The use of the active or passive voice in research writing is the subject of heated debate. Some claim that the passive voice is ideally suited to scientific communication because it gives texts an impersonal tone that is more objective and formal. Others believe that the active is more concise and makes texts more readable and easier to understand.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, research was largely communicated in a highly personal letter format and authors played a more central role because individual skill was a fundamental part of the process (for example, they often had to make their instruments themselves). The general trend was to use an active, personal style. Consider the following text from Isaac Newton’s Opticks, published in 1730, the tone of which is quite unlike that of modern scientific writing.


The twentieth century saw the advent of the highly structured IMRaD format, and authors were instructed by scientific journals to favour the passive voice and avoid the active, particularly first-person pronouns such as I, we, my or our. Thus, the sentence from Isaac Newton’s text above


would become


More recently, many research journals have been reacting against the notion that the passive is more suited to academic writing and they now encourage authors to favour the active voice. In their instructions for authors, many journals advise authors to use the active because it makes texts easier to read. However, despite such explicit advice as “Please write in a clear, direct and active style” and “Use, direct, active-voice sentences” other advice is not so clear. The British Medical Journal tells authors to “Use the first person where necessary” but does not explain where it is necessary and where it is not. The Journal of Neuroscience states that “Overuse of the passive is a common problem” but does not define the difference between overuse and acceptable use. It also recognizes that “The passive has its place” but then only mentions that one of these places is the methods section.  

To add to the confusion, some recent research suggests that there is little basis to the claims that texts written in the active voice are easier to understand than texts that favour the passive (Millar & Budgell, 2019). The question thus remains: should research writers use the active or the passive voice? The answer is, of course, that you should use both. Whatever you do, however, respect your supervisor’s preferences. As a researcher, you will adapt your writing style not only to your individual preferences but also to the external requirements dictated by your field of study and your supervisor. If you are given instructions to favour either the active or the passive, follow them. If you are not, there are other principles you can follow.