Originally published 24 March 2009. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
The Local Government Association (LGA) has published a list of 200 terms “that public bodies should not use if they want to communicate with local people.”
High time, you might say! Without doubt we all rely too much on jargon, and just as certainly a lot of it obscures rather than illuminates. Of the 200 terms highlighted by the LGA, we could easily jettison about half of them without shedding a tear. But let’s pause for a little thought before jumping on this particular bandwagon, and let’s examine in more depth why we have such a proliferation of terminology and why it is tempting to use them on occasions. The first category of terms are those that have been in long-term professional usage. We use the term facilitate instead of LGA’s preferred help because it covers a wider range of actions we might undertake to make something happen. Conversely an initiative is a more specific type of concept than an idea which the LGA prefers. When we use the term advocate, we have in mind someone who speaks on behalf of a cause or makes the case for something. The LGA’s alternative is support and does not mean the same.
Another category of terms are used because they help convey a precision in meaning that alternatives fail to capture. The word rationalisation describes a process of change where we distribute activities differently. The LGA wishes to use the word cut which may or may not be applicable. Output and Outcome are both results as far as the Association is concerned, and those who are deeply involved in commissioning services would regard themselves as doing something beyond buying them.
In both these cases, what we have are more precise language – and to lose some of these nuances would make communication more difficult not easier. In the following examples, we think the recommended alternatives do not amount to Plain English. We think they are just plain wrong.
| Term | What the LGA wants us to use | What we think it is |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmarking | Measuring | Comparisons between data or behaviour |
| Best Practice | Best way | A bundle of activities which can be recommended; not a single right answer |
| Co-terminous | All singing from the same hymn-sheet | An area with the same boundary |
| Customer | People/Person | Someone or some body that has either bought, or receives products or services |
| Meaningful consultation | Talking to people | Dialogues with (not to!) people, organisations or groups with a view to influencing policies programmes or actions |
| Revenue stream | Money | One of a range of sources of money |
| Scoping | Work out | Setting the boundaries |
| Social exclusion | Poverty | Being unable to access a range of things – not just money |
| Stakeholder | Other organisations | Anyone who has an interest (ie stake) in decisions or actions. Can include individuals! |
But there is another category, and here we might agree with the LGA. These are newly-formed terms – probably destined only for temporary usage in the context of some very specific programmes, and often used by cliques of practitioners often as a badge of belonging to specialist groups. So we agree with them about direction of travel, flexibilities and freedoms, improvement levers, predictors of beaconicity (!!!) and re-baselining.
Ultimately, however, we should not be in the game of banning words, and top-down edicts of this kind sits uncomfortably alongside pleas for fewer diktats from on-high. Instead we need to start selecting the language that’s appropriate for each audience. Not everyone who reads a consultation paper is a Sun-reader. But neither are they Guardian readers. Skilful communicators use this simple test. Will the people I am talking to right now understand the words I am using?
What’s challenging is when we try to use a one-size-fits all document to address everyone instead of a more tailored approach. It may save costs, but it carries the danger that everything is reduced to a lowest common denominator that risks dumbing down a debate by losing precision of language and clarity of ideas. Trigger points
- Study the LGA list of disapproved terms and make up your own mind.
- Examine your public-facing documents, and seriously consider how intelligible they are.
- Let the Institute know your views on this subject; we recognise that it is a controversial and contentious area ... and this is intended to be provocative
This is the 132nd Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement