, and small and large group sessions) to teach MI. This aligns with Kolb’s experiential learning cycle [ 67 ], where the process of learning occurs when knowledge is formed via the transformation of experience. This model is guided by four phases of the learning process: concrete experience (having an experience), reflective observation (reflecting on an experience), abstract conceptualization (learning from the experience), and active experimentation (experimenting what you have learned). Medical students who are given the opportunity to engage in Kolb’s learning cycle [ 67 ] via interactive activities, reflection and simulated or real-life settings are likely to develop good MI skills. Future research should underpin educational theories into MI training by implementing structured reflective exercises in MI education.

Educational outcomes based on Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy

Our review shows that all studies reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 2, suggesting that medical students have acquired the intended knowledge, skills, and attitudes. There are only 4 studies that reported outcomes at Kirkpatrick’s Level 3, which evaluates the degree to which the students apply their learning to simulated or real-world settings. The first 3 studies [ 38 , 41 , 47 ] showed their improvement in behaviour by showing their learned skills in realistic settings, which included observing students’ behaviour in standardized patients or real patients. The last study [ 35 ] revealed improvements in the MI skills of real patients in diverse settings, such as traditional health behaviour interventions, such as alcohol, tobacco and weight loss interventions. Future studies should include longitudinal evaluations of the effectiveness of MI skills.

Key elements of MI education covered via the FRAMES model

According to the FRAMES model [ 68 ], all included studies reported the elements of responsibility and advice ( n =19; 100%) in the training of MI. The element responsibility is the shared responsibility of the learner’s growth by the learner and teacher. This could be attributed to the move towards competency-based medical education, which emphasizes shared responsibility among students while incorporating student-centric learning techniques and formative assessment as a vital element of the learning process [ 69 ]. In other words, the high reporting of ‘responsibility’ and ‘advice’ suggest that the present MI training significantly emphasizes medical students taking ownership of their learning and decision-making processes (‘responsibility’). Moreover, from a patient education perspective, empowering patients to take ownership of their health [ 70 ] and effectively guiding patients toward positive behavioural changes through good advice in a nonconfrontational approach is a basic tenet of MI (‘advice’).

The least reported element found in training for MI in our included studies [ 4 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 51 ] was self-efficacy. This may be due to MI training focusing less on self-efficacy and instead emphasizing other elements, such as empathy, open-ended questioning and reflective listening. An educational theory that is linked to the element of self-efficacy is social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory can be defined as a person’s belief in their ability to determine the behaviours required to reach their desired goals and their perceptions of their ability and skills to manage their environment [ 71 , 72 ]. Continued research into integrating social cognitive theory into MI training could assist practitioners in comprehending the role and importance of self-efficacy in behaviour change and reflective practice. The lower reporting of ‘self-efficacy’ might also indicate a potential gap in MI training. Self-efficacy is essential because it relates to the practitioner’s confidence in their ability to effectively implement MI techniques and facilitate behaviour change in patients. Addressing this gap in future research could lead to more competent and confident practitioners who are better equipped to address challenging patient interactions and support positive health outcomes. Future studies can also utilize FRAMES to guide research design and interventions and investigate which aspects of FRAMES in the training of MI are most effective within the limited time frame of medical curricula.

Limitations

This scoping review is subject to several limitations. We included only English-language studies in which medical students were the target participants. We did not include articles that are categorized as grey literature or other forms of nonpeer review articles, which might have resulted in biased outcomes. Most of the studies focused on evaluating learner knowledge and skills in MI, which might have limited the practical applications of MI to real patients. The first author conducted the search and screening of the articles. This may lead to selection bias and reduce the reliability of the study selection process. The protocol for this review was developed before the search was initiated but was not registered or published online, which increases the risk of selective reporting. The database search was limited to MEDLINE Complete and CINAHL Complete, which were accessed via EBSCOhost and the search engine Google Scholar. Although a comprehensive search was conducted, other databases that were relevant to the review, such as the PsycINFO and ERIC databases, were not included, potentially resulting in missing relevant articles. Kirkpatrick’s hierarchy was utilized to assess educational outcomes in this review. This approach may neglect other core aspects of educational interventions. Furthermore, although we have extensively searched various countries, most of the studies reported are from the USA ( n =11; 57.8%) or Germany ( n =4; 21.0%). A lack of diversity among studies in other regions may lead to biased outcomes.

