The nature of academic voice can be a thorn in the side of any aspiring writer—or accomplished one for that matter. Does one use the abstract third person and the passive voice, or take a personal tone using first person and more active language? Do you find your favourite scholar and try to mimic them, or do you do what most do and try to sound as smart as possible in the hope that it sounds right and no one will notice? The academic voice is a bit of a thorny issue. My colleague Jerry Talandis Jr. (2023) has presented a wonderful guide of how to develop the practical skills for an academic voice. This article will look at the theoretical side of the academic voice, why we use it, what it is not, and how we can use it to support our writing.
What is the Academic Voice
To maintain consistency with Talandis Jr.’s (2023) column, we will continue to use Gardner’s (2010) characterisation of the academic voice: “To me, your writer’s voice is the expression of YOU on the page. It’s that simple—and that complicated … Voice is all about your originality and having the courage to express it” (para. 4–para. 5). To build on this, Castelló and Iñesta (2012) discuss how the academic voice develops to become part of a writer’s social identity as an academic author and researcher. At its very foundations is the academic voice. We can strip away aspects of style or social contrivance and reduce the academic voice to its simplest form, it is you on the page. This is something all writers should remember—that there is no difference between the writer and their voice.
Why Do We Use It
The academic voice is used to convey a sense of objectivity (whether people are capable of being objective shall be set to one side as we do not need that headache). It shows to the reader that the writer has considered their opinions and researched and refined their idea until it is ready. Personal and emotive language is discouraged so as to not cloud the work. The passive voice is used to show the results of the action rather than the actor (Oyewola, 2025). Each point raised is supported by evidence and sources. The writer can use this evidence with the academic voice to show that they have researched and engaged with the topic and its wider issues. This process and tone gives credence to the writer’s argument, showing that this is a considered opinion rather than random thoughts hastily thrown on the page (University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center, n.d.).
This process of writing makes the writer stop and consider what they are going to say and how they are going to say it. At its core, the academic voice should bring the writer to a point of clarity, where they are able to distill down their thoughts and present a clear thesis. This process works alongside essay structuring (Chesmore, 2025). Through the academic voice, the writer is striving for clarity, in terms of the argument, language, and style. Through this, the reader comes away with a new level of understanding, and the writer has proven the merit of their work.
What It is Not
There is a trend, born by the worm of self-doubt, for writers to obfuscate their thesis behind an erudite shroud of sesquipedalian language in the hope that it will somehow impart a scholarly arete. Instead, one is left with the literary equivalent of Welsh Rarebit: it sounds fancy but ultimately it is just cheese on toast. Orwell (The Orwell Foundation, n.d.) makes the argument that there is a divide between one’s real and declared aims, that the writer “turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink” to hide the gap between the two (para. 22). The insecurity that we all face at times over whether our work has any merit or not can be assayed through esoteric vocabulary.
Likewise, unless one is rather good, it is not written as one speaks. It is not a tangled mass of slang, terms and concepts thrown together in a morass of counter-culture expression—which does nothing more than cause a reader to lie down in a dark room. We have to be aware of the difference between written and spoken work. The academic voice is not a tangle of slang terms and concepts thrown together to create an impenetrable morass. It is certainly not drier than a cream cracker in a dehumidifier, that is for sure.
What is understandable for new writers is to conflate the idea that the academic voice must be cold, sterile, and objective thing devoid of all character. Looking back to the definition of terms, we can see that this is not the case, for all writers are not boring at the very least.
For all of this, the overriding thing the academic voice is not inaccessible. As Sword et al. (2024)discusses, the academic voice, regardless of level, should not be inaccessible. This is an issue, which the discipline has struggled with over the years: That work should only be accessible to those who can parse the meaning, which frankly is a bit silly; Nothing is gained for anyone involved. The research and craft of the writer is rendered worthless if the reader cannot understand what is being said. These examples illustrate the pitfalls of the academic voice and should be avoided by all writers.
How Can We Use It
Through this essay, we have looked at what the academic voice is and is not. We have an idea of why we use it but not an understanding of how we should use it—not in the practical sense of word choice, structure, and the like, but rather, looking at how we can use the academic voice to best support our work. For example, how we can use technical language without sounding like a bipedal dictionary; how to not be a cuttlefish; how to avoid stripping all life from the work in the quest for objectivity; and most of all, how not to be boring?
