Who claims, who aligns? “I think” vs “we think” as epistemic and engagement resources in Spain-based English PhD theses

This study asks who claims and who aligns in Spain-based English PhD theses by comparing I think and we think as epistemic and engagement resources. A 550-thesis corpus (2011–2021) across five disciplines is analysed, retrieving matrix and parenthetical tokens (with/without that), excluding non-clausal strings, and hand-coding a stratified sample for function (epistemic assessment, engagement/alignment, mitigation) and we-scope (exclusive authorial, inclusive reader, community-referential). Quantitatively, I think is Humanities-led, while we think is a low-frequency but widespread alternative and the preferred first-person evaluator in STEM; diachrony shows stability overall with mid-decade plural prominence in the Natural Sciences. Qualitatively, I think marks author-owned readings, often as zero-that comment clauses, whereas we think recruits readers or projects community consensus, typically in matrix position with that. These choices redistribute accountability and manage dialogic space. The study concludes with implications for supervision and EAP pedagogy, highlighting the Spanish authorial we and offering practical diagnostics for intentional footing in academic writing.