The phenomenon has been bugging me for a few months. But now that I have two printed works that do it, I've discovered a common thread: both the research paper and the book use more passive voice than active.

I just remembered that when I took science clases in college I was instructed to write lab reports in the passive voice. It was actually a challenging exercise for me, the active voice has always been more natural for me.

That said... I am lead to think that passive voice is not what induces sleep in those text books. I think I'd blame it on how detailed those books are and how in depth they go -- uninteresting information for people who are not completely into scientific researches.

--

By the way, hello everyone! My very first post here.

For example, I might write: "Building-A was built by John Smith in 1850. In 1863, it was modified in this way by Dave Jones. Etc." This way I can maintain the unity of the topic throughout the paper. But once I move from its history to its specific features, I should write in the active voice.

Just becasue academics don't write in the active voice doesn't mean that academic papers are restricted to the passive voice. The best academic writers (usually historians, but not always) write in the active voice.

(Computer science is cool. It's a science - if they teach it right - but not weighed down by all that centuries-old crap.)

Why, pray tell, would anybody require passive voice? What does it gain you? I mean, there are times when you need to use it (unknown subject, etc.), but when would you need to use it for every last bleeding sentence?

Here's the example I gave in my critique:

"In order to prevent any potential damage to the eyes, goggles are worn when light therapy is performed."

Ack. Here's a good one:

"Patients wear goggles when undergoing light therapy to prevent any potential eye damage."

Compare: "25 ml of saline solution was added to ..."
To: "Bill and I added 25ml of saline solution to..."

The first emphasizes the action itself (adding of saline solution). Second, what matters here (seemingly) is whoever "I" is and Bill did the adding.

I guess what I'm just trying to say, passive voice is not wrong. It's simply a different style of expression. You may not agree, but the scientific community have stuck to them because it works the best for what it is trying to achieve.

---

(Computer science is cool. It's a science - if they teach it right - but not weighed down by all that centuries-old crap.)

1. Well, yes, it's a new field. But no need to call the convention of the older scientific fields... "centuries-old crap".

2. Whether they teach it right or no, it is a science .

I submit that passive voice may be the easiest way to emphasize the science/process, but it is not the only way.

Because it may be the easiest, it may be the way that the lazier scientific writers choose to write (or at least those who are more interested in good science than they are in good writing).

I am not sure what your background is and how extensive a reading you have done into scientific journals and research publications (and i'm not talking about science magazines). But I have yet to hear complaint from the scientific community on the style of writing itself. For one, the scientist who are write these journals are more concerned with their experiements/discoveries, not on hows of making it sound good.

At this point, probably you are thinking, no matter how exciting the research is, how can awful writing pull in audience. This would make sense if you are looking at it from a mainstream publication writers' POV. Since in that circle the writing styles tend to be as important as the subject they are writing on. But what people don't realize is that the letters in the scientific researches are as important as (or even less so than) the way the graphs and figures are presented in the publication.

You say easiest became a norm. Even if it truly were that were the case is that so bad? Why would someone what to invest effort and time on something that at the end of the day matters little?

Criticizing and questioning a set of norms set in the past is not a bad thing. But if such critique comes from a limited and uninformed view of someone outside the concerned circle, I wonder how fairly the critique could assess the 'problem' at hand?

...
I agree: that the scientific community needs to make a point in understanding the non-scientific audience. And model the text books (especially of that in gradeschool) in such a way that they are both more readable and interesting (as some of the well received science magazine have already done so).

But if you so find the need to criticize the stylistic issues of the scientific publications, then do so for those that affect you directly. There is no reason to generalize and accuse us of being 'lazy' in using the 'century-old crap'.

Isn't it the role of a scientist to question? Why should that not extend to style? Does questioning stop at popular convention?

A large portion of the computer science discipline has abandoned the "passive voice at all costs" style. Serious papers from serious researchers routinely use "I" and "we" to describe experimentation. Alan Turing's famous paper, "On Computable Numbers," which is widely regarded as the beginning of computer science, starts its fourth sentence with "I hope."

One thing I recently learned in a computational theory class - from a very, very pedantic grader - was that it doesn't matter how right you are if you can't communicate it. It naturally follows that you should place importance on good style, because good style is an integral part of effective communication.