Based on our review, the findings suggest that motivational interviewing can be taught effectively in medical schools via adaptations of MI and a variety of teaching approaches. However, there is a need for further research investigating standardized MI training across medical schools, the adequate dose for training in MI and the implementation of reflective practices that are supported by educational learning theories. Furthermore, longitudinal studies can assess the effectiveness of MI. Future studies may benefit from exploring and better understanding the relationship between MI and self-efficacy in their MI interventions. The FRAMES model can be used to guide research and explore which aspects of FRAMES are optimally delivered within the limited time frame of medical curricula.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Behaviour Change Counselling Index

Brief motivational interviewing

Course Experience Questionnaire

Calgary-Cambridge Observation Guide

Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature

Feedback, Responsibility, Advice, Menu of Options, Empathy, Self-Efficacy

Human immunodeficiency virus

Helpful response questionnaire

Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy

Large Group Activities

Learning Outcomes Questionnaire

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online

• Motivational interviewing

Motivational Interviewing Confidence Scale

Motivational Interviewing Knowledge and Attitudes Test

Motivational interviewing network of trainers

Motivational interviewing skill code

Motivational interviewing treatment integrity

Mechanisms of Motivational Interview

O = open-ended questions, A = affirmations, R = reflections, and S = summaries to promote active listening

Objective Structured Clinical Examination

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines

Small Group Activities

Simulated Patient

Tabacco Intervention Basic Skills

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Video Assessment of the Simulated Encounter

Spencer JC, Wheeler SB. A systematic review of Motivational Interviewing interventions in cancer patients and survivors. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(7):1099–105.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gabbay RA, Kaul S, Ulbrecht J, Scheffler NM, Armstrong DG. Motivational interviewing by podiatric physicians: a method for improving patient self-care of the diabetic foot. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2011;101(1):78–84.

Miller W, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change. New York: 2nd The Guilford Press; 2002.

Google Scholar  

Erschens R, Fahse B, Festl-Wietek T, Herrmann-Werner A, Keifenheim KE, Zipfel S, et al. Training medical students in motivational interviewing using a blended learning approach: a proof-of-concept study. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1204810.

Searight HR. Counseling patients in primary care: evidence-based strategies. Am Fam Phys. 2018;98(12):719–28.

Miller ET, Spilker J. Readiness to change and brief educational interventions: successful strategies to reduce stroke risk. J Neurosci Nurs. 2003;35(4):215–22.

Jaguga F, Ott MA, Kwobah EK, Apondi E, Giusto A, Barasa J, et al. Adapting a substance use screening and brief intervention for peer-delivery and for youth in Kenya. SSM Ment Health. 2023;4:100254.

Frey AJ, Lee J, Small JW, Sibley M, Owens JS, Skidmore B, et al. Mechanisms of motivational interviewing: a conceptual framework to guide practice and research. Prev Sci. 2021;22(6):689–700.

Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Helping people change and grow. New York: Guilford Publications; 2023.

Rimayanti MU, O’Halloran PD, Shields N, Morris R, Taylor NF. Comparing process evaluations of motivational interviewing interventions for managing health conditions and health promotions: a scoping review. Patient Educ Counsel. 2022;105(5):1170–80.

Centis E, Petroni ML, Ghirelli V, Cioni M, Navacchia P, Guberti E, et al. Motivational interviewing adapted to group setting for the treatment of relapse in the behavioral therapy of obesity. A clinical audit. Nutrients. 2020;12(12):3881.

Ford ES, Bergmann MM, Kröger J, Schienkiewitz A, Weikert C, Boeing H. Healthy living is the best revenge: findings from the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(15):1355–62.

Lundahl BW, Kunz C, Brownell C, Tollefson D, Burke BL. A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing: twenty-five years of empirical studies. Res Soc Work Pract. 2010;20:137–60.

Carroll KM, Ball SA, Nich C, Martino S, Frankforter TL, Farentinos C, et al. Motivational interviewing to improve treatment engagement and outcome in individuals seeking treatment for substance abuse: a multisite effectiveness study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;81(3):301–12.

Rongkavilit C, Wang B, Naar-King S, Bunupuradah T, Parsons JT, Panthong A, et al. Motivational interviewing targeting risky sex in HIV-positive young Thai men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(2):329–40.

Sönmez Sari E, Kitiş Y. The effect of nurse-led motivational interviewing based on the trans-theoretical model on promoting physical activity in healthy older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Pract. 2024;30(2):e13252.

