There is a tradition in academia of referring to past research with present tense verb forms—e.g., “Jordan (2001) states that…” rather than “Jordan (2001) stated that….” I see no problem with this, except that it sometimes puts one in a position of referring to very old sources (though perhaps seminal) in the present tense.
Then there is the problem of referring to one’s own current research (i.e., the work the reader is actually reading). For example, should you say, “To test this hypothesis, we perform an analysis…?” Or should it be “…we performed an analysis”?
Unfortunately, the style guides are not much help. The Chicago Manual of Style gives the following examples:
“Various investigators (Jones and Carter 1980) have reported findings….”
“Jones and Carter (1980) report findings….”
The main problem I see in the papers I edit is inconsistency in verb form usage. I have seen no guidelines from academic journals on these issues, so I can’t help but feel that both past tense and present tense forms are acceptable. My only suggestion would be to make conscious decisions in these matters and then try to stick with them as much as possible, especially in places (such as the literature review section) in which multiple sources are referred to in succeeding sentences or in close proximity.
Personally, I think that past tense makes the most sense in today’s language environment, even when referring to your own current paper. However, as with many editorial decisions, I have learned to be flexible. As always, my guiding principles are readability and comprehension. Style consistency can contribute to these things.
I hope this helped. Feel free to give me your comments on any of the style issues I write about, and if you would like some guidance on a particular problem, please let me know.
Ray
rh@rayhardestyediting.com
972.838.7619 |
