Have you ever found yourself staring at a technical document, feeling like you're deciphering an alien language? Sometimes, it's not the complexity of the subject matter, but the very way it's presented. Technical writing, at its heart, is about clarity and precision, but it also has a distinct personality – or rather, a deliberate lack of one.
Think about it. When you're explaining a scientific process or detailing an engineering report, who's really the star of the show? Is it you, the writer, or the phenomenon you're describing? The consensus in the field leans heavily towards the latter. This is where the concept of 'impersonal' writing comes into play, and it's not as cold or distant as it might sound. It's about shifting the focus, ensuring the subject matter, the process, or the principle remains front and center.
One of the most fundamental ways to achieve this impersonality is through the use of the passive voice. Now, I know what some of you might be thinking – isn't active voice generally preferred? For everyday conversation and most narrative writing, absolutely. Active voice makes sentences punchy and direct: 'I observed the angle.' It clearly states who performed the action. However, in technical writing, the 'I' often becomes secondary. The crucial part is what was observed. So, instead of 'I observed the angle to be 45 degrees,' the more appropriate technical phrasing is 'The angle was observed to be 45 degrees.' The action (observing) is still present, but the subject receiving the action (the angle) takes precedence. Similarly, 'We used a graph to illustrate the data' becomes 'A graph was used to illustrate the data.' The emphasis is on the tool and its function, not on the team that employed it.
This principle extends to pronouns. Technical writing steers clear of first-person pronouns like 'I,' 'we,' 'my,' and 'our.' Instead, it relies on third-person pronouns ('it,' 'they') or, more commonly, uses phrases that avoid personal attribution altogether. So, instead of 'I found that the reaction rate increased,' you'll see 'It was found that the reaction rate increased.' Or, 'I assumed the sample was pure' transforms into 'It was assumed that the sample was pure.' This might feel a little indirect at first, but it serves a vital purpose: it removes the writer's personal involvement and potential bias, focusing solely on the findings or assumptions made.
Furthermore, the subjects of sentences in technical writing are typically impersonal entities rather than people. Consider the difference between 'During the tests, I noticed that the temperature fluctuated' and 'Analysis of the data indicates that the temperature fluctuated.' The first sentence centers on the writer's personal experience, while the second focuses on the objective outcome derived from the data. Similarly, 'In this report, I show the results' is less effective than 'This report presents the results.' The report itself becomes the actor, the vehicle for conveying information.
Why all this emphasis on impersonality? Because technical reports are not personal narratives. They are meant to be objective, reproducible, and easily understood by a wide audience, regardless of who wrote them. The goal is to convey information accurately and efficiently. When a professional engineer writes a report, their skill isn't just in conducting the work, but in presenting it clearly and concisely. This means paying attention to every detail, from the neatness of the presentation to the clarity of the language. The reader should be able to navigate the content easily, finding the information they need without getting bogged down in the writer's personal journey.
It's a subtle art, this impersonal style. It requires a conscious effort to step back, to let the facts and processes speak for themselves. But when done well, it elevates technical writing from a mere description of events to a clear, authoritative, and ultimately more trustworthy account of scientific and technical endeavors. It's about making the information, not the author, the hero of the story.
