Active vs Passive Voice in Grant Writing: Strategic Choices for Different Contexts
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Introduction
In the competitive world of grant writing, language is more than just a tool of communication; it is a strategic asset that determines how effectively a proposal persuades its reviewers. One of the most critical linguistic choices a grant writer must make is between using the active or passive voice. These two grammatical constructions influence not only the clarity and tone of the text but also its perceived authority, focus, and energy. Active voice tends to emphasize the actor and creates a direct, dynamic tone, whereas passive voice highlights the action or the recipient, often leading to a more formal, detached tone. Understanding when and how to deploy each voice strategically is essential for tailoring grant proposals to different audiences, funder expectations, and narrative contexts. This paper explores the grammatical mechanics, rhetorical functions, and contextual applications of active and passive voice in grant writing. By examining their respective strengths and limitations, it provides a nuanced framework for making deliberate linguistic choices that enhance the persuasiveness and professionalism of grant proposals.
The Grammatical Foundations of Active and Passive Voice
To understand the strategic deployment of voice in grant writing, it is first necessary to grasp the grammatical distinctions between active and passive constructions. In the active voice, the subject performs the action expressed by the verb, as in “The research team conducted the survey.” In contrast, the passive voice shifts focus to the recipient of the action, as in “The survey was conducted by the research team” or simply “The survey was conducted.” According to Kolln and Gray (2016), passive voice often omits the agent entirely, thereby creating a sense of objectivity or institutional formality. While grammatically correct, the passive voice can sometimes obscure agency, reduce clarity, or lead to convoluted sentence structures. In grant writing, where clarity, precision, and persuasiveness are paramount, the decision to use active or passive voice must be made consciously, taking into account the rhetorical intent and the expectations of the funder. A deep understanding of these grammatical foundations allows writers to manipulate sentence structure for maximum strategic impact.
The Rhetorical Power of Active Voice in Grant Narratives
The active voice is frequently favored in grant writing due to its ability to convey clarity, action, and accountability. When the subject of the sentence is clearly performing the action, the narrative feels more immediate and purposeful. For example, a statement such as “Our organization delivers weekly training sessions to 200 community members” provides a strong sense of agency and engagement. According to Zinsser (2006), active voice enhances reader trust by clarifying responsibility and creating a lively, engaging tone. This is especially important in sections that describe project implementation, management roles, and community outreach activities. Active voice helps to position the applicant as proactive and capable, qualities that funders are likely to value. Furthermore, it facilitates the use of action verbs, which can make descriptions more vivid and persuasive. In this way, the active voice contributes not only to grammatical correctness but also to the rhetorical power of the proposal, establishing a confident and credible narrative voice.
The Strategic Use of Passive Voice for Objectivity and Emphasis
Despite the general preference for active constructions, passive voice has a legitimate and strategic place in grant writing. It is particularly useful in contexts where the actor is unknown, irrelevant, or less important than the action or result. For example, in the sentence “Data were collected from five regional health centers,” the emphasis is placed on the action of data collection rather than who performed it. This can be beneficial in methodology sections, compliance statements, or descriptions of institutional procedures. According to Williams and Bizup (2017), passive constructions can lend an air of formality and objectivity, distancing the writer from subjective claims. In highly technical or scientific proposals, where neutrality and precision are valued, passive voice can enhance the document’s credibility. Moreover, passive voice allows writers to vary sentence structure and avoid excessive repetition of the same subject, thereby improving the rhythm and sophistication of the prose. Used judiciously, passive voice serves as a tool for emphasis and balance within the proposal’s overall narrative.
Balancing Voice for Audience Expectations and Proposal Sections
Strategic voice choice in grant writing often depends on the intended audience and the specific section of the proposal. Different funders have varying preferences for tone and style, which can be inferred from their guidelines, previous awardees’ proposals, or organizational culture. For example, a foundation that emphasizes grassroots community engagement may favor a narrative rich in active voice to highlight agency and passion. Conversely, a government agency with a technical focus may accept or even prefer passive constructions in the methods or evaluation sections. According to Alley (1996), understanding the discourse conventions of the target audience enhances communicative effectiveness. Therefore, grant writers must be flexible and intentional, using active voice to assert agency and passive voice to signal objectivity. Within a single proposal, different sections may call for different stylistic choices. Needs assessments and organizational qualifications often benefit from the active voice, while methodology and compliance descriptions may warrant the passive. Balancing voice throughout the proposal ensures both rhetorical variety and alignment with funder expectations.
Improving Readability Through Voice Control
Readability is a critical factor in grant proposal success, and voice choice directly influences how easily reviewers can comprehend and engage with the text. Proposals that rely too heavily on passive voice can become dense and monotonous, making it harder for readers to extract key points. In contrast, active voice tends to produce shorter, more direct sentences that are easier to read and remember. According to the Hemingway Editor (2020), active voice enhances sentence strength and reduces the likelihood of vague or wordy constructions. While passive voice has its place, overuse can obscure meaning and dilute the impact of the narrative. A strategic blend of both voices, guided by readability considerations, ensures that the proposal maintains a clear and professional tone. Moreover, readability tools and style guides often provide feedback on voice usage, allowing writers to revise sentences for maximum clarity. Voice control is therefore not merely a grammatical issue but a functional aspect of writing that affects reviewer comprehension and satisfaction.
