Natural scientists’ perceptions of authorial voice in scientific writing: The influence of disciplinary expertise on revoicing processes

Abstract

Authorial voice is considered to be the representation of a writer's point of view or stance toward the propositions they adduce within a manuscript. This case study examines the reader's role in constructing authorial voice in scientific writing in the natural sciences. The study focuses on six scientists with varying degrees of professional experience from different natural sciences disciplines and their perceptions of authorial voice as readers. Their perceptions, derived from triangulation of multiple data sources, are contrasted in this study. Overall, our results illustrate a complex phenomenon in the way in which authorial voice is constructed, highlighting that natural scientists' voice construction—their revoicing processes as readers—is linked to their degree of professional experience, their expected roles and positions, and the beliefs, values, and assumptions that might have been shaped through their previous experiences and training.