be active, not passive


 

Be Active, Not Passive

 

The simplest and cheapest of all reforms within institutional science
is to switch from the passive to the active voice in writing about science.

― Rupert Sheldrake

 

Write in the active voice.

 

Write in the active voice; it’s clearer, more accurate, and easier to read.

What’s the difference between active and passive voice?

Active: “I ate an Icelandic hot dog.”

Passive: “An Icelandic hot dog was eaten.”

Active voice is definite: “I” (that’s me!) ate an Icelandic hot dog. Passive voice is indefinite; we don’t know who ate that hot dog. As far as we know, it could have been me, a stray dog, or U.S. President Bill Clinton[1].

For some reason, scientists, engineers, academics, specialists, and sleazy politicians prefer to write (and speak) in the passive voice, and that’s unfortunate. Nixon, amidst the controversies of Watergate, stated, in what is perhaps the most famous use of the passive voice, “Mistakes were made.” He acknowledged that there were mistakes, but we don’t know who made them. Is this an admission of his responsibility? No. Was it someone on his team? Maybe, maybe not. All we know is that there were mistakes. And they were made.

Nixon (and others who have used this phrase) know exactly what they are doing when they write or say “Mistakes were made.” They are shirking responsibility. Scientists, for whatever reason, default to, “Water levels were measured.” Generally, I would assume that the authors measured the water levels, but many times it’s not clear.

In 1977, Laurel and Hardy (1980) measured water levels in the Slapstick Aquifer. Later, in 1992, Frank and Beans (1997) measured water levels in the aquifer. Water levels were also measured in the central and southern parts of the aquifer in the summer of 2007.

We know who measured water levels in 1977 and 1992 because the sentences are active, but who measured water levels in 2007? We could assume the authors measured them, but it could be Frank and Beans, the most recently cited actor. It could also have been Laurel and Hardy or someone we don’t know of because the authors didn’t cite them.

Let’s try this again will all the sentences in active voice:

In 1977, Laurel and Hardy (1980) measured water levels in the Slapstick Aquifer. Later, in 1992, Frank and Beans (1997) measured water levels in the aquifer. We also measured water levels in the central and southern parts of the aquifer in the summer of 2007.

Now it’s clear who measured those levels! The sentence is precise, accurate, and—added bonus—more readable. For readability, the reader doesn’t have to stop and whisper to themselves, “Who the hell measured those damn water levels?” And the flow of the sentence is purer and more honest: “I made mistakes.” versus “Mistakes were made.”

Some will balk at the use of the first person “we” or (shudder) “I.” “One does not write scientifically using the first person,” I often hear. Open up your nearest technical writing book or journal guidelines (go ahead—I’ll wait), and you will see a preference not only for active voice but also for first person when necessary.

Try these two sentences out:

The authors also measured water levels.

We also measured water levels.

The second sentence is taunt, clear, and flatly more readable than the first. In addition, referring to yourself in the third person (illeism) is a potential sign of mental illness (Boling and Balderrama 2018, Lebois and others 2022) and is also something else done by sleazy politicians.

Am I suggesting that you should never write in the passive voice? I’m not. Sometimes you might honestly not know who the hell measured the damn water levels or ate the damn hotdog. Or you may know, but it’s politically or legally complicated, so it’s better to leave the actor anonymous. In this case, you use the passive voice because you are using it with a purpose.

Some argue that good writing requires a mix of the two voices (80 percent active, 20 percent passive), but you really need to know what you are doing to do this well (and we are not English majors). In the hands of amateurs, using passive voice, even sparingly, creates confusion. My advice? Keep it all clear; keep it all active. As mentioned by Rupert Sheldrake in the quote for this section, this is the single biggest change and therefore the single biggest improvement you can make to your technical writing. I wholeheartedly agree.

 

Who ate that Icelandic hot dog? (photo of the photo by the author)

 

copyright Robert E. Mace 2025 
 

[1] Bill Clinton infamously ordered an Icelandic hotdog from Bæjarins Beztu Pylsur at the downtown Reykjavik location with nothing but mustard instead of the traditional raw white onions, crispy fried onions, ketchup, a sweet brown mustard called pylsusinnep, and remoulade, a sauce made with mayo, capers, mustard, and herbs. An Icelandic hot dog with only mustard is now known as a “Bill Clinton.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

table of contents

Image
 Table of Contents  As this is a work in progress (and I writing sections at random), check back for new content! Staying Between the Outlines   Keep things where things belong Introducing the Introduction Write an introduction with context and purpose.     Keep It Simple Use short words and simple writing. AAaaC (Avoid Acronyms at all Costs [pronounced “Aaack!”]) Do not use acronyms or abbreviations in your writing. Be Active, Not Passive Write in the active voice. If You Write Something, Cite Something If you write it, cite it.  Use the Oxford Comma Use the Oxford (Serial) Comma. List with Logic Items in a list need a reason for their ordering. Don’t Orphan Headers Each header should have at least one paragraph after it. Keep Tables, Figures, and Text Separate (but Together) Text, tables, and figures should exist independently.  Steering the Authorship Include rather than exclude. Breaking Bad Watch how headings, tables, and paragraphs brea...
Read more

staying between the outlines

Image
keep things where things belong Outlining technical papers and reports is not exactly janitorial science. My basic go-to outline is: - Abstract - Introduction - Background - Methods - Results and Discussion - Conclusions - Acknowledgments - References Yawn.  For a report, the “Abstract” will become the longer “Executive Summary” instead. If I’m feeling a little snappy, I might change the section titles to be a bit more descriptive of the work at hand. For example, here’s the outline for a report I coauthored on a review of springs in Texas: - Executive Summary - Introduction - Database Development and Evaluation of Spring Status - Spring Analysis - Fractal Analysis - Future Work - Conclusions - Acknowledgments - References - Appendix In this case, “Database Development and Evaluation of Spring Status” stands in for “Methods” and “Spring Analysis,” “Fractal Analysis,” and "Future Work" stand in for “Results and Discussion.” In fact, "Fractal Analysis" really exists a...
Read more

introducing the introduction

Image
  Introducing the Introduction   I assume I don’t need an introduction. ― Anne Rice   Write an introduction with context and purpose.   Write an introduction that places your work into the broader context, establishes why your work is important, identifies the research gap, states the purpose, and provides the hypotheses or research questions. The Introduction is where “The Poetry” is. I call this The Poetry because the Introduction is where you creatively (some of us more creatively than others…) place your work into the greater context of the world, first painting with broad strokes and then carefully funneling down to the details. In the Introduction, you want your reader to understand the importance of your topic (the Why), the need for the research (the What), what you researched (more What), and, briefly, how you investigated it (the How). Accordingly, I follow a simple recipe when writing the introduction. The ingredients ar...
Read more