If science is the best way to reduce subjectivity when asking a question of how something works, then an inherently essential aspect of this is getting your message across to as many people and as clearly as possible. And as CB readers will know, I’m all about ‘getting the message out’.
As such, when asked by a stranger about what I do, I often respond ‘writer’, because perhaps next to maths, I spend most of my time writing. I tend to argue that without good oral and (especially) written communication skills, even the most brilliant scientist is functionally useless to the rest of society.
So being a writer means that focussing on what some would describe as mundane – spelling, grammar, writing style and clarity – is an essential preoccupation. I’ve written about grammatical and style issues before (see here and here), and in the spirit of providing tips to young scientists out there, here’s another suggestion.
Please, please, please use your own voice.
I’m talking about that archaic style of zombie writing that has plagued scientific writing since its inception – the passive voice.
Here are a few examples:
- passive: The analyses were conducted … ; active: We analysed …
- passive: The data were collected in accordance … ; active: We collected the data according to …
Some might think the differences are somewhat irrelevant, or even that the passive voice sounds somehow more ‘sciencey’ (technical). In fact, on the popular Science Writing blog, Melody Tang states exactly this:
To me, that justification is utter nonsense and exactly WHY you shouldn’t use the passive voice. Using meaningless or subjective words like ‘significant’ or ‘conduct’ or ‘perform’ just because they sound more technical (i.e., so people will think you’re a lot cleverer than you really are) is bullshit, and using the clumsy, archaic and longer passive voice form for the same reason is deceptive at worst, annoying and unnecessary at best. I’ve even had a collaborator state quite assuredly that “you won’t get published in a British journal if you use the active voice”. What journals would those be? I’ve never had this experience, nor have I ever been rejected by using the active voice.
These deception and clarity issues aside, I’ve never understood why a scientist, who has sweated blood and shed tears to collect, analyse and present her or his hard-earned data, would then not want to take credit for that effort? Why apply the passive voice to hide your identity? Who are these mysterious scientific automatons who collect and analyse our data for us? “The data were collected …” – please! Take credit for your work and use the active voice.
I’ll concede one exception to the near-universal need for active voice – if you use, for example, data that you did not collect, then I suppose it’s ok from time to time (i.e., infrequently) to use the passive voice. However, one could argue that you can use the active voice as long as you identify the person(s) responsible.
ConservationBytes.com 
[…] two variables. It is in the same camp as the active voice, which is increasingly being promoted as the ‘way to write’ for scientists. Passive voice and non-directional language, once the standard of scientific writing, are now seen […]
LikeLike
I agree that active voice usually lends a sentence more clarity, less ambiguity & fewer words, which we know are essential to scientific writing. But passive voice has a purpose in the English language (and in academic writing) and is far from being obsolete. The purpose of the passive voice is simply to take the attention off the doer in favour of the action – this is why it has traditionally been used in the Methods/Results more than the ‘argument’ part of the paper. This is not necessarily a bad thing. These sections are the replicable part of the study, therefore those actions aren’t necessarily ‘owned’ by the scientist (in the way that the argument/perspective sections are). Yes, passive voice is used much less today, but it is by no means universally ‘not necessary’ – it has a role in the English language, and in fact in some situations can be the most effective style for a sentence. It may be useful for students to be taught when to know how to use each voice most effectively, rather than advocating one style to rule them all. That would be like telling us all to spell English the American way! :)
LikeLike
[…] there’s that most irritating of peeves – poor writing skills. It’s a little embarrassing to say that many undergraduate students – and a fair whack […]
LikeLike
[…] Editors hate the passive voice. […]
LikeLike
But isn’t it also a matter of style and balance, appropriate to the situation? Writing to a rule often leads to awkward prose. Too much active first person singular and an egotistical git is suspected. Too much passive voice and I think, pompous prat… ;)
LikeLike
Not much choice there – egotistical git or pompous prat.
LikeLike
With a well-considered blend of writing styles, one could aim for both! ;-)
LikeLike
Interesting. I still struggle with this. I try to use active voice but my background is in chemical engineering. In classes we were docked a point every time we used active voice in writing. I am mentoring a student in biomedical sciences currently and he is also required to use passive voice. In ecology active voice is generally the standard but I don’t know how universal that is. I agree with Mick that active voice is more succinct, which is enough to convince me to us it, even if it occasionally gets tedious.
LikeLike
If convention compels a particular style, then use that style – there’s no choice. Where there is choice, write succinctly. Active voice can help us write succinctly, but we should still write with as much flair as convention, precise wording and talent permit. And we can always work to overturn convention if the alternative is better.
LikeLike
I fully endorse Corey’s post. Direct writing uses fewer words, is easier to read, and is less ambiguous. I have a finite life, which is wasted on reading unnecessary words – indirect writing effectively kills me.
I try to teach my students this. Those in the workforce tell me that succinct writing is valuable. You can read more here on my teaching blog, including tips and tools for improvement:
http://mickteaching.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/writing-writing-writing/
Cheers,
Mick
LikeLike
Great post Corey, but you’ve made a mistake in the first line of the second last paragraph. He, he. :)
Sorry for being a pedant, but I thought you’d enjoy the irony.
LikeLike
Bloody hell, you’re right. Thanks. Fixed.
LikeLike
I see nothing wrong with the passive voice, although teachers of style tell us to avoid it. We’re not talking about fiction. Could it be that many in the profession consider the first person, even the first person plural, to be too egotistical, too personal? To be saying “I” adds an egotistical tone to writing, and, if you say “we,” then you have the additional built-in awkwardness of forcing the reader to wonder just who “we” is–which “we” are you talking about, which lab assistants, which grad students, which “we” it was doing a particular part of a project. Science these days is almost always a group effort, and “we” is understood. You don’t want to say “I” anyway: you want the group to take the collective credit. To state that “we” did something could almost be construed as implying that others, some “they,” could not do that something. The passive voice is suited for science: the whole point here is that anyone can do an experiment, given the proper materials, and that’s why you’re publishing it–to give anyone the necessary data to do the same thing, not to brag that “I” did this or that “we” did that. Politicians do the same thing person-wise, except, generally, it’s to avoid blame rather than avoiding credit.
LikeLike
I think it’s rather clear from the author list exactly to whom ‘we’ refers. In the case of papers that I write as sole author (not many, mind you – I give authorship credit where and when’s it’s due), I still use ‘I’. My opinion is that it’s disingenuous and arrogant to use passive voice because it deliberately de-personalises the science. Credit where credit is due, and blame where blame is due.
LikeLike
Meh… one finds the first person singular tedious… ;)
LikeLike