6. Know that Words Matter (Part 4b - Choosing your Words)

Introduction

This is Part 4b of the ‘Know that Words Matter’ article and has the title ‘Choosing your Words’. This in turn is the sixth article in a series I am writing with the title ‘Working with Conflict: Ten Things to Think About’.

The earlier Parts of the ‘Know that Words Matter’ article are: Considering why words matter (Part 1), Epistemic Injustice (Part 2), Metaphors (Part 3a), Stories (Part 3b) and Listening and Silence. (Part 4a). You can also access these and the earlier articles in the series through my Linkedin Profile.

I hope I have illustrated in the earlier Parts of this article how words can reflect and perpetuate stereotypes, biases and power dynamics. For the need to be aware of the impact of your words and for choosing language that promotes equality and respect. Miscommunication often arises when words are used imprecisely or ambiguously, so there is considerable value in choosing words that accurately convey your meaning. And an awareness of the feelings and perspectives of others can guide you to choose words that are more supportive, inclusive and considerate.

Words can shape mindsets, which in turn affect how we think and behave. What I hope to convey in this final Part of the article is that word choice is not just a matter of vocabulary, but a critical component of effective and ethical communication. The right words can convince, persuade or even manipulate. The ethics of word choice involve honesty, integrity and responsibility. And a more mindful approach to communication involves taking the time to reflect before speaking or writing, considering the potential impact of your words and being deliberate in your choice of language.

Be aware of Framing and Priming

We have already seen in the earlier parts of this article how the words we use when working with conflict can be powerful in influencing and determining what is considered. Framing and priming are psychological concepts which play important roles in how issues in conflict are perceived, discussed and resolved. According to Wikipedia, Framing in the social sciences provides people with a quick and easy way to process information. It explains that people will use mental filters (a series of which is called a schema) to make sense of incoming messages. Priming is a concept in psychology which describes how exposure to one stimulus may influence a response to a subsequent stimulus, without conscious guidance or intention.

Framing gives the sender and framer of the information enormous power to influence how the receivers will interpret the message. Framing can be an issue in a conflict if it highlights certain aspects of a situation while downplaying others. This can significantly influence how participants perceive the problem, their options and the potential outcomes. For example, a conflict can be framed as a mutual problem that needs cooperation to be solved rather than a situation where one person wins and the other loses. In his book Don't Think of an Elephant, George Lakoff (an American cognitive linguist and philosopher known for his thesis that people's lives are significantly influenced by the conceptual metaphors they use to explain complex phenomena) describes frames as “mental structures that shape the way we see the world.”

Priming involves introducing certain concepts, ideas or feelings that can influence how the people involved think about subsequent information or decisions. It is thought to play a large part in the systems of stereotyping. Before entering a conflict discussion, people can be primed with positive or cooperative ideas, which increases the likelihood that they will engage with a mindset geared toward collaboration rather than competition. It is generally agreed that priming individuals with words related to calmness, patience or listening can lead to more productive discussions in a conflict. For example, calling a disagreement a ‘misunderstanding’ rather than a ‘fight’ can reduce tension and open the door for resolution.

Framing and priming can reinforce each other. Priming can lay the groundwork for behaviour, while framing can shape the way the conflict is presented. Their use can recontextualise conflict. The use of framing and priming can be disadvantageous if not applied carefully or ethically. They can distort reality by selectively highlighting certain aspects of a situation while downplaying or ignoring others. This can lead to a skewed understanding of the conflict, where the true issues may be obscured. Also, if a conflict is framed in a biased way, it can reinforce existing prejudices or stereotypes, making it harder for participants to see each other's perspectives or to reach a fair resolution. Framing often involves simplifying a complex situation into a more digestible narrative. And while this can make the conflict easier to understand, it risks oversimplifying the issues, leading to solutions that fail to address the underlying causes or that don't consider the full range of perspectives.

So, it is important to be aware of the cognitive effects and the potential drawbacks of framing and priming when working with conflict, in order to avoid unintended negative consequences (such as power imbalances or the manipulation of outcomes). The disadvantages of framing and priming have been explored by scholars and practitioners in the fields of conflict resolution, mediation and negotiation. I will write more about this in the next article, but for now will briefly say that John Winslade and Gerald Monk (in their book ‘Narrative Mediation – referred to in Part 3b Stories) caution against the mediator imposing a frame that might marginalize one participant’s narrative. And that Ken Cloke (also referred to in Stories) has written about the dangers of manipulating the framing of issues in mediation, which can lead to a loss of neutrality and undermine the fairness of the process.

