> the style to write as a "neutral" observer (often writing in passive voice) is frowned upon nowadays for good reason.
Could you be more specific about who's frowning upon it? Because I've never heard this before in my field (Comp. Ling., where double blind is the rule) and would like to look more into it.
Many style guides now say to write in active voice (Nature is one of them, but many others as well). I don't have the books in front of me, so can't find the citation, but many publications on scientific writing essentially recommend direct language.
The reasoning is that the work was "subjective", i.e. carried out by you. By using "detached third person language" you are trying to give a false impression of objectivity. This is similar to management/PR double speak like "we are forced to raise our prices", "we are unable to compensate you"... (I don't assign malice in the case of scientists though).
Could you be more specific about who's frowning upon it? Because I've never heard this before in my field (Comp. Ling., where double blind is the rule) and would like to look more into it.