24 ms·

I would never write "to our surprise" in a paper. Rather, it would be "Surprisingly, ..." which fits the pattern of "Thus, ...", "Furthermore, ...", "In contras

• foobarbecue 5y ago
  It seems you prefer passive voice.
  • vanviegen 5y ago
    Isn't that just the norm for scientific papers?
    • foobarbecue 5y ago
      Not in mine! I think you're right; it's my impression that passive voice has been the traditional style for scientific papers. However, the winds of change have been blowing for the last 15 or 20 years. Editors of most scientific journals now recommend using active voice wherever possible. I frequently fight with my collaborators over this. In a nutshell I think the passive voice style of science writing is unclear, and dishonest in that it pretends the researcher was not involved in the research. Check out p12 and p13 here: https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/events/professional-development/Slides/2015-04-09-active-passive.pdf https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/events/professional-d... and: http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus/2007/01/active_is_better_than_passive.html http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus/2007/01/active_is_better_th...
      • tonyarkles 5y ago
        I fought so hard with that in grad school 10 years ago. A number of newer papers in my field were written in the active voice, and I dramatically preferred that approach. My supervisor, however, was adamant that everything needed to be in the passive voice. He won, naturally, because I needed him to sign off on things. I do wonder how different that conversation would be today.
        • bonoboTP 5y ago
          Don't follow rules blindly though, in either direction. Passive can be a better fit sometimes. Long sentences can be okay sometimes. I'd be pissed at a prof for having such rigid overgeneralized rules.
      • version_five 5y ago
        My high school science classes taught the "an experiment was conducted..." passive style of lab report writing as mandatory for science writing. That, and the idea of long, clause ridden, sentences. It wasn't until 20 years later when I went into industry that I realized how bad "traditional" scientific writing is. Clear, short sentences. Active voice. No flowery or euphemistic language. All make things so much more readable. But I think many of us were raised to associate simple writing with simple ideas, and taught we had to write things that only smart peopl could understand. I'm happy to see science writing trying to be more readable.
        • bonoboTP 5y ago
          I find that clear and simple writing correlates with high quality work on the technical level. Especially at the top of the respective field. For example in AI if you read the papers coming from the best labs the writing tends to be on the point, short sentences, almost informal-sounding, actually someone telling you what and why they did and what they found. Not merely conforming to arbitrary rules set up by bitter mediocre "scholars". But yes, people who are afraid they have nothing to say try to hide it behind long sentences with incomprehensible nested structures and overjargonized vocabulary. Plus equations that are designed to impress rather than enlighten.
          • version_five 5y ago
            > Plus equations that are designed to impress rather than enlighten. Interesting, I don't think I've seen any discussion before about clear, unpretentious presentation of math. I'll have to consciously evaluate this better as I read papers. Personally I think mathematical clarity is tougher to evaluate because I would not be confident enough to always know if it's the author or just me.
            • llarsson 5y ago
              That sounds like a good indication that the math you are thinking of was written to impress, rather than enlighten, you as a reader. I've seen far too much of that stuff in computer science papers, where dense math seems to be used defensively, rather than to bring clarity.
      • newsbinator 5y ago
        "at 17 minutes, the reagent was added" ... by god or universal happenstance.
        • kergonath 5y ago
          Or the PI, or a technician, or a grad student. The point is, it does not matter who did it.
          • mattkrause 5y ago
            Exactly. The only "right" way to choose active vs. passive is to decide what you want to emphasize. When describing an experimental method, it literally does not matter if a Nobel laureate, fresh-faced undergrad, robot, or zombie added the reagent. The point is that it was added, and so the passive voice works fine. However, perhaps it is important that the reader understands how carefully patients were evaluated, rather than the fact that they were evaluated at all. Then, you might choose the active voice and write "A panel of 17 experts carefully evaluated each patient" instead of "patients were evaluated by 17 experts."
            • kergonath 5y ago
              Indeed. Choosing one or the other is making a choice about what should be emphasised. Any form of writing is subjective, and scientific writing is not different.
      • adrian_b 5y ago
        Actually, using the passive voice should have been more clear, because in most sentences encountered in scientific papers the patient is the topic of the sentence, not the agent. Unfortunately, in English, if you want to make the patient the topic of the sentence you are forced to use the passive voice, because there is no marker for the direct object of a verb, and then the sentence becomes less readable, because in English the passive voice is constructed with auxiliary verbs, so it is more complex than the active voice. These are defects of the English language, so the recommendation to avoid the passive voice is specific to English and also to a few other modern European languages, which have also lost the features that enable a free order of the words. In an ideal language, it should be possible to use a standard order of the words to express their syntactic roles without additional words, but there should also exist some optional prepositions or postpositions marking each possible syntactic role, to enable an arbitrary order of the words when desired. In such a language you could choose freely the topic of a sentence without being constrained because some choices are awkward, like when using the English passive voice.
        • wolverine876 5y ago
          Thanks. Can you recommend where to read more about it - the whole chain of argument about English, direct object 'markers', etc.?
