In defense of the passive voice in medical writing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Few medical journals specifically instruct authors to use the active voice and avoid the passive voice, but advice to that effect is common in the large number of stylebooks and blogs aimed at medical and scientific writers. Such advice typically revolves around arguments that the passive voice is less clear, less direct, and less concise than the active voice, that it conceals the identity of the person(s) performing the action(s) described, that it obscures meaning, that it is pompous, and that the high rate of passivevoice usage in scientific writing is a result of conformity to an established and old-fashioned style of writing. Some of these arguments are valid with respect to specific examples of passive-voice misuse by some medical (and other) writers, but as arguments for avoiding passive-voice use in general, they are seriously flawed. In addition, many of the examples that stylebook writers give of inappropriate use are actually much more appropriate in certain contexts than the active-voice alternatives they provide. In this review, I examine the advice offered by anti-passive writers, along with some of their examples of “inappropriate” use, and argue that the key factor in voice selection is sentence word order as determined by the natural tendency in English for the topic of discourse (“old” information) to take subject position and for “new” information to come later. Authors who submit to this natural tendency will not have to worry much about voice selection, because it will usually be automatic.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-10
Number of pages10
JournalKeio Journal of Medicine
Volume64
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Mar 6

Fingerprint

Blogging
Medical Writing

Keywords

  • Advice to avoid passive voice
  • Appropriate use
  • Medical writing
  • Word order

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

In defense of the passive voice in medical writing. / Minton, Timothy David.

In: Keio Journal of Medicine, Vol. 64, No. 1, 06.03.2015, p. 1-10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dac4e497975e4688bcaef7d349377908,
title = "In defense of the passive voice in medical writing",
abstract = "Few medical journals specifically instruct authors to use the active voice and avoid the passive voice, but advice to that effect is common in the large number of stylebooks and blogs aimed at medical and scientific writers. Such advice typically revolves around arguments that the passive voice is less clear, less direct, and less concise than the active voice, that it conceals the identity of the person(s) performing the action(s) described, that it obscures meaning, that it is pompous, and that the high rate of passivevoice usage in scientific writing is a result of conformity to an established and old-fashioned style of writing. Some of these arguments are valid with respect to specific examples of passive-voice misuse by some medical (and other) writers, but as arguments for avoiding passive-voice use in general, they are seriously flawed. In addition, many of the examples that stylebook writers give of inappropriate use are actually much more appropriate in certain contexts than the active-voice alternatives they provide. In this review, I examine the advice offered by anti-passive writers, along with some of their examples of “inappropriate” use, and argue that the key factor in voice selection is sentence word order as determined by the natural tendency in English for the topic of discourse (“old” information) to take subject position and for “new” information to come later. Authors who submit to this natural tendency will not have to worry much about voice selection, because it will usually be automatic.",
keywords = "Advice to avoid passive voice, Appropriate use, Medical writing, Word order",
author = "Minton, {Timothy David}",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "6",
doi = "10.2302/kjm.2014-0009-RE",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "1--10",
journal = "Keio Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0022-9717",
publisher = "Keio University School of Medicine",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In defense of the passive voice in medical writing

AU - Minton, Timothy David

PY - 2015/3/6

Y1 - 2015/3/6

N2 - Few medical journals specifically instruct authors to use the active voice and avoid the passive voice, but advice to that effect is common in the large number of stylebooks and blogs aimed at medical and scientific writers. Such advice typically revolves around arguments that the passive voice is less clear, less direct, and less concise than the active voice, that it conceals the identity of the person(s) performing the action(s) described, that it obscures meaning, that it is pompous, and that the high rate of passivevoice usage in scientific writing is a result of conformity to an established and old-fashioned style of writing. Some of these arguments are valid with respect to specific examples of passive-voice misuse by some medical (and other) writers, but as arguments for avoiding passive-voice use in general, they are seriously flawed. In addition, many of the examples that stylebook writers give of inappropriate use are actually much more appropriate in certain contexts than the active-voice alternatives they provide. In this review, I examine the advice offered by anti-passive writers, along with some of their examples of “inappropriate” use, and argue that the key factor in voice selection is sentence word order as determined by the natural tendency in English for the topic of discourse (“old” information) to take subject position and for “new” information to come later. Authors who submit to this natural tendency will not have to worry much about voice selection, because it will usually be automatic.

AB - Few medical journals specifically instruct authors to use the active voice and avoid the passive voice, but advice to that effect is common in the large number of stylebooks and blogs aimed at medical and scientific writers. Such advice typically revolves around arguments that the passive voice is less clear, less direct, and less concise than the active voice, that it conceals the identity of the person(s) performing the action(s) described, that it obscures meaning, that it is pompous, and that the high rate of passivevoice usage in scientific writing is a result of conformity to an established and old-fashioned style of writing. Some of these arguments are valid with respect to specific examples of passive-voice misuse by some medical (and other) writers, but as arguments for avoiding passive-voice use in general, they are seriously flawed. In addition, many of the examples that stylebook writers give of inappropriate use are actually much more appropriate in certain contexts than the active-voice alternatives they provide. In this review, I examine the advice offered by anti-passive writers, along with some of their examples of “inappropriate” use, and argue that the key factor in voice selection is sentence word order as determined by the natural tendency in English for the topic of discourse (“old” information) to take subject position and for “new” information to come later. Authors who submit to this natural tendency will not have to worry much about voice selection, because it will usually be automatic.

KW - Advice to avoid passive voice

KW - Appropriate use

KW - Medical writing

KW - Word order

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930391819&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930391819&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2302/kjm.2014-0009-RE

DO - 10.2302/kjm.2014-0009-RE

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - Keio Journal of Medicine

JF - Keio Journal of Medicine

SN - 0022-9717

IS - 1

ER -