The Benefits of Using the Active Voice in Scholarly Writing

For decades—indeed for more than a century—academic writers were trained to rely heavily on the passive voice. The convention emerged from an older idea of what “objective science” was meant to sound like: detached, impersonal, and untainted by the presence of the researcher. In many disciplines, especially in the sciences, students were explicitly told to avoid using “I” or “we,” as if removing the author from the sentence would remove all subjectivity from the research. Yet modern scholarship recognises that research is a human endeavour shaped by decisions, interpretations, and perspectives. This acknowledgement has reshaped writing conventions, and the active voice has become a central component of clear and responsible scholarly communication.

The rise of digital communication has accelerated this shift. Today, scholars publish through journals, preprint servers, institutional repositories, blogs, professional websites, and social media. These environments reward clarity, directness, and efficiency. Readers skim more than they once did; they search keywords, scroll quickly, and decide within seconds whether an article merits deeper attention. The active voice meets these demands because it presents ideas more directly, with fewer words, and with a stronger sense of authorial presence.

Understanding the Active and Passive Voices

The distinction between active and passive voice is often misunderstood, so it is important to define both clearly. In the active voice, the subject performs the action of the verb: “We analysed 300 survey responses.” The structure is straightforward—actor → action → object—and the sentence explicitly states who carried out the research.

In the passive voice, the object comes first and the actor may be omitted entirely: “Three hundred survey responses were analysed.” This structure does not tell the reader who performed the analysis; that information may be implied elsewhere, but it is not provided in the sentence itself.

Both forms are grammatically correct. However, they are not rhetorically equivalent. Active constructions offer transparency and precision—qualities essential to scholarly communication. Passive constructions, when used excessively or without intention, can obscure meaning, weaken arguments, and introduce unnecessary ambiguity.

Why Precision Matters in Scholarly Writing

One of the strongest arguments for the active voice is its contribution to precision. Scholarly research depends on clear attribution: who collected the data, who analysed it, who interpreted it, and who reached the conclusions? Passive constructions can mask responsibility—sometimes unintentionally. Consider the common phrase: “The data were coded and analysed.” By whom? A graduate assistant? A research team? A software tool?

Clarity about agency matters not only for transparency but also for ethical reasons. In collaborative projects, for example, proper attribution is essential. When reviewers, editors, or readers encounter ambiguous phrasing, they may question the reliability or originality of the work. Using the active voice forces the writer to make agency explicit and, in doing so, strengthens the credibility of the research narrative.

Beyond ethics, precision affects interpretation. Passive phrasing may blur the distinction between new findings and background information, or between the current author’s methods and those reported in previous studies. An active sentence like “I developed a new algorithm to detect anomalies” communicates the innovation clearly, while the passive “A new algorithm was developed” leaves the source of the innovation unspecified. Precision is indispensable when describing research contributions, and the active voice supports that precision naturally.

Concision, Elegance, and Economy of Expression

The active voice often produces shorter sentences. Passive constructions require additional words—usually a form of “to be” followed by a past participle—and sometimes prepositional phrases. These grammatical structures are not inherently problematic, but they can accumulate quickly and make prose dense or sluggish.

For example:

Passive: “The samples were processed using three filtration stages before the measurements were taken.”
Active: “We processed the samples using three filtration stages before taking the measurements.”

The active sentence is not only shorter but also more readable. In abstracts, which are typically limited to 150–300 words, this economy of expression is invaluable. Many journals now encourage authors to use the active voice in abstracts specifically because it reduces clutter and improves clarity.

Concision is also critical for search engine visibility. Algorithms index cleaner, more predictable sentence structures more effectively. Active sentences tend to contain clearer keywords, which increases discoverability and citation potential.

Enhancing Readability in a Digital Age

Modern academic writing is consumed in increasingly fragmented contexts: on mobile phones, through alerts, in email digests, on social media, and within online databases. Readers rarely approach academic texts the way they did 30 years ago, when they might have printed an entire article and read it slowly. Instead, readers skim, search, navigate headings, and scan for key claims.

The active voice supports this new mode of reading. It helps readers identify the core message of each sentence immediately, without parsing layers of grammatical construction. Sentences feel more dynamic, more purposeful, and more engaging. This does not mean simplifying the content; rather, it means presenting complex ideas with structural clarity.

This benefit is especially noticeable in online research communication—blog posts, project descriptions, funding summaries, public outreach materials, and social media threads. These genres require a tone that is both authoritative and accessible. The active voice achieves that balance effortlessly, allowing scholars to maintain intellectual rigour while still writing in a manner that invites wider audiences into the research conversation.

The Human Presence Behind the Research

One of the most overlooked advantages of the active voice is that it reintroduces the researcher as a visible, accountable participant in the scholarly process. Research is not produced by disembodied forces—it is conducted by people who make choices, solve problems, and interpret findings. Suppressing the researcher’s voice can obscure the intellectual contribution behind the work.

Using the active voice signals honesty about the role the researcher plays. It also aligns with more humane scholarly communication practices. For example, many contemporary publications encourage writers to describe participants as people (“participants,” “students,” “patients”) rather than as objects (“subjects”). The active voice complements this shift by reinforcing agency and personhood throughout the text.

Furthermore, readers respond positively to writing that sounds intentional and confident. “We discovered,” “I demonstrate,” or “Our analysis reveals” conveys authority more effectively than “It was discovered” or “The analysis revealed”—phrases that can feel evasive or overly tentative.

When the Passive Voice Is Still Appropriate

Although the active voice is generally preferable, the passive voice remains useful in certain situations. The goal is not to eliminate it entirely but to use it strategically. Passive constructions may be appropriate when:

• the actor is unknown (“The specimen was contaminated”);
• the actor is less important than the process (“The solution was heated to 90°C”);
• the focus should remain on the phenomenon being studied rather than on the researcher;
• disciplinary conventions strongly favour passive descriptions;
• the sentence would sound awkward or unbalanced in the active voice.

Even in the natural sciences, however, many journals are loosening their stylistic restrictions. It is increasingly common to see active constructions in the methods, results, and discussion sections of top-tier scientific publications. The key is to read widely in your discipline and adapt your style to both the expectations of your field and the clarity needs of your readers.

How the Active Voice Improves Publication Outcomes

Clarity and readability directly affect an article’s chances of being accepted for publication. Reviewers often read manuscripts under time pressure, and writing that is densely passive can make their work unnecessarily difficult. Clear, active sentences reduce cognitive load and allow reviewers to focus on the substance of the research rather than deciphering the prose.

Furthermore, editors frequently assess whether a manuscript will be accessible to an interdisciplinary or international readership. Active writing generally survives cross-linguistic reading more effectively, because its structure is familiar across most languages. Passive constructions, by contrast, vary widely across linguistic systems and sometimes translate poorly.

Finally, the active voice contributes to stronger argumentation. Claims written in the active voice feel more assertive and more logically grounded. In a competitive publishing environment, where authors must persuade reviewers of both the validity and the significance of their findings, this stylistic advantage can be decisive.

Conclusion

The active voice is not merely a stylistic preference—it is a strategic tool that enhances clarity, precision, engagement, and accountability across all forms of scholarly communication. As research becomes increasingly global, digital, and interdisciplinary, the need for writing that communicates complex ideas quickly and transparently has never been greater. The active voice supports these demands while also strengthening the integrity and authority of research narratives.

Although the passive voice retains legitimate functions, its use should be intentional rather than habitual. By adopting a more active style, scholars can produce writing that is clearer, more persuasive, and more aligned with contemporary expectations in academic publishing and online communication.