          • adrian_b 5y ago
            Unfortunately, I do not remember right now some good titles, but there are various books about comparative linguistics, which analyze the similarities and differences between languages and the various existing ways of expressing the same content. Most ancient languages, including most ancient Indo-European languages, like Latin or Ancient Greek, allowed a free order of the words, because there were markers for each syntactic role, like agent, patient, instrument, beneficiary and so on (i.e. the so-called cases). Nevertheless, at the stage where the old Indo-European languages became attested in writing, they had a very serious defect. Even if the so-called case terminations of the words were originally a small set of post-positions corresponding to the syntactic roles, due to various phonetic evolutions conditioned by the adjacent sounds present in words, the original small set of markers had diverged into a very large set of word terminations with many distinct variants for each syntactic role, the so-called word declensions. Because remembering such a large set of word terminations became too difficult, most modern European languages have abandoned the old declensions. Some languages use enough prepositions, possibly together with some remnants of the old case terminations, to allow a free order of the words. English however, depends a lot on the standard order of the words to convey their syntactic roles and it has only limited means of expression for supporting a different word order. While in the Indo-European languages the too irregular word declensions could not persist, there are other language families with a much more regular structure for the syntactic role markers, while still having enough markers to allow a free word order. It is weird that the European linguists of the previous centuries considered the regular languages (the so-called agglutinative languages or isolant languages) as "primitive" while considering the "flexionar" classic Indo-European languages as "superior" and "advanced". In fact even if the flexionar classic Indo-European languages evolved from some older agglutinative language, their irregular declensions were a serious defect and not a sign of progress. Unfortunately, because the language changes have always been done mostly by the less educated people, without having any kind of grand plan of how to best improve the language, the necessary simplifications of the language have also been frequently accompanied by a loss of expressiveness, like in English.
      • KineticLensman 5y ago
        I was a doc reviewer in a commercial organisation, checking both technical reports and commercial writing (bids and contracts). I recommended to authors that they should use active voice because it usually made it easier to explicitly identify the intended actors and avoid ambiguity about who should do what. E.g. a bid author should prefer "$COMPANY will do X" rather than "X will be done" because it avoids confusion over whether X is a $COMPANY or $CUSTOMER responsibility. Obviously authors could still write "X will be done by $COMPANY" but I found that they would often forget to identify the actor if they chose passive voice.
    • seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      A lot of writing guidance at the academic level discourages passive voice and prefers royal We’s. Passive voice also gets boring really quick.
    • ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
      The norm changes wildly from field to field: the voice, style, pronouns, etc... Stylish Academic Writing by Helen Sword is a good book on the subject.
    • data_acquired 5y ago
      When I taught writing in grad school, I actively (pun intended) pushed students away from passive voice. Active voice is generally easier to read, and typically forces the writer to clarify more things within a sentence. There are, of course, certain instances where passive voice better suits the context. Academic writing is needlessly dense for all kinds of reasons other than passive voice though.
      • bonoboTP 5y ago
        Interesting that there was teaching on how to write at all. In my technical PhD in Germany we had zero instruction on writing other than feedback from the prof near deadlines. You're just supposed to pick it up by reading papers (plus the experience of having written a bachelor and master thesis where you're guided by a PhD student who may themselves not be great at writing).
        • Jiocus 5y ago
          When I went to uni in Sweden, there was a mandatory course in academic writing as part of CS program. The learning objectives was more than just a styleguide proofreading by supervisors though, as methodologies, data collection and paper structures was covered. Pretty much the scientific process really. This seemed to be quite needed for students to get up to speed. I was from Finland, where this subject was brought up before uni. For what it's worth, I remember my supervisor calling bullshit on my then dense and overly academic writing and I thank them for it. It was a process of un-learning bad patterns or preconcieved notions about the writing process. Recommend.
          • bonoboTP 5y ago
            We have seminar courses for this where master students do some lit review (mainly based around one paper) and present that work in a longer form writing. This is also "just" learning by doing. There is some back-and-forth with PhD students who help with the structure, but there's no explicit instruction.
        • data_acquired 5y ago
  • toxik 5y ago
    No no no. The passive voice is preferred.
  • umanwizard 5y ago
    “Surprisingly” vs. “to our surprise” is not a passive vs. active voice distinction.
    • teachingassist 5y ago
      In the sense that "to our surprise" identifies "us" with identity and agency, it is. How would you describe this difference, otherwise?
      • hunter2_ 5y ago
        At first, I fully agreed with you. Then I saw another comment using "an experiment was conducted" as an typical example of passive voice, and I find that to be far more passive: "...was conducted" suggests no information about the conductor. It could be the author, and in the specific context of an academic paper it implies the author, but it could just as well be anyone else on Earth especially outside of this context. "Surprisingly" (or "the results were a surprise," etc.), on the other hand, doesn't leave anything to the imagination. I can't think of a way this word could potentially mean that another party but the author was surprised. Passive voice could hide the party responsible for surprising someone (active "Alice surprised Bob" becomes passive "Bob was surprised"), but in the original scenario, the party causing the surprise (the subject, which could be hidden by passive voice), is the experiment. The surprised party is the direct object, not the subject... passive voice is not a term to describe hiding the direct object; that's transitive versus intransitive.
