Active vs. Passive Voice in Academic Writing

The choice between active and passive voice is one of the most consequential and most misunderstood decisions in academic writing. The common advice, "always use the active voice," is too blunt for scholarly work. The passive voice has real and accepted uses, particularly in methods sections and in disciplines that favor an impersonal style. The skill is not eliminating the passive voice but using each voice on purpose. This guide explains how the two voices work, where the passive is expected in academic writing, where it weakens prose, and how conventions vary by discipline. For the general grammar of active and passive constructions outside an academic context, see our guide on active voice vs. passive voice.

Quick answer

In the active voice, the subject performs the action ("the team measured the samples"). In the passive voice, the subject receives it ("the samples were measured"). Academic writing uses both. The passive voice is appropriate when the receiver of the action matters more than the doer, when the doer is obvious or irrelevant, or when a discipline's convention favors an impersonal style, as many sciences do in methods sections. The active voice is usually clearer, more direct, and shorter, so it is the better default for most sentences. The goal is to choose each voice deliberately rather than letting the passive accumulate by habit, since unintentional overuse of the passive is what makes academic prose feel flat and evasive.


How the Two Voices Work

In the active voice, the grammatical subject performs the action of the verb. In the passive voice, the subject receives the action, and the performer either appears in a "by" phrase or disappears entirely. "The researcher analyzed the data" is active. "The data were analyzed by the researcher" is passive, and "the data were analyzed" is passive with the performer removed. That last form, passive with the agent dropped, is the one that matters most in academic writing, because it lets a writer report what was done without naming who did it.


The active voice is usually more direct and more economical. It puts the actor first, names the action plainly, and tends to use fewer words. The passive voice reverses the natural order, foregrounding the thing acted upon, and adds the auxiliary verb "to be" plus a past participle. Prose that overuses the passive without reason tends to feel flat, wordy, and evasive, because it keeps hiding the agents of its own sentences. This is why the active voice is the right default for most academic sentences. The passive is the deliberate exception, not the baseline.


When the Passive Voice Is the Right Choice

Academic writing is one of the contexts where the passive voice earns its place more often than in general prose. There are four situations where it is the better choice.


  • When the receiver matters more than the doer. If the important information is what was acted upon, the passive correctly puts it first. "The samples were stored at minus 80 degrees" keeps the focus on the samples, which is where a reader of a methods section wants it. Who placed them in the freezer is not the point.
  • When the doer is obvious, unknown, or irrelevant. In a methods section, the researcher is almost always the agent, so naming them in every sentence is redundant. "The solution was titrated" carries all the information needed; "I titrated the solution" adds an agent the reader already assumes. When the doer adds nothing, the passive removes the clutter.
  • When a discipline's convention favors it. Many sciences and engineering fields use the passive as the default register for methods and procedures, precisely to keep the focus on the work rather than the worker. In these fields, the impersonal passive is not a weakness; it is the expected academic voice, and writing methods in the active first person can read as informal.
  • When you want to soften or distance a statement. The passive can place focus on a process or outcome rather than assigning agency, which is sometimes the appropriate, measured choice in academic argument. Used carefully, this is legitimate. Used to dodge responsibility for a claim, it becomes evasive, so the line matters.

The Methods Section: Where the Passive Lives

The methods section is the part of an academic paper where the passive voice is most concentrated and most accepted. The reason is structural. A methods section describes a sequence of procedures performed on materials, and the materials and procedures are the point, not the hands that carried them out. "The mixture was heated to 60 degrees and stirred for ten minutes" reads naturally because the reader cares about the mixture and the procedure, not about who held the equipment.


That said, an entirely passive methods section can become hard to follow. When every sentence hides its agent and reverses its natural order, the prose grows monotonous and can obscure who did what, which matters when more than one party is involved. The current trend in many fields, including under APA style, is a mix. Writers use the active voice and the first person for the researcher's own decisions ("we chose a longitudinal design") while keeping the passive for routine procedures ("samples were collected"). This mix is clearer than either extreme. It names the agent where the agent matters and drops it where it does not. The decision is closely tied to the question of first-person pronouns, since the active alternative to a passive procedure usually means writing "I" or "we."


When the Passive Weakens Academic Prose

Outside the methods section and the contexts above, the passive voice often weakens academic writing, and unintentional overuse is one of the most common problems editors find in scholarly drafts. Several patterns recur.


