Where we find passive voice in scientific writing
We come across passive voice pretty much everywhere in academic writing. Many scientists use it when describing static facts or models, which can be appropriate for scientific concepts. However, conveying scientific knowledge in this type of writing becomes extremely difficult since it lacks action and storytelling. As a result, your reader cannot visualise what is happening because you do not describe any action.
The fix is not to ‘never use passive’. Instead, I want you to become aware of it and switch to active voice whenever the sentence needs clarity, momentum or ownership.
Let’s look at two examples:
Bacterial lipid transporters are used as a mechanism for membrane growth.
The progress made in understanding the structure and assembly of the archaellum is highlighted by comparing early models to what is known today.
What is wrong with these sentences?
- Clarity: If you are not from a scientific field, you probably have no idea who is doing what after reading these sentences.
- Story: These sentences state facts. There is no action, no transformation. It is really difficult to imagine what is happening here.
- Complexity: Passive voice often comes with nominalisations. These are verbs that were changed into nouns, which create complex, unrealistic concepts, such as “bacterial lipid transporters” or “progress made in understanding”. If you are not from the field, these concepts are tricky to wrap your head around.
- Cognitive load: On top of that, passive voice makes sentences longer, so your reader needs to remember more throughout.
How can we improve these sentences?
Let’s use active voice instead in these examples:
Bacteria use lipid transporters to grow their membranes.
By comparing early models to what is known today, we highlight how our understanding of the structure and assembly of the archaellum progressed.
Or to make this one even more active and shorter:
We compared early models to what is known today and highlight what we learned about the structure and assembly of the archaellum.
What changed in these sentences?
- What I kept: the scientific detail (lipid transporters to grow membranes, comparing early models to what is known today in order to highlight progress in understanding of the structure and assembly of the archaellum)
- What I changed: I substituted passive voice with active voice and rearranged the sentences to improve flow. This includes:
- are used for membrane growth into use to grow membranes
- progress made in understanding into understanding progressed or learned
- is highlighted into highlight
- Why it works: Sentences become shorter and cognitive load is smaller. These sentences now tell science stories.
When reading these sentences, it becomes instantly clear who is doing what (bacteria) or who did what (we – the author). Bacteria themselves are the ones who use these ominous lipid transporters to grow their membranes.
The authors themselves compared the early models to current knowledge and analysed the progress made in understanding. They analysed what we learned. Please just say so.
Now, these sentences contain actors and clearly tell what they do or did. These actions are easy for the reader to follow.
How you can improve your science writing with active voice now
As you’ve seen, passive voice distracts your reader from what is happening in your story. To avoid this in your writing, look for any passive phrases, which generally follow this structure:
Something is done by.
Look for these and try to make them active by finding the key player in that sentence and transforming the verb into an active form. The result is active voice, which makes your science clearer and more engaging.
Try it yourself:
Find the passive voice in the following sentence and rewrite it into an active form. Does it make the concept clearer?
The second study was carried out in 1987 by Dupuis in experimental mesocosms for thermal mud maturation in the laboratory.
Okay, that was an easy one. But how about this one?
The maturation of silt from Thau Pond in Balaruc-Les-Bains was monitored for a few months in 1983.
When should you NOT substitute passive with active voice?
There are a few set phrases in which passive voice is indeed more suitable than active voice. In the example above, the phrase “what is known” contains passive voice but it makes sense to use it here. We might say “what we know”, but then we would use the word “we” about three times in one sentence. So, we stick with passive voice here.
Active voice without losing scientific evidence
Passive voice is not ‘wrong’ in science or academic writing. But as it often hides the actor and the action, it makes your writing harder to follow. By swapping it for active voice where suitable, you keep the evidence while making the story clearer and lighter for your reader.
Do you want to get more practical tips to make your science writing more engaging? Check out the FREE guide on writing effectively about science. You will find nine more tips to improve your science articles that will help your reader get it.
For the Rewrite Clinic series, I use real scientific text and rewrite it for clarity, flow and reader empathy without losing rigour. You’ll see a before-and-after example, learn why the edits work and get practical tips you can apply to your own science writing straight away. Same science. Better sentences. Edited with empathy.