        • teachingassist 5y ago
          The definition of passive given on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_voice#Defining_%22passive%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_voice#Defining_%22pass... does not seem to be prescriptive in that particular way. My question was: If we prefer not to use the word 'passive' to describe this difference, what should it be called instead?
          • umanwizard 5y ago
• mountain_peak 5y ago
  "Scienziato pazzo italiano" fares slightly better at 16 results (that's a literal translation; I'm sure there are better ones). Amusingly, one of the results refers to "John Lithgow", which I instantly recognized from Buckaroo Banzai - one of his characters is "Dr. Emilio Lizardo"
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• lrem 5y ago
  Ah yes, what kind of academic would ever write three words where one have the same meaning... And make you this much closer to fitting in that darned limit.
• krono 5y ago
  > Surprisingly, when I do the same searches as you, I don't get anywhere near the same numbers. Are you honestly not aware that your behavioural data is used to target specific search results?
  • oceliker 5y ago
    It's likely that they just forgot to include the quote marks in the search. I don't think Google Scholar does behavioral targeting.
    • krono 5y ago
      I missed the Google Scholar part, indeed less likely there but you can never be sure
• spion 5y ago
  What might be surprising for the authors might not be surprising to others.
  • harles 5y ago
    It also dates the paper - even if it was generally surprising 10 years ago, it won’t be today. Although I doubt papers with this language are standing the test of time anyways.
  • cgriswald 5y ago
    When someone writes, “Surprisingly, …,” they are expressing their own surprise. It is equivalent to “To our surprise…,” except it is more succinct. Absent other context, there’s no implication that anyone else is surprised or should be surprised.
    • spion 5y ago
      It paints an additional layer of scientific precision / courtesy / modesty, IMO. Not the style of all scientists, but its very common.
      • cgriswald 5y ago
        The “painting” is taking place either in additional context or in assumptions the reader is bringing into the interpretation. It is not present in the bare text. It’s an ungenerous interpretation to suggest that people using “Surprisingly,” are immodest/imprecise/etc.. I could as easily hold the interpretation that “To our surprise…,” is the author trading my time in an attempt to get himself some goodwill from readers. However, that would be equally ungenerous.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • 5y ago
• bravura 5y ago
  It's wonderful to explore the cadence of the English language. Don't relegate yourself to rules, prescriptively.
• devin 5y ago
  It is often discouraged to use -ly words.
  • jMyles 5y ago
    > It is often discouraged to use -ly words. ...whereas passive voice is widely endorsed.
    • devin 5y ago
      Learn me a thing: What do you mean? I recognize there's some likely snark, but spell it out for me, please?
• psychometry 5y ago
  I wouldn't use either. People tend to overuse adverbs, in my opinion, perhaps thinking that by adding them it strengthens the statement in some way. To me, though, it just sounds weak and forced.
• spoonjim 5y ago
  “To our surprise” and “surprisingly” do not mean the same thing. “Surprisingly” means that something is objectively surprising, or that a “reasonable man” would be surprised by it. “Surprisingly, hot water freezes faster than cold water.” That is pretty objectively surprising. “To our surprise” means only that you were surprised by it. It’s more humble because it allows for a reader to be smarter/wiser and not be surprised. “I thought Frodo was going to die at the end of the Return of the King, but to my surprise he did not.” “Surprisingly” wouldn’t be correct here since not everyone would have made that prediction.
  • lmeyerov 5y ago
    Good distinction. As a scientist, 'to our surprise' is exceptionally surprising! We are already domain experts on the research edge for whatever topic, and writing to our peers. What we know is already not obvious to non-experts. For something to be surprising to the domain experts too, that's where the novelty points start, and why we are taking time to write/read. So, clever!
  • cgriswald 5y ago
    I’m struggling with the concept of objective surprise. Surprise is a subjective experience usually brought about by events differing from expectation, but the experience is entirely subjective. So my guess is that you mean the fact of results differing from expectation. There can be a difference between results and consensus expectation, but there can also be a difference between results and personal expectation (e.g., results do not support hypothesis). In the absence of explicitly calling out who holds the expectation, there is either context that makes it clear (e.g., the audience is experts in the field and the expectations are widely held) or the use is referring to the author’s own surprise. Simply claiming they are not equivalent is not correct. They are equivalent in the absence of context. It is only when context is considered (and just being a scholarly article isn’t necessarily enough context) that they might be considered non-equivalent.
  • brianpan 5y ago
    Scientific experiments also try to prove surprising results. "We believed this surprising thing might be true. To our surprise, nothing unusual happened." What's generally surprising is not the same as what is surprising given the researchers' prior expectations. (What is surprising also changes over time, as a result of those experiments!)
• jcims 5y ago
  Just want to thank you for the total HN-esque tangent this comment launched.