The first is the passive used by habit rather than choice, where a writer defaults to it everywhere under the mistaken belief that it sounds more scholarly. It does not; it sounds flat. "It was found that the intervention was associated with improved outcomes" is weaker than "the intervention improved outcomes." The second is the agentless passive that hides information the reader needs. "Mistakes were made" is the classic example: the construction conceals who made them, and in an academic argument that concealment can read as evasion. The third is the passive that simply adds words, turning a crisp active sentence into a longer, slower one for no gain. When the passive is not doing one of its real jobs, the active voice is almost always the better revision.


How Conventions Vary by Discipline

There is no single academic rule on active and passive voice, because the conventions differ sharply across fields. Knowing your field's expectation is more useful than any universal guideline.


Much of the natural and physical sciences and engineering retains a strong preference for the impersonal passive in methods and procedures, though even these fields increasingly accept "we" for the researchers' decisions. The social sciences, especially under APA style, now lean toward the active voice and limited first person, on the reasoning that naming the agent is clearer and more honest. The humanities generally favor the active voice throughout, in keeping with their acceptance of the first person and their argument-driven style. As with other elements of academic voice, the most reliable guide is the published literature in your specific field. Read how recent papers in your target journal handle the methods section and the discussion, and match the convention you find there.


How to Revise for Voice

Because the passive accumulates by habit, a dedicated revision pass focused on voice catches what drafting misses. A few steps make the pass efficient.


  1. Find your passive constructions. Look for forms of "to be" (is, was, were, been) followed by a past participle. Many word processors and writing tools can flag passive constructions, which makes them easy to locate for review.
  2. For each one, ask whether the passive is doing a job. Is the receiver more important than the doer? Is the doer obvious or irrelevant? Does your field's convention call for it here? If yes, keep it. If the passive is there only by habit, convert it to the active voice.
  3. Watch the methods section separately. Apply your field's convention rather than a blanket rule. In many fields the right answer is a mix: active and first person for your decisions, passive for routine procedures.
  4. Check for the agentless passive that hides information. Where a sentence drops an agent the reader needs ("it has been argued" with no indication by whom), restore the agent or cite the source, so the claim is properly attributed.

When Professional Editing Helps

Voice is hard to audit in your own writing, because a passive construction you wrote on purpose and one you wrote by habit look identical on the page to the person who wrote them. A professional academic editor reads for the difference: which passives are doing real work in your methods and argument, and which are flattening your prose or hiding agents the reader needs. Because conventions vary by field, an editor who works across disciplines can also calibrate the balance of active and passive to what your target journal expects, rather than imposing a one-size rule.


Editor World's academic editing and professional proofreading services balance active and passive voice for your discipline, converting habitual passives to clearer active constructions while keeping the passive where it belongs. You choose your own editor by discipline and verified client ratings, and you can message any editor before submitting. Every document is edited entirely by a qualified native English editor, with no AI tools used at any stage. For specific document types, see our journal article editing and dissertation editing services, or use the instant price calculator to see your cost in seconds.


Frequently Asked Questions

Should you use active or passive voice in academic writing?

Academic writing uses both, chosen deliberately rather than by habit. The active voice is usually clearer, more direct, and shorter, so it is the better default for most sentences. The passive voice is the right choice in specific situations: when the receiver of the action matters more than the doer, when the doer is obvious or irrelevant, when a discipline's convention favors an impersonal style, or when the writer wants to keep the focus on a process rather than an agent. The common advice to always use the active voice is too blunt for scholarly work, where the passive has real uses, especially in methods sections. The goal is to use each voice on purpose rather than letting the passive accumulate unintentionally.


What is the difference between active and passive voice?

In the active voice, the grammatical subject performs the action of the verb, as in "the researcher analyzed the data." In the passive voice, the subject receives the action, and the performer either appears in a "by" phrase or disappears entirely, as in "the data were analyzed by the researcher" or simply "the data were analyzed." The agentless passive, where the performer is dropped, is the form that matters most in academic writing, because it lets a writer report what was done without naming who did it. The active voice puts the actor first and tends to use fewer words, while the passive reverses the order and adds the auxiliary verb "to be" plus a past participle.


Why is the passive voice used in methods sections?

