Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/33470
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/33470
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Well, there is no good practical reason for it. In other words, there are no studies showing that passive voice is more effective in communicating technical information. That leaves us with social reasons, which are necessarily a little more speculative and anecdotal. There is history to suggest that the following may be factors:

- People often feel that because documentation is a "business document" it must be formal, and they often feel that the passive voice sounds more formal than the active voice. Neither of these propositions is true but they seem to be frequently held by people whose training and experience is not in communications. 

- The passive voice can be used to conceal the actor. "John hit Frank" becomes "Frank got hit" with the accusatory "by John" elided out. Thus it absolves the speaker either of taking responsibility or of assigning it. Communicators who seem unsure of themselves or who don't really want to communicate at all often take refuge in the passive to avoid taking or assigning responsibility. 

- If people are in a field where passive documentation is common, they may simply copy that style. It is remarkable the extent to which people will produce information designs that they would never use or like themselves just because they think those designs are conventional. People choose the conventional over the useful all the time. 

Original score: 5