To begin with, and to put one’s head into the lion’s mouth, we can give up on the idea of objectivity. “We no longer need give up our humanity for the illusion of objective knowledge” (Richardson, 1997, p. 16). When we write something, we are arguing a point; accepted or not, it remains the same. Even something seemingly sterile as a conference report has some element of “you” in it. Whether you are arguing if it was good or not, the matter remains the same.
If we have followed our essay structure, have a clear thesis on the page, and have done our research, then we are well on our way to avoiding a cuttlefish situation. These steps are not just to prove that we have done something, but to prove to ourselves that we know what we are talking about. As Orwell (The Orwell Foundation, n.d.) said, the issue arises in the gap between our real and declared aims. Through our research, we will have closed that space and found some confidence. From there, we can begin to look at our vocabulary choice.
When considering our word choice, it is best to think of going to a dinner party. Obviously, we need formal attire and the disciplinary specific language. However, turning up in a gold tuxedo would be rather garish, to say the least. In our flashy duds, any chance of nuance or emphasis is lost. Instead, we need to think of our word choice like an accessory—a nice tie pin, pocket square, broach, or what have you draws the viewer’s eye and adds to the overall image. The same is true for the language we use around our disciplinary specific language. We must be aware that the words we use raise discourse, whether consciously or unconsciously (Lillis, 1997). It is up to us as the writer to take control of these wordings.
Through all of this, we have to remember to maintain a sense of self. If we strip away everything nonessential, or if we have removed all that is “us” in our writing, then our voice is with “nothing but sound and the sound of a voice can only find its fleeting moment of meaning” (Potgieter & Smit, 2008, p. 225). We can use various strategies to show our voice. We do not have to be cold and clinical as writers anymore. Nor should such things be viewed as unprofessional. So long as these tools are used appropriately, then they can only improve your work and lend power to your voice (Mitchell, 2017).
Conclusion
“Merely getting a voice into one’s writing is not enough” (Elbow, 2007, p. 8). At its core, English can be either worryingly precise or frustratingly vague in its approach to meaning. It is up to the writer to ensure that their idea, their thesis, is presented clearly and concisely so that a reader can grasp its meaning. Yet this clarity does not mean the removal of the self. As we have seen, the academic voice is no longer a cold austere thing, but rather it is evolving into something more. There are more opportunities for writers to impart some of themselves—some of their passion for the topic—to their work. For new writers, they can begin to find their own academic voice earlier in their career.
References
Castelló, M., & Iñesta, A. (2012). Texts as artifacts-in-activity: Developing authorial identity and academic voice in writing academic research papers. In M. Castelló & C. Donahue (Eds.), University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies (pp. 177–200). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781780523873_011
Chesmore, D. (2025). “I know the pieces fit:” An introduction to structuring an academic essay. The Language Teacher, 49(2), 48–50. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT49.2
Elbow, P. (2007). Reconsiderations: Voice in writing again: Embracing contraries. College English, 70(2), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce20076342
Gardner, R. (2010, July 30). What is writer’s voice? Gardner Literary. https://rachellegardner.com/what-is-writers-voice/
Lillis, T. (1997). New voices in academia? The regulative nature of academic writing conventions. Language and Education, 11(3), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789708666727
Mitchell, K. M. (2017). Academic voice: On feminism, presence, and objectivity in writing. Nursing Inquiry, 24(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12200
The Orwell Foundation. (n.d.). Politics and the English language. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and...
Oyewola, V. (2025, January 22). Understanding academic voice. UAF Center for Teaching and Learning. https://ctl.uaf.edu/2025/01/22/understanding-academic-voice/
Potgieter, F., & Smit, B. (2008). Finding academic voice: A critical narrative of knowledge-making and discovery. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800408322792
Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life. Rutgers University Press.
Talandis, J., Jr. (2023). Practical tips for developing your academic writing voice. The Language Teacher, 47(4), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT47.4
Sword, H., Rudolph, J., Ismail, F., Tan, S., & Stafford, V. (2024). The oxymoronic pursuit of pleasurable academic writing: An interview with Helen Sword. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.2.36
University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center. (n.d.). Academic voice. https://writingcenter.uagc.edu/academic-voice