The methods section describes a sequence of procedures performed on materials, and the materials and procedures are the point, not the hands that carried them out. A sentence like "the mixture was heated to 60 degrees and stirred for ten minutes" reads naturally because the reader cares about the mixture and the procedure rather than who held the equipment. In a methods section the researcher is almost always the agent, so naming them in every sentence is redundant. Many science and engineering fields treat the impersonal passive as the expected register here. That said, an entirely passive methods section can become monotonous and can obscure who did what, so many fields now mix active first-person sentences for the researcher's decisions with passive sentences for routine procedures.


When does the passive voice weaken academic writing?

The passive weakens prose when it is used by habit rather than for one of its real jobs. Three patterns recur. The first is the passive used everywhere under the mistaken belief that it sounds more scholarly, which makes prose flat; "it was found that the intervention was associated with improved outcomes" is weaker than "the intervention improved outcomes." The second is the agentless passive that hides information the reader needs, as in "mistakes were made," which conceals who made them and can read as evasion in an academic argument. The third is the passive that simply adds words, turning a crisp active sentence into a longer, slower one for no gain. When the passive is not doing a real job, the active voice is almost always the better revision.


Does APA style prefer active or passive voice?

APA style leans toward the active voice and limited first person, on the reasoning that naming the agent is clearer and more honest than hiding it. Under APA, a researcher is encouraged to write "we chose a longitudinal design" rather than "a longitudinal design was chosen," because the active version identifies who made the decision. APA does not ban the passive, since the passive remains appropriate when the receiver of the action matters more than the doer, as in many routine procedural descriptions. The practical result under APA is a mix: the active voice and first person for the researcher's own decisions and analysis, and the passive for routine procedures where the agent is obvious. This balance is clearer than writing an entire paper in either voice.


Does the right voice depend on the discipline?

Yes, conventions differ sharply across fields. Much of the natural and physical sciences and engineering retains a strong preference for the impersonal passive in methods and procedures, though even these fields increasingly accept "we" for the researchers' decisions. The social sciences, especially under APA style, now lean toward the active voice and limited first person. The humanities generally favor the active voice throughout, in keeping with their acceptance of the first person and their argument-driven style. Because there is no single academic rule, the most reliable guide is the published literature in your specific field. Read how recent papers in your target journal handle the methods section and the discussion, and match the convention you find there.


How do I find and fix passive voice in my draft?

Fix voice in a dedicated revision pass, since the passive accumulates by habit during drafting. First, find your passive constructions by looking for forms of "to be" (is, was, were, been) followed by a past participle; many writing tools can flag these automatically. For each one, ask whether the passive is doing a job: is the receiver more important than the doer, is the doer obvious or irrelevant, or does your field's convention call for it here. If yes, keep it; if it is there only by habit, convert it to the active voice. Treat the methods section separately, applying your field's convention rather than a blanket rule. Finally, watch for the agentless passive that hides an agent the reader needs, and restore the agent or cite the source.


Is the passive voice grammatically wrong?

No. The passive voice is grammatically correct and often the right choice. The frequent advice to avoid it reflects a stylistic preference for directness, not a grammar rule, and applying it as an absolute rule is a mistake in academic writing. The passive earns its place when the receiver of the action matters more than the doer, when the doer is obvious or irrelevant, and in disciplines whose conventions favor an impersonal style. The real issue is not the passive itself but its unintentional overuse, where a writer defaults to it everywhere and the prose turns flat and evasive. The skill is choosing the passive deliberately for its real uses rather than avoiding it entirely or relying on it by habit.

Reviewed by Editor World's editorial team. Editor World, a human-only editing and proofreading marketplace, was founded in 2010 by Patti Fisher, PhD, a graduate of The Ohio State University. It serves academic researchers, doctoral candidates, faculty, graduate students, and business professionals worldwide, and has been BBB A+ accredited since 2010, with 5.0/5 Google Reviews and 5.0/5 Facebook Reviews. More than 140 million words have been edited for over 8,000 clients in 65+ countries, and Editor World is a multiple Gold and Bronze Stevie Award winner. Its native English editors come from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, with subject-matter expertise across the social sciences, the natural and physical sciences, medicine, engineering, computer science, and the humanities. Fewer than 5% of applicants are accepted to the editor panel. Editor World is recommended by the Boston University Economics Department, the University of San Diego, the University of Michigan, UCLA, the University of Missouri, and more. No AI tools are used at any stage.