Use simple and ordinary words

I wrote in Part 2 of this article about academic jargon in social science academic publications and how Oppenheimer 2006) found that nearly 90% of university students surveyed deliberately used complicated language to make their essays sound more valid or intelligent. The same paper reveals the folly of this, saying that when complex language is used, audiences rated both the quality of the text and the author’s intelligence as being lower than when simple language is used. And says that “The human response to plain language using simple story structures is much more positive than when complex, abstract language is used.”

There is also the need for ordinary language. Parts 1 and 2 of this article referenced Bryony Shannon’s blog about Rewriting social care which advocates using “a common language we can all understand, with ordinary, honest, compassionate and respectful words that make sense to us all.” On her Gloriously Ordinary Lives website, Tricia Nicoll has Five Tests which she says are “are not a checklist or a process, simply a lens through which to view any support we consider for a person or their family.” Her Test Two is “Would I use that language in my kitchen with my family, or at the café or pub with my mates?”.

Together Bryony Shannon and Tricia Nicoll advocate that the language of social care should be ordinary, with everyday words about everyday life. They have created Gloriously Ordinary Language which is a “new eight-month programme for local councils and other social care organisations who want to rehumanise their language, reconnect practice with personal and organisational principles and reimagine care and support.” If you are interested in the quality and substance of relationships in the work you do, then I would commend the Relationships Project website which includes a blog on Developing a more relational language.

Dr Clenton Farquharson CBE writes in a May 2024 blog Its time for a language revolution on how “The shift to using more ordinary human language is pivotal in our journey towards more inclusive and respectful health and social care.” And that “By using language that emphasises dignity, rights, and possibilities, organisations and advocates set a tone that can inspire greater engagement and support from the public and policymakers. It encourages a view of health and social care as inclusive networks that support empowerment rather than imposing limitations.” I suggest that? the use of language that emphasises dignity, rights and possibilities also has a role when working with conflict.

Many years ago, when first designing complaints courses for Queen Margaret University, I came across the work of William Zinsser, who in 1976 wrote On Writing Well: An Informal Guide to Writing Nonfiction. This book includes that “We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless jargon… Our national tendency is to inflate and thereby sound important.” Zinsser considers that the four basic premises of writing are clarity, brevity, simplicity and humanity and that writing is strongest when it is simple and clear of clutter. He urges us to “Think about every sentence. Think about every word.”

Be alert to agentive language

I have long been interested in whether and how organisations learn when things go wrong. And I’ve come to realise that as well as the applicability of any resulting recommendations to the prevailing organisational context, much also depends on the language used in responses and reports. Related to this, there is much to learn from Ergonomics, which is defined on the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors website at “the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data, and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance."

One of the sectors which has given specific consideration to ergonomics is the aviation/aerospace industry (here I particularly value the writings of Dr Steven Shorrock). And in ‘Agentive language in accident investigation’ (2020), Professor Crista Vesel writes on how language in accident investigation can hinder or facilitate the ability of an organisation to learn from events, saying that language is a critical element in how we ascribe agency to human action. She explains that an agent is “A person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect” and that “Humans naturally want to know who or what was responsible for an action, especially if it led to an undesirable event. This assignment of action is called agency.”

I think the learning here is relevant to complaints and other investigative processes related to ‘adverse events’ and concerns. Professor Vesel writes that one reason why accident investigation reports are written this way is because “Historically, many investigators were trained to examine the deviant human and how they had not complied with a procedure that was assumed to be perfect. The onus on looking for, and consequently finding non-compliance informs the narrative of investigation outcomes.” Professor Vesel also explains the linguistic framing of events can directly affect the assignment of guilt, blame and punishment of human actors. This may lead to an agentive bias, where details of a situation are ignored or not recognised, and a simplistic causal attribution is applied to the human agent closest to the event.

Professor Vesel acknowledges how agentive language can be found in Accident Investigation Guides and considers that “In order to change culture, you have to change the assumptions that drive the culture. Language can be a major driver of this change by proactively replacing words that lead to agentive blame with descriptions that lead to a more robust and inclusive analysis of events.” She also advocates “Replacing the agentive language of blame with a language of inquiry. Changing agentive language to a language of inquiry can result in organizational changes that positively impact safety culture.”

Think about inclusivity

In a 2022 blog on The beauty and perils of language Odessa Hamilton writes that “Inclusive language seeks to counter stereotypic assessments that deny respect, dignity, and opportunity. Patterns of thought underlie discourse, so what is said is a visceral manifestation of what is thought.” Also that “we must repudiate the misconception that inclusive language applies only to marginalised groups, it can apply to age, height, weight, appearance [on a number of dimensions], personality and so much more.” She also says that inclusive language is not censorship, it is simply about expanding one’s lexicon. And that inclusive language is a signal of the culture of an organisation. But that compliance is not enough - it is about developing a culture of inclusivity; leading by example, training and developing a language taxonomy to reduce ambiguity.

Woollard and colleagues discuss gender inclusive language in a May 2024 Conversation article How inclusive language can help to reduce birth?trauma and in an associated article on Inclusive language in perinatal and postnatal care. They consider two approaches which have been promoted in the NHS: “a gender neutral approach (using neutral terms like ‘parent’ or ‘pregnant? person’), or gender additive approach (using ‘women and other pregnant people’).” But write that these approaches alone are sometimes inadequate and using them can produce inaccuracies, or end up perpetuating marginalisation. They promote a ‘pluralist strategy’ saying “Our research shows that the best approach is to have a range of different strategies that can be used and carefully choosing the right one for each situation” and that “a ‘toolbox’ of linguistic techniques needs to be used, and careful judgements made about which language best serves the communicative needs of a particular context in a way that ensures accuracy and inclusion.”

Reed et al (2024) say that language conventions matter because words, and the context of their use, guide our practice, can confuse if ill-defined and may (un)intentionally exclude others by sending value-laden messages about who belongs and whose ideas do or do not matter.?Their article focuses on the use of the term stakeholder in processes that aim to inform, consult, engage, co-produce and work collaboratively with those who could be affected by resulting decisions and other action. This article does not advocate the use of a single alternative term, but stresses the importance of designing, advocating for and engaging in processes that enable relevant parties to self-identify how they would like to be referred. And if this is not possible, to use language that accurately describes those involved (e.g., as nature, people, organisations, partners, relevant groups, and relevant parties), cautioning to be mindful that groups are often not homogenous, but consist of diverse (sometimes ‘silent’) perspectives, which need to be given voice to ensure inclusion.

Understand the impact of your response

So much has been written about communication and many authors have commented on how failures in communication are frequently cited and embedded into complaint responses and reports [related to this, you may want to look at an article I posted in 2023 about the Martin et al (2021) research paper on ‘Why do systems for responding to concerns and complaints so often fail patients, families and healthcare staff? A qualitative study’ which covers this and much more].

In Part 2 of this article I referenced McCreaddie et al (2018), who wrote that “Complainants are frequently dissatisfied, not only with the outcome of their complaint, but also the formulation of the response”. Their subsequent paper (McCreaddie et al 2021) found that the complaint handlers demonstrated a lack of alignment to the complaint and complainant through not acknowledging the emotion expressed in the complaint, the harm reportedly experienced, the time taken to formulate the complaint and the cumulative distress potentially experienced by the complainant in so doing. Also that “All complaint-responses treated complainants’ accounts as being subjective and therefore, by implication, not necessarily factual. Consequently, in the apparent absence of ‘evidence’, the complaint was dismissed in judicial terms (e.g. unable to substantiate, or ‘partly upheld’).”

McCreaddie et al (2021) observe how complainants and complaint-responders work to different and diametrically opposed frames of reference, with the complainant focus being on ‘care’ and the complaint-responder on ‘clinical treatment’, often with an institutional, defensive response. They comment that “Complainants perhaps understandably considered ‘care’ and ‘treatment’ to be synonymous with one another whilst complaint-responses clearly delineated each aspect at the outset of the complaint.” And consider that “Complaint responders need to engage and align with complainants from the outset to ensure more appropriate complaint- responses.”? I cannot overemphasise from my own experience the importance of engagement and alignment when responding in writing to complaints, to demonstrate that you both understand and acknowledge the concerns raised.

[McCreaddie et al (2021) also observed the ‘fauxpology’ - a non-apology or false apology (e.g. I am sorry you feel) which imputes the cause of distress to the subjective (and possibly misguided) impressions of the complainant – related to this you may want to read/listen to .. ). My views on the use and power of apology can be found in a September 2022 podcast with David Hossack and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has a helpful publication on Meaningful apologies.]

Makoul et al (2024) considers the ‘Glasgow Consensus Statement’ on effective communication in clinical encounters. It reflects an international view regarding essential elements for contemporary practice and has three overarching longitudinal tasks: Connect as humans (treat each person in the encounter as a unique human and convey attention and respect, verbally and non-verbally); Understand the patient’s perspective (establish their view on matters related to their health and healing and incorporate this knowledge when shaping a care plan with the patient) and Be responsive (tailor the form and content of communication to the patient and situation). The paper also cautions that the value of frameworks, no matter how well intentioned, depends upon how they are used in practice.

Writing in relation to public service encounters, Eckhard and Friedrich (2024) consider that the substantive content of spoken administrative language affects the satisfaction of citizen perceptions and that this effect is independent from the service outcome. This article theorises that frontline communication has an informational and a relational component and that each of these consists of two dimensions: They write that administrative language serving informational needs depends on the comprehensibility of administrative speech acts (simple, plain and avoiding jargon) and the extent of reification, such as explaining the regulatory origin or intention of a given rule. Verbal communication also encodes a relational message between sender and recipient, represented by two linguistic dimensions: emotionality (language conveying personal commitment to client concerns) and complaisance (helpfulness). This study highlights the importance of the relational elements of bureaucratic communication, saying that this is opposed to the dominant focus among practitioners, who, in general, address primarily informational linguistic dimensions when considering improvements in communication.

The increasing importance of the internet

Internet linguistics is a domain of linguistics advocated by the English linguist David Crystal (who has written many books on a wide variety of subjects related to language). I know that in this series of articles I haven’t addressed the increasing significance of words used on the internet when working with conflict. For example, much customer complaining and service recovery now takes place online. This is definitely a subject worth writing about, but by someone with more knowledge and experience than me (although I may be tempted at a later date). So for now, I am just going to recommend two books which you might find of interest.

The first book is The psychodynamics of social networking by Dr Aaron Balick. This book looks at how the very nature of the way we relate to each other has been transformed by online social networking and the mobile technologies that enable unfettered access to it. Dr Balick, who is a psychotherapist and cultural theorist, writes that the boundary-less nature of the Internet offers as much as it takes away and uses his experience to argue that social media is not just a technology but is essentially human and deeply meaningful.

The second book is Because internet: Understanding the new rules of language by Canadian linguist Gretchen McCulloch who also blogs at All Things Linguistic. Her book explores the history of online communication in English and the linguistic trends that have emerged within it over the years, as well as the effect such communication might have on the English language as a whole.

It’s more than guidance and guidelines

I think there are dangers in relying on guides and guidelines which advocate a ‘prescriptive’ use of words. A ‘script’ can’t fit all the possibilities in a genuinely personal conversation as every conversation is different

Wilmot (2024) writes on how common corporate language policies are not inherently harmful, but considers that the imposition of common corporate language policies on employees, “which are often presented in the guise of neutrality and practicality in terms of creating a shared organisational reality”, can be sources of both testimonial and hermeneutic injustice. They create environments in which speakers may not only suffer from credibility deficits due to their level of competence in the language, but may also be denied opportunities to fully participate in organisational life, or to make sense of their experiences due to their language competences.”

There are, however, resources and approaches whose learning could expand your understanding and increase your confidence in choosing your words when working in conflict situations. For example, the Plain English Campaign website contains a wealth of information and the Disability-Inclusive Language Guidelines prepared by the United Nations Office at Geneva contains recommendations that United Nations staff, experts and collaborators can use in their oral and written communications on disability (and comments that in terms of language and terminology, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities sets the standard that we must all follow).

The Sydney Health Literacy Lab website contains useful resources for improving the literacy of materials, including tools for testing readability and making information clear and actionable. The UK think local act personal (TLAP) partnership has a Care and Support Jargon Buster and the Transition Network has a resource on Compassionate Communication. There is also the NHS England Content Guide on how to write for digital NHS services.

Helpful approaches can be found on the websites of Ombuds organisations. For example, the 2017 IFF Research report The Language of Complaints on the Legal Ombudsman website includes lessons from examples seen providers’ written communications. It also comments on verbal communication used by the Legal Ombudsman staff, for example, where call handlers tended to speak too fast or had cut across what complainants were saying. Also that call handlers tended to present too much information without any pauses to check understanding and to clarify if this was the case. The UK Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has a guide on how to write a good final response to a complaint. And the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has a Complaints Handling Practice Guide which has an emphasis on using neutral language and non-judgmental approaches.

To sum up

“Language matters. The specific words we use represent knowledge, construct concepts and convey meaning and are, therefore, central to how we relate, communicate, engage, and even conceptualise the world” (Reed et al 2024).

Words matter when working with conflict as they have the power to define the conflict, influence emotions, facilitate communication, shape relationships and enable resolution. Choosing words carefully and intentionally is key to effective conflict management. Dr Kathryn Mannix (see Part 4a) says that what we see when watching master communicators in action are questions more than statements,? silence more than talking, curiosity more than certainty, acceptance of complexity, distress and uncertainty and companionship.

I referred to Dr John Launer’s article ‘The yin and yang of medical consultations’ (2019) in when writing in Part 4a about listening and value what he has to say about translating words and integrating stories. He writes that patients very rarely come to doctors talking of ‘symptoms’, but use their own individual words, phrases and stories. And that doctors turn these stories into symptoms by “systematically sorting the free flow of the patient’s narrative into the norms of understanding and description determined by our own profession”. Dr Launer says that the ability to convert the patient’s narrative version of reality into a normative one is needed for meaningful medical action, but that in doing so “we often miss out an enormous amount of information that matters a great deal to the patient, and might make a big difference to our understanding of the problem as well”. So doctors – and I would suggest people who work with conflict – need the dual skill of tracking the narrative and adapting it for a normative purpose. And he writes that “Bringing the two stories - theirs and yours - into harmony with each other, can enrich the relationship, leading to conversations and decisions that are genuinely shared.”

Fuks (2021) writes that clinical medicine requires an array of skills, understood as craftmanship deployed by a prudent physician capable of wise judgment. He says “Clinical medicine requires a curiosity and regard for people, a sensitivity to and an understanding of language and how it works, and an appreciation of human relationships.” And I suggest that the same applies to working with conflict, as does the “virtue of prudence of the careful, wise clinician, alloyed with the pragmatic skills of the craftsman and tempered by the moral virtue of humility.”

?In a 4 July 2024 post on the think local act personal website, Kate Sibthorp from the National Co-Production Advisory Group writes that “The words we choose to use matter. It's not about being pedantic; it's about being respectful and valuing each other as equal human beings.? If we accept that the words we use reflect and reinforce our values, then we must take responsibility for how we say things. This includes challenging other people to think more deeply about language. Organisations should be conscious of the way they speak about people, including on their computer systems, forms and documents. They should be conscientious about adopting respectful language that sees people as unique and valued human beings.”

The next article in this series has the title ‘Acquire and Use Mediation Skills’.

References

Balick, A., 2018. The psychodynamics of social networking: Connected-up instantaneous culture and the self. Routledge.

Eckhard, S., Friedrich, L., Hautli-Janisz, A., Mueden, V. and Espinoza, I., 2024. A taxonomy of administrative language in public service encounters. International Public Management Journal, 27(1), pp.60-75.

Fuks, A., 2021. The language of medicine. Oxford University Press.

Jeffries, L., 2019. Introduction: Textual choice and communication in conflict. In The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict (pp. 13-24). Routledge.

Lakoff, G., 2014. The all new don't think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Launer, J., 2019. The yin and yang of medical consultations. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 95(1128), pp.575-576.

McCulloch, G., 2020. Because internet: Understanding the new rules of language. Penguin.

McCreaddie, M., Benwell, B. and Gritti, A., 2021. A qualitative study of National Health Service (NHS) complaint-responses. BMC health services research, 21, pp.1-11.

McCreaddie, M., Benwell, B. and Gritti, A., 2018. Traumatic journeys; understanding the rhetoric of patients’ complaints. BMC health services research, 18, pp.1-12.

Makoul, G., Noble, L., Gulbrandsen, P., van Dulmen, S. and Consensus Working Group, 2024. Reinforcing the humanity in healthcare: The Glasgow Consensus Statement on effective communication in clinical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling, 122, p.10858.

Oppenheimer, D.M. 2006. Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly.?Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 139-156.

Reed, M.S., Merkle, B.G., Cook, E.J., Hafferty, C., Hejnowicz, A.P., Holliman, R., Marder, I.D., Pool, U., Raymond, C.M., Wallen, K.E. and Whyte, D., 2024. Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world. Sustainability Science, pp.1-10.

Vesel, C., 2020. Agentive language in accident investigation: Why language matters in learning from events. ACS Chemical Health & Safety, 27(1), pp.34-39.

Wilmot, N.V., 2024. Language as a Source of Epistemic Injustice in Organisations. Journal of Business Ethics, pp.1-15.

Zinsser, W.K., 2001. On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction. Quill/A Harper Collins Books.