I'm sorry to hear that. So far I thought I was engaging myself in a mutual discussion, not a tirade of words and accusations. I now realize I have made a faulty assumption.

Pickled, since you are a writer yourself (or an aspiring one) and have the ability to fashion words well, you are the educated one. I guess there can be no room for lowly biochemist like myself who make use of passive tense in their writings.

And one more thing: Don't flatter yourself. Computer scientists doesn't have everything in spades. I among the numerous programmers in computer science I have encountered (fellow collagues and classmates in my years of BA in CS), only a very few of them can build sentences that lack spelling and grammatical mistakes.

Let me try this again, with an appropriate nod to intelligence: I'm lamenting that so many brilliant people haven't been given the chance to learn to write well. They pick it up from their seniors, many of which were also not given the chance. Odd practices emerge, like pathological affinity to passive voice. They write papers that nobody would read if they didn't have to.

First of all, to avoid flame wars, people need to read what has actually been said more carefully.

If you will go back to my post, izzy crow, you will see that I did not call anyone lazy. I merely said that passive voice MAY be the way those scientific writers who are lazier than others MAY choose to write. I also included a disclaimer indicating that it may not even be laziness, but a matter of not being interested in good writing.

Now arguing over things is healthy and it puts points of view into your perspective. Arguing that isnt healthy is when it degenerates into name calling and other such verbal abuse. Arguing is good if you keep it respectful and healthy!

If everyone agreed with everyone then you better shut down this site. All the writing topics would be the same!And if you add a little humor everything turns out to be fun!(that point is arguable though)

Please try my new book of recipes
The Cook Book of Arguing: By Lazy passive writer BudHAHA

Here are some reviews by the writer himself!

"I must have dozed off 30 times. When I was writing it!"

"to finish this book I had to be on a strict diet of speed and crack/cocaine to finish each page!"

izzy is throwing fuel onto the fire just by claiming to be an educated person that writes...in the manner in which izzy has been writing

Talk about style issues--or don't, if you don't want to have a flame war with a bunch of writers.

I think that we can all agree that there is a purpose to science writing that goes beyond entertaining the readership. And we should all agree that making the material comprehensible to ordinary mortals is a valid goal of all writing.

Historically and grammatically, there are good reasons for science writing to have a lot of passive voice. I believe that some of the historical reasons have been discussed, so I will speak to other issues. A description of an experiment in a scientific paper is--in a certain sense--an invitation to replicate the experiment. As such, it must partly be construed as instructions on how to do this. Instructions are--with good reason--usually phrased in a combination of imperative and passive voice constructions. Because the injunction to repeat the experiment is implicit rather than explicit, we usually don't include straightforward imperative constructions in science papers, so that leaves us using the passive voice...a lot.

But experimental write-ups aren't the end all be all of writing in the science community. There are also theoretical and argumentative works, which too often are written in a style only appropriate to experimental write-ups. This is one reason that Computer Science has departed from the passive voice traditions of many other sciences, because so much of the work is ultimately theoretical in nature. Even the experiments only 'happen' in simulation, so to speak.

..

I visited this site because I am an OSC fan and joined this forum because of my own interest in written work and to explore possiblities in writing fiction. LOL. I'm now feeling a bit outcast. Maybe, after all, I don't really fit here... seeing that I am not a writer. I apologize for fuling a flame, Survivor. And to comment on your second line, I can't help writing the way I write. I didn't mean my (apparent?) manner to imply anything my words did not say.

I've been doing research for a story on the Revolutionary War, and for the first time in my life without being forced to I read a few nonfiction books.

I was expecting to be bored to tears, and find nothing but books that read as if they were written by the same authors of every text book I've ever had.

I was pleasantly suprised.

The books were factual, made a point and/or argument, but were almost written in a prose style. Granted, I have interest in the period, but the two authors I've read so far (Grodon Wood, and John Ferling) actually seemed to an extent to flow like a novel, perhaps without as much of an entertainment factor, but they're not a chore to read.

My point, being that it is possible,as Surviovor pointed out it depends on your reason for writing it, to write non-fiction and not bore or alienate your readers with just a passing interest.