Passive vs. Active Voice — Why it Matters in Science Communication
Which one communicates better?… or does it even matter?
Active Voice - “We collected 12 field samples in a 3-month window”
Passive Voice - “12 field samples were collected during a 3-month window.”
When scientists begin summarizing their results for publication, finally able to write the culmination of months or even years’ worth of research, they have to decide how to write it all down. One such decision comes down to choosing between passive or active voice; whether the subject or researcher takes center stage in the discussion. Sometimes they are given free reign while sometimes journals require specific voices in specific sections.
And tradition dictates passive voice, for a researcher’s work has to come before them. This makes sense as science is meant to be impartial and objective. Why would it matter who conducted science, something meant to be replicable and reproducible? — Part of the problem lies in clarity and current trends.
Reconsidering the Use of the Passive Voice in Scientific Writing — (Inzunza, 2020)
In 2020, Ernesto Ruelas Inzunza, a researcher and professor at Veracruz University, published a short article “urg[ing] educators to greatly reduce teaching and enforcing the use of the passive voice.”
He outlined the benefits and drawbacks to both; While a passive voice may be traditional and be viewed as more objective, it’s also lengthy and more ambiguous about who’s done what. Active voice is clear and direct, but it’s considered unsophisticated and carries the risk of focusing too much on the researchers rather than the results.
He advocated for an academic writing style closer to journalism, one that clearly states who, what, and where. And he’s not the first to fight for a more scientist-focused writing style.
Cast off to the Method section
Ping Alvin (2014) analyzed 60 papers across 6 academic journals and found that only 30% of all clauses (groups of words containing a subject and verb) used passive voice. — A whopping 29% was found within the Method section alone. While the Method section was still dominated by passive voice, the other sections gave way to a more active role for researchers. Researchers use both to communicate their research.
Anderson (2015) published an article explicitly asking teachers to let science students use pronouns. It’s not a black-and-white situation of “this or that,” but rather a scale for both to co-exist. In her article, she designated the Method section as the place for strict passive voice.
On the other hand, scholarly writers rarely use the first person to describe specific actions they performed as part of their research: they never use: “I added acid to the test tube”. — Anderson (2015)
In her eyes, teachers should mimic the academic landscape and allow students to take ownership of their role in reporting science. The technique of using both active and passive voice has been around for generations of scientific minds; Anderson keenly pointed out that even Watson and Crick (who discovered the structure of DNA) blended the two in their reporting in 1953.
Educating The Next Generation Of Scientists
Tradition is king. Or rather… tradition usually dictates the future. As mentioned by both Anderson (2015) and Inzunza (2020), students are the focus of this conversation as working scientists already use passive/active voice in their profession. The ones who don’t know which one to use are students; They are often directed by professors and teachers to avoid the use of pronouns and active voice because of convention.
The problem is that convention has changed. According to Ping Alvin’s research, 70% of clauses are in active voice. — There needs to be a conversation in education that positions students to take ownership of their writing. Students are conducting science so it should involve their pronouns. Obviously, it’s easier said than done to convince STEM majors to care about writing.
But at the end of the day; it’s important to remain aware of our writing habits and strive to find the best ways to communicate information in a given situation. My STEM classes had a complete ban on pronouns, while my science communication classes freely allowed pronouns.
Does it even matter?
While the style guide (or a professor) remains king (or queen), the final strength of writing is dictated by the author. I still argue that STEM professors should selectively allow active voice in student writing, I recognize that some professors will never waver in their hatred of active voice.
And in that circumstance, I say the power shifts to the student. If a rubric requires passive voice, then a student has to conform. Ernest Vincent Wright was able to publish a 50,000-word novel without using the letter “E”. — Who knows what a student could write given enough motivation?
Papers discussed:
Anderson, Maureen. “Passive, active or both? Which voice to use when writing science reports.” Teaching Science, vol. 61, no. 1, Mar. 2015, pp. 50+. Gale In Context: Science, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A409714139/SCIC?u=rowan&sid=bookmark-SCIC&xid=4fbe5448. Accessed 15 July 2024.
Inzunza, Ernesto Ruelas. “Reconsidering the Use of the Passive Voice in Scientific Writing.” The American Biology Teacher, vol. 82, no. 8, 2020, pp. 563–65, https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2020.82.8.563.
Ping Alvin, Leong. “The Passive Voice in Scientific Writing. The Current Norm in Science Journals.” Journal of Science Communication, vol. 13, no. 1, 2014, pp. A03-, https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13010203.
