Passive voice seems to be the standard for much of science writing. As is a fair amount of the aforementioned "bet hedging". This may be because these stylistic tools help foster the illusion of an objective observer merely recording facts, while simultaneously acknowledging that the conclusions drawn from these facts may be inaccurate or incomplete. Using first person draws an audience's attention to the observer's role in the process, something that one often wishes to avoid in science writing.
Of course, since the written word is a form of communication, what really matters is if the content is conveyed correctly (according to the wishes of the writer); style is a tool used to fine tune this communication. Knowing when to use which of these stylistic tools can be a tricky thing to master. Rather than a list of "do's and don'ts", perhaps a guide that indicates when it is appropriate to use these methods to enhance meaning and clarity would be in order.
(Disclaimer: No active, first persons were harmed in the making of this post.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 08:29 pm (UTC)Of course, since the written word is a form of communication, what really matters is if the content is conveyed correctly (according to the wishes of the writer); style is a tool used to fine tune this communication. Knowing when to use which of these stylistic tools can be a tricky thing to master. Rather than a list of "do's and don'ts", perhaps a guide that indicates when it is appropriate to use these methods to enhance meaning and clarity would be in order.
(Disclaimer: No active, first persons were harmed in the making of this post.)