Letter pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
The Struggle with Voice in Scientific Writing Reuben Hudson* Department of Chemistry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0B8, Canada ABSTRACT: Readers could benefit from a definition of the term “the technical voice” coined in a recent article on improving students’ technical writing. Does voice carry grammatical connotations referring to either the active or passive voice, does it imply conformation to scientific writing idiosyncrasies, or does it rely on another interpretation of voice? KEYWORDS: Communication, Writing
J
their audience to understand8,9 while leaving them the license to deliver their content creatively.2 Carr’s paper supports this sentiment because his technique generates “suggested revisions” rather than mandatory changes, but the term the technical voice implies otherwise. A specific definition of the technical voice could supplement further discussion of Carr’s otherwise well-presented piece.
eremy Carr’s account1 of improving students’ technical writing by a collaborative approach provides educators with a novel technique to engage students in the revision process. He provides a well-developed thesis, and continued discussion could benefit from clarification of terminology. Without more specifics, coinage of the term “the technical voice” propagates the eternal unrest2−4 in the scientific community over both the grammatical and idiosyncratic role of voice in technical writing. If voice carries the grammatical5 connotations regarding whether or not the subject of a sentence or clause is the agent of the verb, then is the technical voice active or passive? Literary critics and experts on English usage advocate for use of the active voice whenever possible because it provides more direct, vigorous, and concise sentences.5,6 Proponents of concise writing in the scientific community agree,2,3 most with the caveat that authors should write themselves out of experimental sections by the passive voice to portray objectivity. As the author promotes concision, but eschews use of first person pronouns, we could assume he agrees with the latter, rendering the technical voice an impossible combination of the active and the passive into one grammatical voice. On the other hand, some technical writers encourage use of the passive voice as much as possible, regardless of context.4,7 So, perhaps the technical voice is only passive? Alternatively, voice may instead carry the idiosyncratic implications of conforming to scientific writing norms. If this is the case, then at one point, use of the definite article (the technical voice) paints a bleak picture of scientific writing in which individuals have no room for personal style, only one homogeneous voiceperhaps not far from reality.2,3 Under the voice’s mandate, writers must replace the colloquialisms “use” and “easy” with “utilization” and “facile”. They must conceal the agent of every action, especially themselves. Indeed, these are not Carr’s words, but if there is only one technical voice, then surely these are aspects of it. For this reason and others, I do not subscribe to the merits of a sole technical voice. We do not limit poets to one voice, “the poetic voice”. Instead, we would say that Emily Dickenson and William Shakespeare both write in “a poetic voice”, and although each is different, both are powerful. If we tell young chemists to write in the technical voice, they may interpret that the scientific community allows for only one homogeneous voice. Instead of teaching strict rubrics for how students (or scientists) must write, we should empower them to write in a manner best fit for © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*R. Hudson. E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Carr, J. M. Using a Collaborative Critiquing Technique To Develop Chemistry Students’ Technical Writing Skills. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (6), 751−754. (2) Avery, L. Write To Reply. Nature 1996, 379 (6563), 293. (3) Pearlman, A. M. Passive Voice. Nature 1996, 382 (6587), 108. (4) Leather, S. R. The Case for the Passive Voice. Nature 1996, 381 (6582), 467. (5) Fowler, H. W. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage; Wordsworth Editions Ltd: Ware, U.K., 1994. (6) White, E. B.; Strunk, W. The Elements of Style; Macmillan: New York, 1972. (7) Robinson, M. S.; Stoller, F. L.; Jones, J. K. Using the ACS Journals Search To Validate Assumptions about Writing in Chemistry and Improve Chemistry Writing Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 650−654. (8) Gopen, G.; Swan, J. The Science of Scientific Writing. Am. Sci. 1990, 78 (6), 550−558. (9) Vazquez, A. V.; McLoughlin, K.; Sabbagh, M.; Runkle, A. C.; Simon, J.; Coppola, B. P.; Pazicni, S. Writing-To-Teach: A New Pedagogical Approach To Elicit Explanative Writing from Undergraduate Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (8), 1025− 1031.
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400243b | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
