Welcome to “Grammar Kerfuffles,” a blog series from DH Leonard Consulting that you will see here on the semi-regular. We will explore fun grammar insights that elevate the power of the written word in grant writing.

If you like “fun” and “grammar” being next to each other in the previous sentence, this blog series is for you. If you do not (yet), hang out here with us for a bit. This series delves into the satisfaction that comes from making intentional grammatical decisions.

This inaugural installment of the series, Active Voice vs. Passive Voice, examines this grammatical choice that arises occasionally as we write grant documents.

First, consider the active sentence “The author wrote the title” and the passive sentence “The title was written by the author.” Each sentence has the necessary parts: they are “not incorrect.” Is one of them better?

Why active voice. Grant writers generally consider active voice to be clearer (very important) and more direct (also very important). Our DH Leonard Consulting style guide specifies that active voice is our default. We seek to engage readers and build trust with them through a clear, direct narrative.

Also, no one says, “The satisfaction that comes from making intentional grammatical decisions is delved into by this series.” Ouch. Active voice is almost always better at avoiding awkwardness. 

Why passive voice. So when and why would we choose passive voice? A few occasions come to mind:

• To utterly avoid stating who is doing the action. But that can seem evasive, or “sus.” Consider the sentence “The budget was overspent” in contrast with “We overspent the budget.” The omission is glaring.
• In certain situations, such as a report: “Last year, 599 people were served” focuses on the outcome rather than on the organization doing the serving. Contrast that sentence with “Last year, the food pantry served 599 people.” The emphasis on the outcome in the passive sentence might be considered more important sometimes. In a shorter sentence, passive voice might not feel overtly “criminal,” we observe grudgingly.
• What if we add extra phrases in order to complete the picture? Active voice reads, “Last year, the foundation’s grant enabled the food pantry to serve 599 people.” Contrast that with the passive voice in “Last year, because of the foundation’s grant, 599 people could be served by the food pantry.” Passive voice is wordier and circuitous. We again barely conclude that passive might be palatable only in short, simple sentences and only by conscious choice.
• Tradition. Some disciplines (often academic) have “always” required passive voice. But is that reason good enough?

After reading a bit about our thoughts on this topic, what do you think? What are your experiences with this choice? We clearly prefer active voice. 

Go out there and engage your readers with a clear and open approach.