Polcin D, Witbrodt J, Nayak MB, Korcha R, Pugh S, Salinardi M. Characteristics of women with alcohol use disorders who benefit from intensive motivational interviewing. Subst Abus. 2022;43(1):23–31.

Lovejoy TI. Telephone-delivered motivational interviewing targeting sexual risk behavior reduces depression, anxiety, and stress in HIV-positive older adults. Ann Behav Med. 2012;44(3):416–21.

BlansonHenkemans OA, van der Boog PJ, Lindenberg J, van der Mast CA, Neerincx MA, Zwetsloot-Schonk BJ. An online lifestyle diary with a persuasive computer assistant providing feedback on self-management. Technol Health Care. 2009;17(3):253–67.

Meinzer MC, Oddo LE, Vasko JM, Murphy JG, Iwamoto D, Lejuez CW, et al. Motivational interviewing plus behavioral activation for alcohol misuse in college students with ADHD. Psychol Addict Behav. 2021;35(7):803–16.

Waite I, Grant D, Mayes J, Greenwood S. Can a brief behavioural change intervention encourage hospital patients with low physical activity levels to engage and initiate a change in physical activity behaviour? Physiotherapy. 2020;108:22–8.

Oveisi S, Stein L, Babaeepour E, Araban M. The impact of motivational interviewing on relapse to substance use among women in Iran: a randomized clinical trial. BMC psychiatry. 2020;20:1–7.

Schmiege SJ, Magnan RE, Yeater EA, Ewing SWF, Bryan AD. Randomized trial to reduce risky sexual behavior among justice-involved adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2021;60(1):47–56.

Saffari M, Sanaeinasab H, Mobini M, Sepandi M, Rashidi-Jahan H, Sehlo MG, et al. Effect of a health-education program using motivational interviewing on oral health behavior and self-efficacy in pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Oral Sci. 2020;128(4):308–16.

Riley L, Guthold R, Cowan M, Savin S, Bhatti L, Armstrong T, et al. The World Health Organization STEPwise approach to noncommunicable disease risk-factor surveillance: methods, challenges, and opportunities. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(1):74–8.

D’Urzo KA, Flood SM, Baillie C, Skelding S, Dobrowolski S, Houlden RL, et al. Evaluating the implementation and impact of a motivational interviewing workshop on medical student knowledge and social cognitions towards counseling patients on lifestyle behaviors. Teach Learn Med. 2020;32(2):218–30.

Levensky ER, Forcehimes A, O’Donohue WT, Beitz K. Motivational interviewing: an evidence-based approach to counseling helps patients follow treatment recommendations. Am J Nurs. 2007;107(10):50–8.

Berger DJ, Nickolich S, Nasir M. Introduction to tobacco cessation and motivational interviewing: evaluation of a lecture and case-based learning activity for medical students. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e53704.

Edwards EJ, Arora B, Green P, Bannatyne AJ, Nielson T. Teaching brief motivational interviewing to medical students using a pedagogical framework. Patient Educ Counsel. 2022;105(7):2315–9.

Manojna GS, Madhavi BD. Effectiveness of teaching motivational interview technique to third professional year medical students to improve counseling skills–An interventional study. MRIMS J Health Sci. 2024:10.4103. [Epub ahead of print] June 19, 2024.

Kaltman S, Tankersley A. Teaching motivational interviewing to medical students: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2020;95(3):458–69.

Kirkpatrick JD, Kirkpatrick WK. Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development; 2016.

Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(5):49–56.

Tricco A, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

Bell K, Cole BA. Improving medical students’ success in promoting health behavior change: a curriculum evaluation. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(9):1503–6.

Brown RL, Pfeifer JM, Gjerde CL, Seibert CS, Haq CL. Teaching patient-centered tobacco intervention to first-year medical students. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(5):534–9.

Martino S, Haeseler F, Belitsky R, Pantalon M, Fortin AI. Teaching brief motivational interviewing to Year three medical students. Med Educ. 2007;41(2):160–7.

Mounsey AL, Bovbjerg V, White L, Gazewood J. Do students develop better motivational interviewing skills through role-play with standardised patients or with student colleagues? Med Educ. 2006;40(8):775–80.

Poirier MK, Clark MM, Cerhan JH, Pruthi S, Geda YE, Dale LC. Teaching motivational interviewing to first-year medical students to improve counseling skills in health behavior change. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2004;79:327–31 Elsevier.

White LL, Gazewood JD, Mounsey AL. Teaching students behavior change skills: description and assessment of a new Motivational interviewing curriculum. Med Teach. 2007;29(4):e67-71.