Common Pitfalls in Voice Usage and How to Avoid Them
One of the most common pitfalls in grant writing is the unconscious overuse of passive voice, which can result in vague, impersonal, or bureaucratic prose. Phrases such as “it is believed that” or “steps were taken” can weaken the narrative by obscuring responsibility and reducing engagement. According to Garner (2013), such constructions may also create the impression of evasiveness or lack of confidence. Another issue arises when writers switch erratically between active and passive voice, disrupting the flow and coherence of the text. To avoid these pitfalls, grant writers should revise drafts with voice consistency in mind, aiming to clarify agency and improve rhythm. Active voice should dominate in high-stakes sections that describe actions, achievements, and implementation plans. Passive voice should be reserved for technical descriptions, formal declarations, or when the actor is genuinely unknown. Conscious editing, coupled with voice analysis tools, can help identify and correct problematic constructions. Avoiding these pitfalls ensures a more compelling and credible proposal.
Case Study: Voice Strategies in a Successful Grant Proposal
To illustrate the strategic use of voice in grant writing, consider a successful proposal submitted to a major health foundation. In the problem statement, the organization used active voice to describe the direct impact of health disparities: “Our team has documented a 35 percent increase in preventable hospitalizations among low-income patients.” This construction conveyed both authority and engagement. In the methods section, however, the writers switched to passive voice to emphasize process over personnel: “Data will be analyzed using multivariate regression techniques.” This shift signaled scientific objectivity and aligned with the funder’s expectations for methodological rigor. Throughout the proposal, transitions between active and passive voice were deliberate and context-specific, enhancing both readability and rhetorical effectiveness. The strategic use of voice contributed to a narrative that was simultaneously passionate and professional. This case underscores the importance of voice choice as a dynamic tool in grant writing, capable of shaping both tone and impact depending on the context.
Editing Techniques for Enhancing Voice Appropriateness
Refining voice usage during the editing phase is crucial for ensuring that a grant proposal meets the highest standards of clarity and persuasion. One effective technique is to read the proposal aloud, paying attention to rhythm and sentence strength. Sentences that feel sluggish or overly abstract may benefit from a shift to active voice. Another method is to highlight verbs and subjects in each sentence to assess whether the agent is clearly identified. According to Sword (2012), professional editors often focus on verb-driven revisions to improve clarity and engagement. Writers can also use digital tools like Grammarly or ProWritingAid, which flag passive constructions and suggest active alternatives. During revision, it is important to maintain balance, retaining passive voice where it serves a rhetorical or structural purpose. Editing for voice is not about applying rigid rules but about enhancing strategic clarity and impact. Grant writers who master this level of control produce proposals that resonate more strongly with reviewers and stand out in competitive evaluations.
Teaching Voice Choice in Grant Writing Education
As grant writing becomes a professional skill taught in universities and training programs, it is essential to include voice choice as a key component of the curriculum. Teaching the strategic use of active and passive voice helps emerging grant writers develop stylistic flexibility and rhetorical awareness. According to Hyland (2004), voice in academic writing is linked to stance, authority, and disciplinary norms. Educators should incorporate exercises that contrast voice usage across different proposal sections and funder types. Peer review and guided editing sessions can also help students recognize the effects of voice on clarity and tone. Moreover, analyzing model proposals from successful applicants provides concrete examples of effective voice management. By foregrounding voice choice in education, trainers equip writers with the linguistic tools needed to craft compelling and credible proposals. This pedagogical focus fosters a generation of grant professionals who write with purpose, precision, and strategic intent, significantly increasing their potential for funding success.
Conclusion
The choice between active and passive voice in grant writing is not merely a matter of grammar but a strategic decision that shapes the clarity, tone, and persuasiveness of a proposal. Active voice is typically more direct and engaging, making it ideal for sections that describe actions, goals, and outcomes. Passive voice, when used judiciously, can add formality, emphasize processes, and align with disciplinary conventions. Balancing these voices based on audience expectations, proposal sections, and rhetorical objectives enhances both readability and credibility. By avoiding common pitfalls and employing targeted editing techniques, writers can refine their voice usage for maximum impact. Moreover, integrating voice strategy into grant writing education ensures that emerging professionals understand its importance and apply it effectively. In a competitive funding landscape, where every element of a proposal matters, the strategic use of voice emerges as a powerful tool for elevating the quality and influence of grant narratives.
References
Alley, M. (1996). The Craft of Scientific Writing (3rd ed.). Springer.
Garner, B. A. (2013). Garner’s Modern American Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Hemingway Editor. (2020). Hemingway App. Retrieved from https://hemingwayapp.com
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press.
Kolln, M., & Gray, L. (2016). Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects (8th ed.). Pearson.
Sword, H. (2012). Stylish Academic Writing. Harvard University Press.
Williams, J. M., & Bizup, J. (2017). Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace (12th ed.). Pearson.
Zinsser, W. (2006). On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction (30th Anniversary ed.). Harper Perennial.