At a time of cuts and enormous pressures on services, it is essential that we use clear language in public policy. Too often words are misused, complex terminology adopted or jargon deployed that creates a misleading impression
I can’t be alone in cringing whenever I hear certain words being misused, or used for effect but out of context, or when jargon is used instead of normal words. Sadly, this seems to be happening ever more frequently when listening to politicians, public sector and public service professionals, and those who either advise them or commentate. No sector and no profession is exempt from this criticism.
I regard myself as a relatively well-informed person, who is close to both the political and public service professional worlds. However, it is because of this closeness that certain words and phrases can send a shudder through me. And I do wonder what some of these words and phrases that are used and abused mean to people who are less involved but nevertheless for whom public policy, public services and their impact matter a great deal.
The language that is used should be accessible and easily understood. This does not mean that it should be patronising or over-simplified. Rather, the words deployed should have the same meaning as they do in normal speech.
I worry that all too often the language and words used in public policy and public services are chosen because the speaker or writer is lazy, or because she or he wishes to disguise facts and realities, or so that they or their organisation can sound more impressive than they actually are. And sometimes, I believe that certain words are selected because they make what may be an unpopular concept seem less so.
I freely admit there will have been times and probably will be future occasions when I too am guilty of what I am now accusing others of. Few people are exempt. Still, let me give some examples that have been grating with me recently:
- ‘partnership’ being used to describe what is actually a traditional outsourced contractual arrangement
- ‘demand management’, being used when what is happening are cuts to and/or rationing of services
- ‘commissioning’, being confused and conflated with procurement, when the latter is simply one of many means of implementing decisions arising from the former
- ‘transformation’, when actually what is happening is incremental change at best
- ‘rationalisation of service provision’, when more accurate and direct words would be ‘cutting services’
- ‘social company’, being used by aggressively profit-making companies when their business is clearly not a social enterprise or charity with a social purpose that overrides its commercial objectives
- ‘flexible employment practices’, being used to cover over the imposition of poorer employment terms and conditions including zero-hours contracts
- political claims being made that massively reduced budgets can be addressed by ‘efficiencies’ with no or little impact on service quality and/or volume
- jargonistic terms being used without explanation and yet open to several interpretations, such as ‘co-production’
I could compose a longer list, but hopefully these examples convey the point. Of course, I am not suggesting that the terms and phrases above are ‘never’ used correctly. They often are, but there is a strong and increasing tendency for this not to be the case. This does not help those who are using accurate language and do what they claim to be doing – for example transforming rather than tinkering with services.
Equally worrying is the practice of using overly complex and technical language that makes it much more difficult (and sometimes impossible) for those of us who are not technocrats to participate in any serious engagement or understanding. Such ‘exclusionary language’ undermines public confidence, creates obfuscation rather than light and damages public accountability.
There is an urgent need for more disclosure and transparency across public services, their commissioning and delivery, and their impact. Every public service provider should be required to disclose a range of information on operational and financial performance, ownership, governance and ethical standards.
However, such disclosure can only be effective when it is made available in ways and language that the public can understand. Disclosure and transparency are essential for democratic accountability, but this is not possible if the reporting is in obscure terms.
At a time of cuts and enormous pressures on public services, it is essential that we address the issue of language and accessibility to information. The public has a right to understand, and needs to appreciate the choices facing decision-makers, and the impact of these choices. Such reform does not have a large cost. There is no excuse for not making this a shared objective across public agencies, public services, the media and politics.
And, finally, mention of ‘sharing’ brings me to my final plea, which is that wherever possible we seek to find a common lexicon so words mean the same whoever is using them.
I hope that I am not being naïve or overly optimistic in asking friends and colleagues to think before they select their vocabulary. I am confident that they would welcome the benefits in return.