Haeseler F, Fortin AHT, Pfeiffer C, Walters C, Martino S, Haeseler F, et al. Assessment of a motivational interviewing curriculum for year 3 medical students using a standardized patient case. Patient Educ Counsel. 2011;84(1):27–30.

Lim BT, Moriarty H, Huthwaite M. 'Being-in-role’: a teaching innovation to enhance empathic communication skills in medical students. Med Teach. 2011;33(12):e663-9.

Opheim A, Andreasson S, Eklund AB, Prescott P. The effects of training medical students in motivational interviewing. Health Educ J. 2009;68(3):170–8.

Brogan Hartlieb K, Engle B, Obeso V, Pedoussaut MA, Merlo LJ, Brown DR. Advanced patient-centered communication for health behavior change: motivational interviewing workshops for medical learners. MedEdPORTAL. 2016;12:10455.

Gecht-Silver M, Lee D, Ehrlich-Jones L, Bristow M. Evaluation of a motivational interviewing training for third-year medical students. Fam Med. 2016;48(2):132–5.

Kaltman S, WinklerPrins V, Serrano A, Talisman N. Enhancing motivational interviewing training in a family medicine clerkship. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(1):80–4.

Purkabiri K, Steppacher V, Bernardy K, Karl N, Vedder V, Borgmann M, et al. Outcome of a four-hour smoking cessation counselling workshop for medical students. Tob Induc Dis. 2016;14:37.

Jacobs NN, Calvo L, Dieringer A, Hall A, Danko R. Motivational interviewing training: a case-based curriculum for preclinical medical students. MedEdPORTAL. 2021;17:11104.

Keifenheim KE, Velten-Schurian K, Fahse B, Erschens R, Loda T, Wiesner L, et al. “A change would do you good”: Training medical students in Motivational Interviewing using a blended-learning approach - a pilot evaluation. Patient Educ Counsel. 2019;102(4):663–9.

Plass AM, Covic A, Lohrberg L, Albright G, Goldman R, Von Steinbüchel N. Effectiveness of a minimal virtual motivational interviewing training for first years medical students: differentiating between pre-test and then-test. Patient Educ Counsel. 2022;105(6):1457–62.

Martino S, Haeseler F, Belitsky R, Pantalon M, Fortin AHT. Teaching brief motivational interviewing to Year three medical students. Med Educ. 2007;41(2):160–7.

Miller WR. The evolution of motivational interviewing. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2023:1–17.

Small JW, Frey A, Lee J, Seeley JR, Scott TM, Sibley MH. Fidelity of motivational interviewing in school-based intervention and research. Prev Sci. 2021;22(6):712–21.

Rollnick S, Kaplan SG, Rutschman R. Motivational interviewing in schools: conversations to improve behavior and learning. Guilford Publications; 2016.

Pincus R, Bridges CW, Remley TP. School counselors using motivational interviewing. J Prof Counsel Pract Theory Res. 2018;45(2):82–94.

Lin CH, Chiang SL, Heitkemper MM, Hung YJ, Lee MS, Tzeng WC, et al. Effects of telephone-based motivational interviewing in lifestyle modification program on reducing metabolic risks in middle-aged and older women with metabolic syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;60:12–23.

Dobber J, Latour C, Snaterse M, van Meijel B, ter Riet G, Scholte op Reimer W, et al. Developing nurses’ skills in motivational interviewing to promote a healthy lifestyle in patients with coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2019;18(1):28–37.

Almansour M, AlQurmalah SI, Abdul Razack HI. Motivational interviewing-an evidence-based, collaborative, goal-oriented communication approach in lifestyle medicine: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2023;18(5):1170–8.

Polcin DL, Korcha R, Witbrodt J, Mericle AA, Mahoney E. Motivational Interviewing Case Management (MICM) for persons on probation or parole entering sober living houses. Crim Justice Behav. 2018;45(11):1634–59.

Sarpavaara H. The causes of change and no-change in substance users’ talk during motivational interviewing in the probation service in Finland. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2017;61(4):430–44.

Bottel L, te Wildt BT, Brand M, Pape M, Herpertz S, Dieris-Hirche J. Telemedicine as bridge to the offline world for person affected with problematic internet use or internet use disorder and concerned significant others. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076221144184.

Creech SK, Pulverman CS, Kahler CW, Orchowski LM, Shea MT, Wernette GT, et al. Computerized intervention in primary care for women veterans with sexual assault histories and psychosocial health risks: a randomized clinical trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(5):1097–107.

Duthie CJ, Cameron C, Smith-Han K, Beckert L, Delpachitra S, Garland SN, et al. Reasons for why medical students prefer specific sleep management strategies. Behav Sleep Med. 2024;22(4):516–29.

Clancy R, Taylor A. Engaging clinicians in motivational interviewing: comparing online with face-to-face post-training consolidation. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2016;25(1):51–61.

Frost H, Campbell P, Maxwell M, O’Carroll RE, Dombrowski SU, Williams B, et al. Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on adult behaviour change in health and social care settings: a systematic review of reviews. PloS one. 2018;13(10):e0204890.

Schaper K, Woelber JP, Jaehne A. Can the spirit of motivational interviewing be taught online? A comparative study in general practitioners. Patient Educ Counsel. 2024;125:108297.

Kolb DA. Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Sadle River: Prentice Hall; 1984.

Miller WR, Sanchez VC. Motivating young adults for treatment and lifestyle change. 1994.

Frank JR, Mungroo R, Ahmad Y, Wang M, De Rossi S, Horsley T. Toward a definition of competency-based education in medicine: a systematic review of published definitions. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):631–7.

Lim E, Wynaden D, Heslop K. Using Q-methodology to explore mental health nurses’ knowledge and skills to use recovery-focused care to reduce aggression in acute mental health settings. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2021;30(2):413–26.

Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191.

Lönnfjord V, Hagquist C. The psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the general self-efficacy scale: a Rasch analysis based on adolescent data. Curr Psychol. 2018;37:703–15.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Additionally, the authors would like to thank Universiti Malaysia Sarawak for the support provided for this publication.

Open Access funding provided by Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, 94300, Malaysia

Leonard Yik Chuan Lei, Keng Sheng Chew, Chee Shee Chai & Yoke Yong Chen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LLYC, the first author, made significant contributions to developing the idea, the searches, conducting analysis and was responsible for drafting the manuscript. KSC and CYY contributed significantly to the conceptualization, alignment and reviewing of the manuscript. KSC and CYY and CCS participated in the analysis and writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonard Yik Chuan Lei .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study did not require ethical approval or consent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lei, L., Chew, K., Chai, C. et al. Evidence for motivational interviewing in educational settings among medical schools: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 24 , 856 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05845-w

Download citation

Received : 11 April 2024

Accepted : 30 July 2024

Published : 08 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05845-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Scoping review
• Motivational behaviour
• Motivational change
• Motivational enhancement
• Medical education
• Medical teaching

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Advertisement

Supported by

An Olympics Scene Draws Scorn. Did It Really Parody ‘The Last Supper’?

Some church leaders and politicians have condemned the performance from the opening ceremony for mocking Christianity. Art historians are divided.

• Share full article

By Yan Zhuang

A performance during the Paris Olympics’ opening ceremony on Friday has drawn criticism from church leaders and conservative politicians for a perceived likeness to Leonardo da Vinci’s depiction of a biblical scene in “The Last Supper,” with some calling it a “mockery” of Christianity.

The event’s planners and organizers have denied that the sequence was inspired by “The Last Supper,” or that it intended to mock or offend.

In the performance broadcast during the ceremony, a woman wearing a silver, halo-like headdress stood at the center of a long table, with drag queens posing on either side of her. Later, at the same table, a giant cloche lifted, revealing a man, nearly naked and painted blue, on a dinner plate surrounded by fruit. He broke into a song as, behind him, the drag queens danced.

The tableaux drew condemnation among people who saw the images as a parody of “The Last Supper,” the New Testament scene depicted in da Vinci’s painting by the same name. The French Bishops’ Conference, which represents the country’s Catholic bishops, said in a statement that the opening ceremony included “scenes of mockery and derision of Christianity,” and an influential American Catholic, Bishop Robert Barron of Minnesota, called it a “gross mockery.”

The performance at the opening ceremony, which took place on and along the Seine on Friday, also prompted a Mississippi-based telecommunications provider, C Spire, to announce that it would pull its advertisements from Olympics broadcasts. Speaker Mike Johnson described the scene as “shocking and insulting to Christian people.”

The opening ceremony’s artistic director, Thomas Jolly, said at the Games’ daily news conference on Saturday that the event was not meant to “be subversive, or shock people, or mock people.” On Sunday, Anne Descamps, the Paris 2024 spokeswoman, said at the daily news conference, “If people have taken any offense, we are, of course, really, really sorry.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .