A  different  perspective  on  inclusive  practice  

Respectful  language  
 
 
 
 
 
 
©  Laura  (Mole)  Chapman  2013  
   
  

Table  of  Contents  

Acknowledgements  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  4  
1.  Introduction  ...................................................................................................................................................................................  5  
2.  The  background  research  ........................................................................................................................................................  6  
3.  The  words  that  bind  us  ..............................................................................................................................................................  8  
4.  Inclusive  practice  -­‐  the  intentional  conversation  .......................................................................................................  11  
5.  Meaning  and  power  .................................................................................................................................................................  16  
6.  Political  correctness  ................................................................................................................................................................  18  
7.  Respect:  courtesy  and  empathy  ..........................................................................................................................................  21  
8.  Reflection  for  action  ................................................................................................................................................................  23  
9.  Shared  stories  and  group  identity  .....................................................................................................................................  26  
10.  Communities  of  practice  .....................................................................................................................................................  30  
11.  Changing  the  conversation  -­‐  equality  of  respect  ......................................................................................................  32  
12.  Growing  professionalism  ....................................................................................................................................................  34  
13.  Soulful  authority  .....................................................................................................................................................................  35  
References  .........................................................................................................................................................................................  39  
 

   
  

Acknowledgements  
While   writing   can   often   be   a   lonely   endeavour,   the   learning   that   goes   into   a   book   is   a   shared  
process.   This   handbook   represents   a   significant   journey   enriched   by   conversations   with   many  
people   along   the   way.     It   is,   as   always,   time   to   say   a   big   ‘thank   you’   to   those   who   have   helped,  
encouraged  and  supported…  and  made  this  legislation  of  the  journey  possible.  
 
Thanks  goes  to  those  who  gave  up  their  time  generously  to  help  me  learn  more  about  respect:  Ken  
Thompson,   Ross   Davies,   Megan   Crawford,   John   West-­‐Burnham,   Andrea   Layzell,   Alison   John,  
Wendy  Stark,  and  Rosie  Gorman.  
 
Thanks   also   goes   to   those   who   gave   this   job   purpose:   Yasmin   Khan,   Sam   Smith,   Emily   Morton,  
Sharon   Brown,   John   Fuller,   Sally   Byng,   Richard   Holmes,   Michaela   Kennedy   and   Jordan   Purcell-­‐
Ashburner.  
 
Thanks   to   those   that   keep   giving   help   and   encouragement,   generously   and   tirelessly:   Cormac  
Russell,  Ruth  Hunt,  Sam  Clark,  Nimmi  Johal,  Suzanne  Marshal,  and  Lesley  Sharkey.  
 
I   owe   a   huge   amount   of   thanks   to   the   colleagues   who   were   willing   to   be   interviewed   for   this  
research.   Their   thoughts   are   expressed   by   some   particularly   eloquent   jelly   babies   who   appear  
throughout  the  pages  that  follow.  
 
   
  

1.  Introduction    
This   document   raises   key   questions   for   our   time,   questions   that   are   not   only   significant   for  
learning  and  personal  growth  but  also  critical  for  the  direction  of  organisational  change.      
 
Why do our services reveal so little respect for human experience?
Demonstrating   our   respect   to   others   is   rarely   a   quantified   element   of   a   job   description.   The  
organisational   protocol   and   process   of   professional   settings   can   often   sap   our   humanity.   By  
understanding   inequality   we   can   begin   to   see   how   the   bigger   pressures   in   today’s   society   can  
impact   on   our   capacity   to   empathise.   While   individually   we   may   have   little   power   over   the   world,  
its  systems  and  institutions,  acknowledging  how  inequality  affects  us  all  can  be  a  key  to  freedom.  
Where   unjust   habits   become   the   norm   they   limit   our   ability   and   flexibility   in   word   and   behaviour:  
empathy  is  lost  at  great  cost  to  community  engagement.    
 
Why does language play such an important role in building respect?
When   people   feel   alienated   in   conversation   they   move   to   the   periphery   or   exclude   themselves  
from   shared   activity.   Acronyms,   jargon,   and   coded   phrases   increase   the   distance   between  
professional   and   citizen.   Words   are   not   bad   per   se,   but   complex   terminology   can   isolate  
individuals  and  threaten  their  sense  of  belonging.  Alternatively,  phrases  used  with  care  can  enable  
a  very  different  sense  of  participation.    
 
Why articulate ethical commitment?
From   an   operational   perspective   there   is   a   moral   imperative   to   ensure   that   everyone   receives  
equality  of  respect  in  the  workplace.  Furthermore,  language  could  be  the  strategic  tool  with  which  
we   change   our   future.   Through   conversation   we   can   create   scenarios   to   enable   a   shared   vision.  
Without  storytelling,  there  is  no  picture,  no  articulation  of  the  world  we  want  to  inhabit.  
 
How do we take ownership of change?
To  address  change  with  confidence  we  need  to  feel  free  to  choose.  For  example  we  should  have  a  
choice  about  the  way  we  express  ourselves  in  relation  to  others,  and  how  we  describe  the  fairness  
and  autonomy  we  experience  or  seek.  Using  language  as  intentional  action  not  only  helps  spell  out  
our  commitment  to  achieving  greater  parity,  it  also  helps  us  articulate  our  principles  and  direction  
when  defining  our  leadership  activity.  
 
How can we better define our own soulful authority?
Leadership  activity  is  hard  to  encapsulate,  but  we  explore  it  here  as  a  congruence  of  head,  heart  
and  hand.  It  encompasses  our  own  private  thoughts  and  the  personal  ideas  we  share  as  we  pursue  
our   public   voice.   In   articulating   soulful   authority,   I   seek   to   describe   the   spiritual   energy   that  
enables  us  to  make  difficult  decisions  in  a  complex  world  full  of  dilemmas,  intangibles  and  mess.      
 
   
  

2.  The  background  research    

This   document   draws   on   my   experience   as   a   researcher.   While   the   published   dissertation   was  
inevitably  somewhat  dry,  I  share  here  more  of  my  own  journey  –  the  meaning  I  gained  from  the  
academic  exercise.    I  believe  that  the  development  of  respectful  language  is  one  way  of  engaging  
an  entire  community  of  practice  in  cultural  change,  and  therefore  an  example  of  inclusive  practice  
within   a   professional   context.   The   purpose   is   not   to   identify   ‘good’   or   ‘bad’   words   in   order   to  
define   correct   terminology   once   and   for   all.   It   is   about   a   process,   one   that   sets   out   to   spread  
authority   by   purposefully   sharing   the   job   of   articulating   understanding.   From   this   point   of   view,  
leadership   activity   is   a   conversation   between   individuals   with   different   experience   who   seek   to  
articulate  their  perspectives  and  alter  a  shared  future.  
Conversation  is  a  meeting  of  minds  with  different  memories  and  habits.  When  minds  meet,  
they   don’t   just   exchange   facts:   they   transform   them,   reshape   them,   draw   different  
implications   from   them,   engage   in   new   trains   of   thought.   Conversations   don’t   just  
reshuffle  the  cards:  it  creates  new  cards.  …  it’s  like  a  spark  that  two  minds  create.1  
 
I   began   my   research   into   ‘respectful   language’   having   delivered   a   number   of   workshops   on   the  
topic  within  equality  programmes.  Conversations  with  learners  often  revealed  that  they  wanted  to  
learn  more  about  terminology  because  they  were  often  scared  about  using  the  ‘wrong  words’  in  
their  work.  What  struck  me  during  the  training  activity  was  that  people  expressed  great  frustration  
with  political  correctness.  They  told  me  that  political  correctness  made  them  angry  and/or  more  
confused   about   what   to   say.   Most   were   happily   surprised   to   discover   that   some   of   the   impetus  
behind  respectful  language  arose  from  the  Civil  Rights  movement.  Language  is  in  a  state  of  flux,  so  
there   are   few   rights   or   wrongs   but   choice   is   important,   choice   of   words   often   depends   on   context  
and  a  willingness  to  understand  others.  
 
As   such,   the   use   of   respectful   language   encourages   people   to   take   responsibility   for   what   they  
think  and  say  about  the  impact  of  the  ideas  behind  their  words.  Particularly  at  work,  professionals  
have   a   duty   to   remove   the   discrimination   faced   by   some   groups.   However,   to   achieve   greater  
fairness   across   services,   there   is   a   moral   duty   to   ensure   those   we   work   with   receive   equality   of  
respect.  
 
  

Five key findings from the research:

a. Respect   is   a   demonstration   of   empathy.   It   is   a   mindful   and   proactive   activity.   Empathy  
requires  intentional  thinking,  a  recognition  that  other  people’s  feelings  and  circumstances  
are  separate  from  our  own  and  a  willingness  to  act  appropriately  in  response  to  them.  Thus  
respectful   language   begins   with   an   intention   to   respond   to   what   others   actually   want.  
Showing   respect   does   not   involve   benevolence   or   guesswork,   or   giving   what   feels  
comfortable  in  response  to  a  need:  it  is  a  conversation  of  mutual  benefit.  
 
b. Reflection   for   action.     Stereotypes   tend   to   fit   with   our   existing   world   view.   Therefore,  
addressing  what  we  believe  may  require  the  external  prompt  of  participation  in  a  different  
experience.   Conversations   with   others   bring   us   fresh   insights,   feelings   and   perspectives  
that  may  support  reflection,  new  understanding  and  change.  
 
c. A  community  of  practice  is  defined  here  as  a  willing  association  of  professionals,  a  diverse  
group  working  across  institutions  with  a  joint  purpose.  Community  is  often  used  to  define  
groups  outside  an  organisation  –  the  ‘people  on  the  street’.  There  is  a  danger,  therefore,  in  
assuming  that  individuals  from  marginalised  groups  exist  outside  working  relationships  or  
mainstream   social   networks.   A   community   approach   seeks   to   bridge   institutional  
boundaries,  explicitly  bringing  together  those  who  want  to  talk  together.    
 
d. The   growth   of   professionalism   depends   of   the   development   of   collective   ideas   to   secure  
joint   understanding   of   ethical   commitment.   Only   through   conversation   can   we   achieve  
deeper   co-­‐construction   of   shared   meaning,   an   equal   part   in   knowledge   and   the  
responsibility   for   development   of   moral   purpose.   In   holding   different   conversations,  
courageous   and   courteous   professionals   affirm   their   own   values   and   share   human  
principles.  
 

e. Soulful   authority   is   the   humanity   that   drives   leadership   activity.   Rather   than   hierarchical  
status,   leadership   activity   needs   moral   confidence.   How   should   we   encourage   and  
recognise  it?  Challenging  the  status  quo,  and  helping  others  to  grow  is  a  generous  act:  how  
do  we  make  time  for  the  conversation  that  supports  such  inclusive  practice  development?  
  

3.  The  words  that  bind  us  

The   words   we   use   connect   us.   Rather   than   understand   speech   as   a   purely   personal   skill,   it   may   be  
worth  considering  our  words  as  interpersonal  tools.  In  this  way  the  threads  of  ideas  that  connect  
us   can   become   a   web   of   shared   experience,   woven   from   conversation.   Shared   stories   therefore  
become   the   thoughts   that   connect   us.   They   thread   through   our   relationships,   uniting   the   social  
fabric  of  our  lives.    
 
Within   groups,   shared   terms   and   phrases   establish   common   ground.   Between   groups,   these  
domains  may  create  a  patchwork  of  fields  on  the  shared  landscape.  Smaller  territories  that  anchor  
my  existence  to  people  and  place  helps  me  think  more  clearly  about  my  relationship  with  other  
groups.   From   this   perspective,   shared   terminology   can   be   seen   as   part   of   the   world   in   which   I   feel  
comfortable.   It   is   familiar.   I   feel   at   home.  If   my   identity   belongs   with  a   part   of   the   landscape,   then  
crossing  boundaries  becomes  an  act  or  movement.  
 
The  way  language  connects  us  seems  important  here,  as  different  types  of  dialogue  can  be  used  in  
different   ways.   We   could   start   with   the   distinction   between   private   and   public.   Things   we   say  
when  we  trust  another  may  seem  inappropriate  in  public  debate.  We  may  not  share  with  others  
those  ideas  with  which  we  privately  struggle.  Words  are  tools  with  multiple  meanings.  Words  are  
neither  good  nor  bad.  Like  hammers,  knives  or  spoons,  they  are  neutral:  rather,  it  is  their  use  that  
gives   them   power.   I’ve   listened   to   awkward   articulations   of   profound   respect,   using   words   that  
seemed  to  jar  yet  said  ‘I  love  you’  in  the  way  that  The  Princess  Bride’s  character,  Westley,  says,  “As  
you   wish”.   Equally,   I’ve   been   insulted   in   the   most   politically   correct   terms   and   denigrated   without  
any  resort  to  obscenity.    
 
Conversations   are   not   simply   sequences   of  
words.   Through   body   language,   intonation  
and   demonstration   of   feeling,   we   articulate  
intent  and  belief  in  different  ways  according  
to   context   and   relationships.   I   care   more  
about  what  people  are  trying  to  tell  me  than  
how  they  say  it.  When  topics  are  challenging,  
it’s   hard   enough   to   explain   our   feelings,  
  

without  also  feeling  compelled  to  use  the  correct  term  or  grammar.    
 
Time-­‐served   trust   and   understanding   are   reflected   in   the   ease   at   which   short   phrases   and   small  
gesture  are  understood  by  those  who  have  shared  our  journey.  With  such  closeness,  the  implicit  
need  not  be  made  explicit.    
 
We  have  already  seen  that  as  an  interaction,  words  weave  a  web,  a  fabric  that  connects  people.  
And   people   make   shared   “personal   languages   creative,   fluid,   dynamic,   energetic,   changing,  
fluctuating   and   varied   in   terms   of   functions,   places,   contexts,   personality,   age,   gender,   groups,  
cultures,  history  and  individuality.”2.  
 
But  what  happens  on  the  boundaries?  Are  we  explorers  or  visitors?  Do  we  impose  our  ideas?  Do  
our   words  impact   on   others?   Or   can   we   sit  expectantly,   sensitively   joining   in  at   another’s   pace?  
Are  we  willing  to  hear  those  who  believe  
we   have   earned   the   right   to   hear   their  
story?   We   need   to   be   a   respectful   visitor,  
demonstrating   courtesy   and   empathy  
until   we   can   share   enough   trust   to   walk  
the   path   together   and   call   the   journey  
our  own.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

Service-led provision and inevitable inequality

…   it   is   in   those   more   equitable   affluent   countries   where   people   live   the   longest,   where  
social  conditions  are  most  favourable,  that  people  are  most  likely  to  admit  to  not  feeling  so  
great  all  the  time,  because  they  can  afford  to  admit  to  it.3  
 
Society’s   widespread   consumerism   influences   what   we   value   in   our   lives.   In   acknowledging   its  
impact   we   can   reclaim   some   control   by   declining   direction   by   institutional   procedures.   For  
example,   I   understand   widespread   materialism:   I   therefore   try   to   limit   my   acquisition   of   shoes,  
articulating  my  belief  that  excessive  materialism  is  a  problem.    More  specifically  within  services,  
the  fixation  on  the  bottom  line  can  prevent  us  from  appreciating  the  value  of  human  experience.  
Making  decisions  based  on  cost-­‐cutting  in  people’s  lives  may  prevent  us  from  acknowledging  the  
part  of  human  experience  
that   is   fundamentally  
more   important   to   their  
well-­‐being  and  happiness:  
control4.  
 

   
  

4.  Inclusive  practice  -­‐  the  intentional  conversation    

 
We   can’t   be   creative   if   we   refuse   to   be   confused.   Change   always  
starts   with   confusion;   cherished   interpretations   must   dissolve   to  
make  way  for  the  new5.    
 
Enabling  the  fullest  participation  is  at  the  heart  of  good  practice.  To  begin  
with,  addressing  inequality  implies  an  understanding  that  not  all  have  equal  
opportunity.   Being   clear   in   the   articulation   of   systemic   inequality  
encourages  the  speaker  to  focus  not  only  on  everyday  barriers  but  on  the  
more  profound  physical,  attitudinal  and  institutional  barriers  that  obstruct  
equality  of  participation.    
 
The   ability   to   identify   the   language   of   stereotypes   is   fundamentally   more   useful   than   labelling  
words  as  good  or  bad.  An  ever-­‐deeper  understanding  of  the  characteristics  of  different  types  of  
discrimination   is   important:   people   face   greater   disadvantage   because   prejudice   is   cumulative.  
Not  only  do  some  individuals  face  it  every  day,  but  the  various  labels  applied  to  them  may  each  
draw  unfair  treatment.  The  cumulative  effect  compounds  the  difficulties  people  face  and  reduces  
their  chance  to  participate  in  community  life.  
 
Shared   endeavour   enables   all   community   members   to   make   a   positive   difference,   empowering   us  
to   actively   change   our   own   circumstances.   Addressing   inequality   through   community   action   shifts  
the   focus   from   a   service-­‐led   assumption   that   the   person,   family   or   group   is   faulty   to   individual  
capacity,  contribution  and  fulfilment.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

Ethical development
Inclusive  practice  does  not  exist  in  a  vacuum.  It  has  a  purpose.  It  needs  to  be  anchored.  It  follows  a  
direction,   a   philosophy,   a   vision   or   a   dream.   Inclusive   practice   is  
not   a   policy   or   dictate,   neither   is   it   a   new   idea   or   an   alternative  
methodology.   Inclusive   practice   is   probably   best   described   as   a  
moral  imperative6:  a  very  personal  blend  of  faith  and  spirituality  
that   underpins   the   way   we   choose   to   work.   In   short   inclusive  
practice  is  leadership  activity.  
 
Inclusive   practice   is   happening   all   around   us.   In   their   many  
different   ways,   people   everywhere   are   taking   action   and  
demonstrating  a  willingness  to  change  the  world  they  live  in.  With  
its   roots   in   ethical   development   this   action   is   not   simply   good  
practice   or   efficacy.   Inclusive   practice   is   about   developing   respectful   ways   of   working.   It’s   about  
challenging   injustice   and   valuing   different   experience.   Ethical   development   is   about   being   mindful  
of  the  things  that  matter  and  embracing  the  tensions  when  circumstances  deny  parity  of  esteem.  
It   is   about   talking   with   courage   of   injustice   and   inequality,   so   that   the   conversation   can   drive  
purposefully  forward  to  help  secure  meaning  and  belonging.  
 
 Where   language   is   seen   as   the   activity   that   brings   people   together,   conversation   within   groups  
enables   the   sharing   of   knowledge   and   explaining   what   is   valued   –   and   therefore   central   to  
common  purpose7.  While  doing  it  right  puts  emphasis  on  the  bureaucratic  procedure,  it  is  often  
doing  the  right  thing  that  determines  attitude  and  ability  and  energises  the  process.  Unfortunately,  
a  predominant  focus  on  procedure  helps  people  to  ignore  moral  ambiguities.  Doing  the  right  thing  
implies   a   willingness   to   respect   the   interests   of   those   working   with   and   around   us   in   order   to  
secure   moral   justification8.   To   do   this   people   will   need   to   encourage   fuller   participation,   in   ‘a  
process  that  builds  capacity  and  ownership  through  cumulative  learning  and  commitment’  9.  
 
Put  simply,  ethical  development  can  be  defined  as  learning  to  change  for  the  better  -­‐  engaging  in  
dialogue  that  extends  (rather  than  limiting)  possibilities.    Ideally,  it  is  the  never-­‐ending  process  of  
questioning  the  purpose  in  our  work.  The  ‘why’  has  a  specific  purpose  –  to  deliver  greater  equity  
  

by  developing  ways  of  talking  about  our  existence  and  celebrating  belonging.  Ethical  development  
is  the  journey  as  well  as  the  direction!      
  

Change
Many  of  us  find  it  difficult  to  hold  an  idea  of  long-­‐term  change  in  our  minds.  Simplicity  and  ease  
must   not   be   equated:   great   change   demands   significant   effort,   as   a   great   deal   of   time   and  
personal   growth   must   be   invested   to   secure   new   knowledge.   The   transformation   in   working  
practices  that  will  generate  the  change  in  culture  we  contemplate  here  will  take  many  years.    
 
People  often  have  more  influence  than  they  think,  giving  their  language  power.  In  their  roles  their  
words   convey   meaning   that   varies   according   to   context.   Their   words   can   therefore   be   used   as  
tools  to  carry  out  intentional  action  with  a  social  function10.  In  terms  of  power,  our  influence  still  
exists  even  if  it  is  not  congruent  with  institutional  ranking,  and  therefore  authority  is  not  formally  
recognised11.  
 
Not   all   language   is   spoken.   Indeed,   much   is   non-­‐verbal.  
Listening,  too,  is  part  of  language  when  it  is  intentionally  
used   to   invite   sharing   and   acknowledge   others’  
experiences.   Even   within   a   highly   structured   institution,  
“reciprocity   banishes   the   assumption   that   only   some  
people  are  thinkers”12.  Viewed  thus,  language  is  a  moral  
fabric   woven   from   the   threads   we   choose   to   share  
through   speech,   movement,   and   silence:   in   this   sense,  
language  has  no  function  outside  social  connection13.  
 
 
To   support   respect   within   this   connection,   personal   choice   is   essential,   for   it   is   through   our   choice  
of   words,   phrases,   intonation   and   so   on   that   we   alter   the   conversation   within   an   organisation.    
People  have  great  control  over  such  choices.  Ideally,  a  different  type  of  dialogue  is  supported  so  
that  people  feel  they  are  part  of  the  conversation.  The  words  professionals  use  do  not  seem  to  be  
the  problem,  but  correctness  is  frequently  an  imposition  rather  than  an  explanation.    
 
  

The  acknowledgement  that  power  is  held  in  the  words  we  use  is  important  if  professionals  want  to  
mindfully  demonstrate  empathy.  It  is  not  enough  that  words  are  not  used  to  cause  harm  to  others;  
they   must   clearly   acknowledge   the   power   differential.   Speakers   must   weigh   up   options   and  
alternatives   to   maximise   positive   impact  
on  others.  
 

   
  

5.  Meaning  and  power  

Do  ducks  duck  down  in  down  duvets?  
The   impact   of   words   on   others   is   explained   by   Speech   Act   Theory,   which   describes   ethical  
behaviour   as   ultimately   relationship-­‐bound,   and   therefore   localised   within   professional  
boundaries  as  well  as  communities.    While  internal  dialogue  is  one  aspect  of  personal  reflection,  
language  use  has  influence  on  others  and  therefore  a  site  of  speaker  power:  
Language   use   has   a   force   as   well   as   an   abstract   content...   people,   being   people,   cannot  
simply  perform  speech  acts  without  any  concern  for  those  interpersonal  implications14.  
   
The   nub   of   the   issue   does   not   concern   ‘good’   or   ‘bad’   words,   as   respectful   language   aims   to   be  
neither   negative   nor   positive:   instead,   it   aims   to   describe   situations   clearly   and   with   awareness.  
Words   have   meaning,   but   they   are   tools   used   for   different   jobs   and   a   single   word   may   have   a  
variety   of   meanings.   Words   may   be   used   in   different   ways   according   to   place,   time   or   person.  
Homographs  show  how  meaning  can  change:  
 
                                                 “I  shed  a  tear  for  a  tear,  and  the  wind  winds  me  up!”  
 
Meaning   also   changes   with   tone,   expression,   and   inflection.   If   in   response   to   a   sad   story   I’m  
laughing  rather  than  serious,  my  interlocutor  might  be  offended.  Change  cannot  happen  without  a  
good   understanding   of   language   because   the   discovery   of   truth   and   the   creation   of   knowledge  
depend   on   understanding   both   meaning   and   context15.   Sometimes   words   are   used   to   convey  
positive   or   negative   ideas   about   certain   individuals   with   identifiable   characteristics   or   groups   with  
specific   traits   or   descriptions.   When   this   happens   they   can   act   as   labels,   which   in   turn   can  
reinforce  ideas  about  people  and  their  identity.  These  biased  ideas  and  stereotypes  can  reinforce  
the   idea   that   some   groups   have   more   power   than   others   by   virtue   of   their   characteristics   or  
affiliation.  
 
The   words   we   use   reflect   the   assumptions  
we   make   and   the   beliefs   we   hold,   and  
therefore   articulate   the   things   we   take   for  
granted   –   our   unchallenged   thoughts.   We  
often  fail  to  realise  that  what  we  say  impacts  
our   unconscious   mind   and   how   we   think.  
  

Understanding   how   certain   phrases   nurture   a   variety   of   unconscious   assumptions   helps   explain  
why  words  can  create  their  own  tensions  in  ethical  debates.  Describing  a  group  as  a  minority,  for  
example,   rather   than   one   that   is   marginalised   (by   another   group),   communicates   the   idea   that  
they   are   deficient   or   needy.   In   the   struggle   for   articulation   of   meaning   within   services,   specific  
terms  can  represent  a  whole  approach  or  methodology.  For  example,  where  ideas  are  used  within  
sectors   to   support   certain   approaches   to   practice   development,   phrases   will   gain   meaning   unique  
to   the   teaching   within   that   sector.   Consider   the   word   ‘risk’,   for   playworkers   it   implies   positive  
growth   to   be   encouraged   through   activity,   for   social   workers   it   describes   negative   behaviour  
associated  with  substance  misuse  or  dangerous  personal  choices.    
 
The  words  we  choose  and  use  can  show  how  far  we  are  willing  to  engage  with  a  view  that  differs  
from   our   own.   Put   another   way,   our   choice   of   terminology   may   demonstrate   our   willingness   to  
employ   the   ‘textual   worlds   of   others   rather   than   remain   in   our   own’16.   We   should   also   bear   in  
mind  the  importance  of  indirect  meaning  such  as  artistic  licence  or  spoonerisms,  which  rely  on  the  
common  understanding  of  phrases  that  carry  many  subtleties  of  thought,  reason,  interaction  and  
humour17.  
 
 
  

6.  Political  correctness    
“When  change  is  done  to  people  they  experience  it  as  violence;  when  change  is  done  by  
them  they  experience  it  as  liberation  -­‐  Beth  Moss  Kanter“  
 
There  is  so  much  confusion  around  the  correct  use  of  words  that  people  are  often  too  scared  to  
talk   about   the   issues   the   words   convey.   Using   politically   correct   language   is   not   the   same   as   using  
respectful   language.   The   issue   is   one   of   choice.   Political   correctness   is   largely   imposed,   some  
would  argue  from  above.  18  Furthermore,  because  the  choice  governing  political  correctness  often  
lacks   ethical   foundations,   it   can   create   its   own   misunderstanding.   Advocating   terms   such   as  
physically  challenged  or  visually  challenged,  may  seem  euphemistically  less  negative  or  derogatory  
but   such   terms   fail   to   challenge   people   about   the   source   of   a   problem.   Euphemisms   often   detract  
from   the   serious   issues   of   racism,   sexism,   homophobia,   religious   intolerance   etc.   The   problem  
remains  the  same:  in  short,  who  is  being  challenged?    Is  it  about  difference  or  common  humanity?  
Then  how  do  we  embrace  it?  And  how  do  we  label  those  understandings  that  do  not  fit  our  world  
view?  
 
Action   by   feminist   lobby   groups   demanding   changes   in   words   such   as   asking   for   use   of   ‘chair’   and  
‘spokesperson’  in  the  1980s,  has  fallen  out  of  favour.  Times  have  changed,  and  while  sexism  still  
goes   on,   its   form   and   character   has   altered,   as   it   has   for   other   ‘isms’.   However,   the   political  
correctness   lobby   has   created   its   own   problems,   confusing   certain   issues   and   ignoring   debates  
that  were  important  to  marginalised  groups.  The  negative  reaction  to  political  correctness  is  easy  
to  understand  because  it  feels  like  an  imposition  on  personal  choice.  People  feel  they  are  being  
told  what  to  say  and  instead  of  changing  the  conversation  to  one  about  power,  they  instead  feel  
resentment   or   challenge.   In   some   cases,   politically   correct   terms   reinforced   by   urban   myths,   have  
further  contributed  to  harmful  stereotyping.    
The   term   ‘political   correctness   ’   is   thus   a  
good   illustration   of   the   way   terms   can  
‘slide   around’,   having   slightly   different  
meanings   for   different   people,   and  
being  a  ‘site  of  struggle’19.    
 
 
  

Self-reference
 Brainstorming   is   used   in   the   United   Kingdom   to   describe   the   sharing   of   random   thoughts   to  
encourage  creative  ideas.  A  few  years  ago,  the  term  received  media  attention  as  rumours  spread  
that  management  memos  were  being  sent  telling  workers  that  the  expression  was  no  longer  to  be  
use.  The  reason  given  was  that  “a  brainstorm”  could  be  confused  with  a  description  of  an  epileptic  
fit.   The   reason   for   not   using   the   phrase   was   that   it   would   imply   disrespect   toward   those   with  
epilepsy.  However,  a  quick  survey  revealed  that  neither  individuals  nor  organisations  supporting  
people  with  this  condition  had  endorsed  this  concern  or  indeed  complained.  As  no  one  did  equate  
brainstorm   with   epilepsy,   the   explanation   to   back   the   change   in   terminology   now   seems  
conjectural.   This   demonstrates   how   harmful   imposition   can   be,   where   advice   is   without   the  
grounding  in  theoretical  understanding  or  leadership  of  group  voice.  More  needs  to  be  done  by  us,  
in  professional  roles,  to  understand  the  experience  shared  by  individuals,  and  stories  articulated  
by  groups  of  self-­‐representing  advocates.  Our  wording  to  reflect  experience  –  not  conjecture.    
 
The   ideals   of   conversation   remained   masculine,   until   women   changed   the   subject.   They  
showed   that   talking   about   the   emotions   could   not   only   improve   the   way   we   treat   each  
other,  but  also  diminished  brutality  and  aggressiveness  in  general.  20  
 
Language   demonstrates   group   ownership   of   ideas   and   where   used   to   empower   people   it   may  
encourage   people   to   contribute   more   to   shared   action.   I   love   that   moment   in   training   when  
participants  request  that  we  'avoid  jargon’  as  a  ground  rule.  I  smile,  as  I  suspect  that  what  they  
actually   mean   is   ‘don't   use   your   jargon’   for   they   invariably   continue   to   use   theirs.  Jargon   often  
refers  to  the  familiar  terms  (technical,  expert  or  acronyms)  of  which  a  group  has  developed  shared  
understanding.    
 
 
  

The dehumanising article

‘The’  black,  ‘the’  poor,  ‘underachievers’…  To  call  any  group  of  people  'the'  reinforces  the  idea  that  
they   are   homogeneous   and   therefore   adds   a   dehumanising   note.   People’s   experiences   are  
different.     Thus   their   understanding,   sensitivity   and   response   to   similar   circumstances   will   vary,   as  
illustrated  here  with  reference  to  gender  difference:    
To   some   extent   it   may   be   possible   to   generalize   about   the   ways   in   which   woman   and   men  
differ   while   always   remembering   that   there   are   bigger   differences   of   attitudes   and  
behaviour  within  each  sex  than  between  them.21  
 
The  word  ‘gender’  in  this  sentence  could  equally  be  exchanged  for  other  groups.  In  conversation,  
reference   to   likeness   within   groups   accentuates   and   reinforces   stereotypes.   To   avoid   the  
generalisation,   therefore,   the   speaker   needs   to   understand   group   difference.   This   deliberate  
choice  can  also  help  draw  attention  to  the  different  experience  people  encounter  when  subject  to  
inequality.  Use  of  ‘the’  may  sway  attitude,  behaviour,  and  motivation  to  the  majority  or  traditional  
view.   Unfortunately,   the   majority   view   is   often   blind   to   perspectives   that   remain   unrecognised  
until  acknowledged  by  the  rest  of  us.  
 
Many  people  from  underrepresented  groups  have  felt  empowered  by  the  ideas  and  language  of  
the   Rights   Movement.   Using   language   reclaimed   and   owned   by   group   affiliation   is   partly   about  
identity   for   some,   but   many   words   have   been   chosen   to   describe   experience   from   a   specific  
position.    For  example,  the  term  ‘disabled’  has  become  positive  and  empowering  for  many  people.  
When  used  to  articulate  disablism  as  the  character  of  a  specific  oppression.  Used  as  a  verb  -­‐  I  am  
disabled   by   attitudes;   he   is  
disabled   by   systems,   he   faces  
disabling   structures   -­‐   it  
recognises   the   environmental  
impact   of   discrimination   as  
external   to   the   person.  
Significantly,   it   also  
acknowledges   that   society   can  
change   to   remove   the   negativity  
underlined  by  particular  words.      

   
  

7.  Respect:  courtesy  and  empathy  

Ideas  and  values  do  not  always  translate  to  equitable  practice;  and  imposing  change  can  end  up  
stifling   freedom   of   expression   (and   learning)   even   when   implementation   is   in   the   interest   of  
equality.   I   think   balance   is   key,   and   a   wider   perspective   may   prevent   exclusive   focus   not   taking  
account  of  other  factors.  While  ownership  can  enhance  feelings  of  belonging  in  members  of  one  
group,   different   ways   of   talking   creates   power   imbalances   between   groups.   Furthermore,   how  
easily  we  use  the  specific  langue  within  a  certain  group  can  serve  to  indicate  how  much  we  belong;  
for   as   familiarity   and   fluency   increase   the   more   we   identify   with   others22.   Equally   getting   words  
wrong  highlights  possible  estrangement.      
 
Academic  theory  is  robust  about  the  significance  of  politeness.  However,  whatever  people  call  it  
courtesy  does  seem  to  be  an  important  factor  in  establishing  respect  in  professional  relationships.  
In   demonstrating   courtesy   we   employ   knowledge   of   words,   place   and   thought23.   While   people   I  
interviewed   may   not   have   agreed   on   words,   they   all   talked   about   the   direction   of   action.   The  
people   I   listened   to   spoke   of   mutuality,   consideration   and   genuine   feelings.   Giving   was   not  
perceived  as  benevolence  but  generosity.  The  overall  feeling  was  one  of  shared  experience,  not  a  
donation  from  superior  to  needy.  As  equal  members  in  a  common  humanity,  mutual  consideration  
seemed  to  mean  more  than  any  nominated  exchange.      
 
Courtesy   as   empathetic   action   may   be   better   understood   as   the   willingness   to   demonstrate   our  
respect   for   each   other.   It   was   also   noted   that   in   a   professional   context,   it   was   important   to  
address   others   with   a   degree   of  
formality.  This  convention  implied  
a   consideration   to   equal   status,  
where   familiarity   could   denote  
lack  of  consideration.  Using  formal  
language   also   conveyed   an  
intended  expectation  of  reciprocal  
respect.   This   was   particularly  
striking   when   it   contradicted   the  
negative   behaviour   typically  
encountered   by   marginalised  
  

groups.  Formal  language  may  later  become  relaxed  with  increasing  trust.  The  professional  must  be  
able   to   model   in   their   own   language   the   sort   of   responses   they   believe   are   appropriate   in   any  
given  situation.    
 
Using   titles   instead   of   ‘you’   during   teaching,   for   example,   sets   an   expectation   that   the   courtesy  
would  be  reciprocated.  Some  participants  viewed  holding  doors  open  and  dressing  smartly  as  daily  
actions  that  demonstrated  a  respect  to  others.  However,  people  seemed  to  agree  that  problems  
occurred   where   language   is   used   as   a   means   of   control.   A   moral   basis   has   to   be   agreed   it   was  
thought,   otherwise,   language   could   be   used   to   reinforce   status   or   hierarchy.   The   challenge  
therefore   is   to   find   a   way   of   turning   basic   ethical   principles   into   personal   moral   practice.   It   is   in  
daily   interaction   with   others   that   professionals   reveal   whether   they   are   true   to   their   principles.  
Reciprocation   creates   a   morally   sound   relationship.  
Exploitative   or   one-­‐way   interaction   could   be   morally  
unacceptable.    

   
  

8.  Reflection  for  action        

If  it  is  true  that  professional  practice  has  at  least  as  much  to  do  with  finding  the  problem  as  
with   solving   the   problem   found,   it   is   also   true   that   problem   setting   is   a   professional  
activity.24  
 
At   work,   our   conversations   often   unwittingly   revolve   around   need.   Unfortunately   (and   perhaps  
driven  by  latent  consumerism)  other  people’s  deficits  become  our  focus.  However,  the  focus  on  
deficit   and   its   financial   implications   needs   to   be   taken   seriously   in   difficult   social   and   political  
contexts   because   it   calls   into   question   any   definition   of   organisational   purpose.   Because   ethical  
development  depends  on  finding  common  ground  across  organisation  and  community  boundaries,  
social  responsibility  is  increasingly  important.  Some  go  as  far  as  to  suggest  that  the  language  we  
use  has  become  the  problem.  People’s  words  are  neither  neutral  nor  value-­‐free.  Therefore,   a  new  
conversation  is  needed  to  support  change;  more  importantly  that  change  needs  to  be  done  with  
rather  than  done  to  people.25  Viewed  thus,  as  conversation  that  is  either  reflective  or  public,  it  is  
dialogue  which  may  bring  about  different  action.    
Discussion  which  does  not  resolve  itself  by  finding  common  ground…  Though  no  common  
shared  agreement  may  be  reached,  through  the  process  of  exchange  people  may  become  
more  aware  of  their  own  views  and  expand  their  understanding  of  one  another.26  
 
With  a  different  conversation  in  mind,  the  hardest  movements  are  the  mindset  leaps  from  wrong  
to   different,   from   correct   to   transforming,   from   customary   to   innovative.   As   with   beginners   in   any  
new  area  of  exploration,  it  is  hard  not  to  feel  afraid  and  humble  when  faced  with  an  expanse  of  
new   information.   The   danger   is   that   the   more   expert   we   feel,   the   less   flexible   we   become   in  
considering   different   perspectives.   There   is   a   fine   line   between   competence   and   arrogance,   and  
learning  to  consider  a  different  view  from  an  alternative  angle  may  just  help  us  accept  difference  
rather  than  impose  our  on  ways.  
 
 
  

Action learning
I   find   it   takes   just   one   person   to   have   the   courage   to   start   a   conversation…   They’re   just  
waiting  for  someone  else  to  begin  it.  27    
 
It  is  often  difficult  for  individuals  to  question  the  ideologies  of  their  own  culture.  Not  only  can  it  be  
intellectually   challenging,   but   it   may   also   create   social   stigma.   People   who   question   dominant  
ideology  often  appear  not  to  make  sense:  what  they  say  will  sound  illogical  to  those  who  hold  that  
ideology.   In   extreme   cases,   people   who   ask   such   questions   may   even   appear   to   be   insane.  
However,   questioning   deeply   held   assumptions   is   essential   to   empower   those   silenced   by   existing  
ways  of  working.28  
 
Learning   is   a   mutual   relationship,   and   co-­‐production   of   knowledge   is   possible   only   if   the  
conversation  is  one  of  respect.  That  is,  it  demands  that  both  respect  each  other’s  learning.  Even  in  
the  role  of  teachers  we  do  not  give  knowledge:  we  facilitate  its  development  in  others.  We  build  
on  existing  understanding,  to  help  extend  knowledge.    If  the  assumption  is  one  of  filling  a  gap,  it  
suggests  that  the  learner  is  needy  or  lacking  in  experience.  29  
 
 In  daily  activity,  inclusive  practice  still  requires  strategic  understanding,  because  ethical  practice  
demands  greater  understanding  of  systemic  inequality  than  simple  accommodation.  Underpinning  
a  commitment  to  ever  greater  ethical  judgement,  deliberate  and  respectful  action  can  be  seen  as  
an   ethical   or   moral   imperative.30  In   this   sense,   inclusive   practice   is   a   leadership   activity   that  
acknowledges   the   impact   of   systemic   inequality.   Leadership   action   requires   a   vision   enabling  
society  as  a  whole  to  progress  and  transform.  However,  action  taken  needs  to  be  based  on  change  
that  arises  from  real  experience,  not  one  that  aspires  to  a  fantasy.31  
 
If   action   responds   to   a   community’s  
desired  outcomes,  the  starting  point  is  an  
authentic   conversation.   The   voices   of  
those   enduring   inequality   will   be   heard  
and  their  situation  fully  acknowledged  and  
understood.32  

 
  

Where  practice  is  ethically  grounded,  practitioners  are  often  aware  that  their  daily  interactions  are  
subject  to  numerous  dilemmas.  These  are  situations  where  there  are  no  acceptable  options,  only  
undesirable  choices.33  To  face  these  
situations   with   judgment,   the  
professional   does   not   simply   react  
to  events  but  prepares  for  action  by  
questioning   their   own   judgment   –  
thus   engaging   in   critical   reflection.  
In   this   context,   the   term   reflection  
for   action   refers   to   the   ability   to  
reflect   critically   on   past   events   or  
present  practice  in  order  to  act  with  
deliberate   and   intentional  
judgment  in  the  future34.    
 
Moral   judgment   of   this   type   requires   a   philosophical   grounding,   the   engagement   of   our   hearts  
within   learning.   Dilemmas   bring   with   them  
elements  outside  the  professional’s  control.  Only  
an   acknowledgment   of   boundaries   will   reduce  
the   emotional   tension.   The   outcome   often  
depends   on   how   a   practitioner   deals   with  
emotions   and   unconscious   bias.   In   the   long-­‐run  
this  ability  will  determine  how  consciously  he  or  
she   will   be   aware   of   the   impact   of   their   power  
within  a  professional  relationship35.    
 
Ethical   development   will   serve   to   help  
practitioners  plan  and  deliver  alternative  practice  
that   secures   increasingly   fairer   outcomes   for  
every  person,  while  also  extending  the  impact  of  
their   organisation’s   purpose   to   achieve   local  
equality.      
  

9.  Shared  stories  and  group  identity    

Community,   recognized   or   not,   on   its   own   territory   or   dispersed   from   it,   that   has   a  
common  language  is  a  linguistic  community,  with  full  individual  and  collective  rights.36    
 
My  language  is  my  land,  the  part  of  the  landscape  on  which  I  have  purpose.  Its  boundary  traces  
the  ownership  to  a  part  of  the  world  I  know  well  and  to  which  I  feel  I  belong.    I  will  admit  that  I  
used   to   be   an   overly   fervent   advocate   of   common   terms   and   simple   phrases.   My   concern   for  
accessibility   meant   I   was   keen   for   people   to   avoid   complicated   terms.   However,   it   is   not   always  
possible  to  simplify  without  losing  specific  meaning,  situational  nuance  or  shared  interpretation.  I  
enjoy  that  feeling  of  shared  stories,  the  ownership  of  tradition,  knowledge  and  history,  when  key  
expressions   take   on   a   meaning   with   significance   in   terms   of   past   conversations   and   close  
confidence.    
Within  my  own  community,  key  phrases  indicate  bond  –  a  kinship.  
Well,  for  one  thing,  many  such  stories  are  origins  stories  –  they  tell  us  where  we  came  from,  
and   came   to   be   the   way   we   are.   They   tell   us   about   community,   they   create   a   sense   of  
belonging  for  us.37  
 
I   find   it   wonderful   when   others   adopt   our   key   phrases.   Shared   understanding   of   certain   words  
brings  with  it  a  feeling  of  belonging.  It  is  a  little  like  the  phrase  'as  you  wish'  in  film  The  Princess  
Bride:   the   thought   alone   brings   a   smile.  Understanding   the   phrase   as   meaning   ‘I   love   you’   can  
bring  warmth  to  any  ordinary  conversation.    
   
  

Elitism?
Some   argue   that   specialist   vocabularies   can   feel   exclusive   –   for   example,   the   professional   or  
academic  groups  who  identify  phrases  to  describe  a  different  perspective  or  approach.  Viewed  as  
an  attempt  to  confuse  or  alienate  others,  complex  terms  can  appear  to  complicate  straightforward  
ideas.   Putting   things   simply   is   not   always   easy   when   the   ideas   we   are   seeking   to   unravel   are  
complex.   The   problem   can   be   viewed   another   way.   For   those   trying   to   find   a   better   way   to  
describe  their  deepening  knowledge,  new  or  alternative  definitions  of  specific  ideas  make  sense.  
In  professional  conversations  about  theory  or  concepts,  simplifying  the  words  used  by  adding  the  
full  explanation  would  take  too  long.  However,  shorthand  is  useful  in  order  to  discuss  ideas  that  
rely   on   shared   concepts.   Without   it   we   could   not   deepen   our   understanding   of   very   complex  
issues.      
 
Jargon   can   of   course   threaten.   No-­‐one   likes   to   feel   left   out   and   feeling   unsure   what   others   are  
talking  about.  Lack  of  common  terms  can  heighten  the  power  inequality  between  those  who  ‘have’  
or  ‘don’t  have’  expertise.  Examples  of  this  are  seen  at  some  academic  conferences,  where  arcane  
words   are   sometimes   so   extraordinary   that   they   fail   to   bridge   divisions   between   subject   or  
department,   let   alone   help   ideas   spread   across   organisation   and   community   divides.     From   this  
perspective,   vocabulary,   attitude,   behaviour,   and   motivation,   is   the   sum   of   utterances,   tones,  
dress,   and   imagery   that   conveys   shared   meaning.   These   tacit   ideologies   or   ideas   held   by   groups  
define  their  knowledge.38    The  language  of  the  organisation  will  help  define  its  cultural  identity,  for  
it  is  the  means  by  which  people  frame  their  understanding  of  the  place  within  their  world.39  
 
Audience   here   is   key:   if   we   are   talking   to   people   ‘in   the   know’,  
some   shared   terminology   is   fine.   However,   if   we   are   taking   our  
ideas   to   others   (perhaps   in   a   community   dialogue,   for   example)  
then   it   is   our   respectful   duty   to   make   sure   we   are   being   as  
transparent   as   possible.   This   may   mean   using   common   terms,  
avoiding  TLAs  (Three  Letter  Acronyms),  and  allowing  those  joining  
our   conversations   the   time   and   information   they   need   to  
understand  words  or  phrases  we  take  for  granted.  The  issue  here  is  
not  one  of  complexity  but  how  we  enable  people  to  feel  involved  in  
challenging  conversations  about  difficult  ideas.    
  

 
What  seems  important  is  to  be  able  to  identify  which  groups  ordinarily  hold  greater  presence  or  
power   in   our   typical   conversations.   By   doing   so   we   are   conscious   of   those   voices   that   are   not  
easily  heard.  More  importantly  we  can  think  about  whether  the  groups  in  which  we  find  ourselves  
do  in  fact  represent  the  diversity  in  the  wider  community.  Furthermore,  action  may  be  taken  to  
invite  those  who  may  hold  views  that  confuse,  challenge  and  finally  allow  us  to  extend  our  world  
view.  
 
This  idea  of  ownership  shows  how  words  often  reveal  the  perceived  locus  of  leadership  and  define  
whose  ideas  are  given  voice  within  debates.  For  example,  the  much-­‐debated  term  ‘inclusion’  was  
originally   chosen   by   disabled   people   to   indicate   an   entitlement   to   education   and   the   right   to  
participation.  However,  despite  the  movement  towards  greater  entitlement  reflected  in  the  terms  
segregated,   integrated   and   mainstream,   transformation   has   yet   to   be   achieved.40     The   figure  
below  illustrates  the  ideas  behind  these  terms.    
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
  

Changing ideas
 
I   love   the   following   stories   describing   different   aspects   of   how   we   draw   meaning   from   our   words.  
The  first  was  shared  by  a  colleague  who  had  been  waiting  outside  a  classroom  where  I  had  been  
concluding  a  session  on  equality.  She  told  me  that  she  had  been  introduced  to  the  phrase  ‘Black  
World   Majority’,   and   every   time   she   used   it   she   intentionally   remembered   that   despite   white  
dominance,   black   people   are   a   world   majority.   It   is   surprising   to   realise   that   such   a   majority   of  
people   remain   subject   to   the   racist   ideas   which   still   dominate   so   many   cultures.   While   people  
from   smaller   groups   are   often   referred   to   as   minorities,   they   may   in   fact   belong   to   much   larger  
groups  across  the  world.  If  the  focus  is  on  their  numbers  within  our  communities  or  their  lack  of  
representation  within  institutions,  this  can  add  to  the  perceived  personal  deficit  which  is  fuelled  
by  stereotypes.  ‘Black’  used  respectfully  denotes  a  group  that  faces  racism  due  to  an  underlying  
belief   that   white   people   are   superior.   Black   World   Majority   explicitly   contradicts   the   minority  
status.    
 
Then  there  is  the  story  of  the  man  who  taught  his  son  to  speak  Klingon.  I  find  this  very  interesting,  
mainly   because   the   son   did   well   at   learning   the   language   but   lost   interest   when   there   was   no-­‐one  
who   could   share   his   conversation.     Viewed   as   a   social   process   its   value   possibly   lies   in   the  
connections    created  between  speakers.    In  some  places  (eg  schools),  speech  is  viewed  as  personal  
skill,   one   requiring   individual   development   to   attain   imposed   standards.   Unfortunately,   this  
creates  a  problem  for  those  individuals  for  whom  the  spoken  word  may  be  difficult.  The  point  is  
that  language  is  far  more  that  spoken  words:  we  often  speak  loudest  when  we  say  nothing  at  all.  
Furthermore,   for   those   with   speech   delay   or   no   verbal   speech,   there   are   still   ways   of   having   a  
conversation.  The  beauty  of  these  conversations  is  that  they  challenge  so  many  conventions  and  
make   us   listen   differently   –   not   only   with   our   ears   but   with   our   hearts,   souls,   intentionality   and  
mindfulness.    
 
 
 

   
  

10.  Communities  of  practice  

The   site   of   a   community   of   practice   can   be  
viewed   as   the   purposeful   relationships   existing  
across   boundaries   that   are   not   always   defined  
by   institutions.   The   different   relationships   are  
meaningful   connections   between   individuals  
sharing   the   same   purpose.   A   community   of  
practice   might   therefore   comprise   colleagues  
within   an   institution   (photo   1,   bottom   left),   or  
an   international   association   in   which   many  
professionals   from   different   fields   share   a  

common  vision  for  their  profession  (photo  1,  top   Photo  1  

right).    
 
Professional   conversations   need   a   mindset   shift   to   achieve   authenticity   and   mutuality,   because  
the   way   people   talk   about   their   work   reflects   not   simply   what   people   are   doing,   but   how   they  
think  and  plan  their  actions.  In  order  to  work  together  across  institutions,  we  may  need  to  work  
beyond  our  job  boundaries  with  a  different  idea  of  what  constitutes  community.  By  doing  so,  our  
own   learning   community   can   also   challenge   the   structures   and   barriers   created   by   institutional  
procedure.    
 
Where   we   seek   to   affirm   our   own   humanity   through   our   own   language   it   implies   that   we   value  
other   people’s   belonging   in   the   workplace.   When   we   view   our   community   as   cross-­‐institutional,  
acceptance  presents  a  clear  statement  against  the  exclusion  of  some  groups.  Clients  are  not  seen  
as   ‘end   users’   in   a   service;   they   are   called   ‘partners’   and   are   included   in   a   co-­‐constructed,  
worthwhile   experience.   The   barriers   to   be   overcome   between   professionals   and   the   outside  
community   exist   in   a   community   of   practice   in   which   relationships   extend   beyond   institutional  
boundaries  and  where  associations  are  willing  and  respectful.    For  those  already  included  in  the  
conversation  of  the  organisation,  the  responsibility  is  to  extend  the  communication  in  such  a  way  
so  that  it  may  be  understood  by  others  outside  the  organisation.    
 
  

Clothing,  badges,  office  locations  and  door  tags  are  symbols  of  individual  hierarchy  and  confidence.  
In  contrast,  where  norms  in  an  institution  suppress  sharing,  relationships  will  develop  outside  or  
alongside  lines  of  authority,  and  also  outside  the  institution.41  This  suggests  that  in  organisations  
where   respect   is   high,   belonging   is   viewed   as   more   important   than   systems   or   paperwork:   people  
will   feel   secure   and   professional   exchanges   are   easier.   We   probably   feel   more   threatened  
admitting   mistakes   where   we   do   not   feel   valued.   Therefore,   we   are   more   willing   to   share   when  
our   competence   is   trusted,   suggesting   that   individual   skill   needs   to   be   explicitly   valued   for   self-­‐
respect   to   flourish.   Learning   is   stifled   where   people   feel   judged   as   it   seems   that   mastery   and  
reputation   are   linked,   with   self-­‐respect   growing   both   from   personal   development   and   from   the  
affirmation  of  others.42  
 
If  judgement  is  formed  through  reflection  for  action,  then  being  unable  to  talk  about  what  is  not  
yet   understood   will   negatively   affect   learning.   Joint   activity   depends   on   relationships   that   give  
space   for   thinking,   conversations   where   mistakes   are   reviewed   and   different   action   planned   to  
achieve  different  outcomes.43  
 
In   terms   of   growth,   where   an   attainment   culture   skews   the   perception   of   who   is   considered   a  
‘good   learner’:   those   who   learn   from   trial,   or   need   to   make   mistakes   in   order   to   progress,   are  
judged  as  ‘bad  learners’.  As  children  we  are  often  expected  from  an  early  age  to  get  things  right.  
Where   individuality   is   not   embraced,   with   the   measurable   getting   more   recognition   than   effort   or  
achievement,  growth  is  stifled  even  for  so-­‐called  talented  people.44  

 
 
   
  

11.  Changing  the  conversation  -­‐  equality  of  respect  

Research   suggests   that   there   is   a   significant   distinction   between   belonging   and   fitting   in45.   People  
seem   to   distinguish   between   belonging,   being   accepted   for   who   you   are   and   having   to   adapt   in  
order  to  be  integrated.  This  would  suggest  that  creating  environments  where  people  can  choose  
to   belong   is   going   to   be   a   greater   challenge   where   institutional   rules   and   procedures   inhibit  
openness  and  trust.    It  may  be  that  while  personalisation  remains  a  priority,  we  may  need  to  speak  
more   clearly   about   the   greater   vision:   inclusion.   A   vision   such   as   full   personalisation   cannot   be  
realised   until   institutions   transform   far   more  radically.   As   it   stands,   the   choice   is   not   available:   the  
only   options   are   special   institutions   (segregated),   mainstream   (integration),   but   not   always  
inclusive  practice  (towards  inclusion).  
 
Personal values
On   the   subject   of   diversity,   commonly   held   and   personal   views   must   not   be   equated.   There   are  
many   values,   but   individually   we   hold   dear   only   a   handful.   Trying   to   decide   which   are   best   or  
which   to   impose   on   others   implies   a   hierarchy   or   correct   order:   such   imposition   is   oppressive.  
Failing   to   engage   with   a   plurality   of   values   is   in   itself   a   lack   of   respect   for   man’s   humanity.   Shared  
values   far   outnumber   personal   ones,   ‘for   all   human   beings   must   have   some   common   values   or  
they  cease  to  be  human,  and  also  some  different  values  else  they  cease  to  differ,  as  in  fact  they  
do.’46  Being   able   to   understand   what   is   of   value   to   another   lies   at   the   heart   of   respect   –   the  
reflexive   thought   with   which   we   dissociate   what   we   need   from   what   others   may   need,   so   that   we  
can  offer  them  something  of  value.  People  who  can  articulate  their  values  at  work  in  this  sense  are  
better  able  to  ‘play  an  indispensable  role  in  making  connections  with  those  who  are  isolated  and  
marginalised.’47    

Above compliance
Compliance   and   commitment   are   two  
broad  approaches  to  the  way  we  develop  
inclusive   practice.   When   applied   to   ethical  
purpose   they   influence   the   development  
of   strategies   for   change.   Some   articulate  
the   compliance   approach   as   a   legislative  
reasoning  for  minimising  unfair  treatment.  
  

They   frame   discrimination   as   a   problem   caused   by   group   difference. 48  Merely   responding   to  

legislative  demands  may  avoid  claims  of  unfair  treatment,  for  example,  but  reinforces  the  fact  that  
some   people   have   deficits,   which   articulated   through   stereotypes,   impact   on   group  
characteristics.49  

Positive discrimination
Positive  discrimination  is  illegal  but  operates  at  the  level  of  compliance.  It  allows  people  to  impose  
a   certain   conversation   by   helping   those   who   join   in,   but   critically   forbids   them   to   question   what   is  
taken   for   granted.   Otherwise   referred   to   as   affirmative   action   (eg   favouring   candidates   from  
certain   groups   for   advancement   or   recruitment)   such   discrimination   has   been   criticised   because  
the  basis  for  promotion  often  rests  on  a  characteristic  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  a  candidate’s  
positive  qualities.  It  is  a  short-­‐term  means  of  addressing  underrepresentation,  but  because  it  fails  
to  address  wider  inequalities  or  systemic  discrimination,  the  very  individuals  it  seeks  to  help  also  
feel  wrongly  treated.      
 
Many   believe   that   compliance   strategies   are   not   morally   sound   as   they   fail   to   address   the  
institutionalised  discrimination  supporting  inequality.  As  many  point  out  ‘the  effect  of  these  labels  
is   that   they   keep   many   community   people   from   seeing   the   gifts   of   people   that   have   been  
labelled.’50     Furthermore,   needs-­‐based   classification   leads   to   hierarchy   and   social   comparisons  
which   impact   negatively   on   people’s   self-­‐respect   and   wellbeing.51     More   specifically,   when   people  
in   positions   of   authority   are   forced   to   put   down   others   by   highlighting   problems   rather   than  
strengths,  disrespectful  behaviour  becomes  a  means  to  secure  resources.  Equality  of  opportunity  
is   not   equality   of   respect:   a   divisive   strategy   fuels   resentment   and   strengthens   the   stereotypes  
underlying  prejudice.      
The   ambiguous   relation   between  
character  and  potential  ability  often  also  
troubles   those   who   benefit   from  
affirmative   action   policies,   as   Bowen  
and  Bok  themselves  admit:    
 
“Do   I   personally   deserve   this  
opportunity,   have   I   been   given   a  
chance  only  because  of  my  race?”  
52
 
  

12.  Growing  professionalism    

Acting  professionally   may   actually   prevent   people   from   expressing   themselves   honestly.   Examples  
might  be  where  behaving  according  to  institutional  norm  denies  respect,  or  where  ‘fitting  in’  costs  
an   individual   too   high   a   price.   There   is   wide   variation   about   what   people   understand   as  
professional  behaviour:  aspects  may  include  dress  code,  expert  language  and  manners.  The  extent  
to   which   norms   impact   on   the   conversation   will   depend   on   their   rigidity   and   how   they   are   used   in  
achieving  conformity.    
   
The  correlation  between  the  development  of  professionalism  and  a  changing  institutional  culture  
seems   to   suggest   that   individual   strength   of   character   is   needed   for   the   sharing   of   knowledge.  
When  professionals  are  too  afraid  to  show  weakness,  they  add  little  to  their  own  understanding  
and   have   little   to   share.   Shared   work   seems   to   be   achieved   through   the   process   of   seeking   a  
common  language,  one  that  reflects  and  affirms  shared  principles  and  equal  humanity.    
 
Individual   choice   of   association   is   important,   as   positive   emotions   energise   the   development   of  
professionalism   within   a   community   of   practice.   However,   because   it   is   important   to   appreciate  
one’s   own   capabilities,   other   people’s   recognition   of   skill   is   as   important   as   our   own.   This  
appreciation  of  skill  suggests  again  that  the  personal  and  public  dimensions  of  how  we  learn  are  
deeply   interwoven   with   our   perception   of   ourselves   as   members   of   a   professional   group.  
Leadership   development   may   have   more   to   do   with   how   we   perceive   that   fit,   as   well   as   what  
needs  to  be  done  to  secure  it  further  for  ourselves  and  for  others.  
 

   
  

13.  Soulful  authority    

There   are   a   number   of   approaches   or   elements   of   approaches   to   leadership   that   are  
consistent   with   inclusion…   most   importantly,   they   illustrate   how   leadership   can   operate  
within   equitable,   horizontal   relationships,   and   as   a   collective   process   that   is   organized  
specifically  to  strive  for  inclusion.53    

Leadership   implies   more   than   a   questioning   of   daily   activity,   process,   attitude   and   behaviour:  
change   is   fundamental   to   any   discussion   about   respect.   Some   describe   it   as   a   life   journey,  
becoming   self-­‐aware,   reaching   self-­‐respect   through   understanding,   fitting   in   to   society   and   then  
acting  to  make  ethical  changes  for  others.    
 
Leadership  fails  as  an  academic  discipline  where  it  is  seen  as  behaviour  not  action,  psychological  
not   spiritual   and   related   to   people   not   ideas.   Viewed   as   leadership   activity   more   specifically,  
inclusive  practice  helps  us  articulate  the  holistic  nature  of  personal  growth  and  power54.  ‘We  have  
separated   the   hand   of   leadership   from   the   head   and   heart…   Moving   the   moral   dimension   of  
leadership  to  the  centre  of  practice  forces  us  to  rethink  widely  accepted  assumptions  about  the  
values  that  undergird  management  theory’  and  the  definition  of  leadership55.  
 
As   our   understanding   deepens   through   learning   opportunities   and   our   knowledge   widens.  
Understanding  new  experience  gives  us  more  grounded  approach,  a  more  visceral  interaction  with  
those   we   share   our   world.   As   our   knowledge   deepens   our   vocabulary   is   also   likely   to   change.  
Soulful  authority  describes  the  active  spiritual  self,  and  suggests  an  intentional    ‘intellectual  leap  …  
to  an  alternative  world  in  which  we  can  never  write  the  same  thing.’56    The  aim  is  to  be  able  to  use  
moral   judgement   to   identify   the  
negative   and   unhelpful   ideas   so  
often  used  to  describe  the  lives  of  
those   who   are   labelled   by   their  
difference.    
 
What   people   say   can   never   be  
neutral   or   value-­‐free.   Therefore,  
while   purpose   and   people   are  
essential   to   a   full   definition   of  
  

leadership,   establishing   shared   principles   will   encourage   the   critical   conversations   that   change  
leadership   activity.   This   aspect   of   leadership   development   may   be   seen   as   a   mutual   quest   to  
define   moral   principle,   the   search   for   congruence   between   ethical   ideas   and   desired   activity   to  
reach   goals   with   personal   meaning.   In   simple   terms,   it   may   be   interpreted   as   helping   others   to  
believe   in   their   ability   to   learn,   to   change,   and   to   achieve   success.   Because   respecting   other  
people’s  learning  is  a  generous  act,  being  a  leader  requires  the  confidence  to  give.  As  a  leader,  a  
teacher  proves  his  or  her  own  worth  and  enables  others  to  develop  theirs.    
 
Mutuality   needs   to   be   expressed   clearly   within   co-­‐production   otherwise   there   is   a   problem   of  
using  language  as  a  means  of  control.  Fundamentally  a  moral  basis  has  to  be  agreed.  Otherwise,  
language  is  no  more  than  a  tool  for  reinforcing  status  or  hierarchy.  The  challenge  of  leading  with  
soul  is  to  follow  authority  –  not  impose  power.  For  me  the  difficulty  lies  in  finding  a  way  of  turning  
personal   values   into  
ethical   principles   and  
moral   practice.   In   practice  
though   I   have   found   it  
harder   to   follow   than  
direct,   in   other   words   to  
unintentionally   copy   those  
who   have   overpowered  
me  in  the  past.    
 
It   is   argued   that   leadership  
action   means   working   in  
partnership   to   define   an  
emerging   vision   of   an   organisation’s   purpose.   It   is   suggested   that   co-­‐production   “incorporates  
notions  of  ethical  behaviour  and  fairness  to  all  constituents  .  .  .  this  is  both  morally  right  .  .  .  for  
this  to  be  achieved,  change  must  be  done  with  —rather  than  to  —people.”57  Therefore,  it  is  in  the  
conversation   with   others   on   a   daily   basis   that   I   reveal   whether   I   am   true   to   my   principles.   If  
respect  is  reciprocated,  then  it  becomes  a  morally  sound  relationship.  If  it  is  exploitative  or  one-­‐
way,   then   it   would   be   morally   unacceptable.   Sharing   a   positive   experience   can   help   lessen   the  
feeling   of   inequality   and   lead   to   better   understanding   of   another   person’s   experience,   particularly  
  

when   conversation   is   used   to   explore   what   works   well.   Conversations   employed   as   a   means   to  
help   each   other   reach   a   more   sophisticated   model   of   expertise   will   catalyse   more   authentic  
exchanges.    

Positive action
Positive   action   is   probably   the   most   accurate   articulation   of   inclusive   practice.   Because   it   best  
describes   the   two-­‐handed   nature   of   intentional   action   intended   to   deliver   positively   and   with   a  
double  purpose.  Firstly  it  identifies  the  specific  character  of  marginalised  groups  so  that  different  
ways   of   working   may   be   tried   in   order   to   reduce   inequality   and   restore   parity.   That   is   to   say,   it  
identifies   the   negative   ideas   within   conversation   that   may   harm   marginalised   groups.   Secondly,  
thought   is   given   to   how   they   articulate   their   experience.   Phrases   are   then   given   intentional  
meaning  restoring  strength  to  the  group  without  any  individual  members  having  to  be  identified.  
The   accent   is   on   the   ideas   within   conversation,   the   way   of   saying   things   that   give   certain   groups   a  
power   they   then   may   hold   without   question.   I   would   like   to   break   it   down   a   little   more   at   this  
stage  in  order  to  summarise  points  covered  above:  

Inclusive practice:
• does   not   hang   in   a   vacuum:   it   is   a   way   of   talking   governed   by   deeper   motivation.   In  
essence   the   task   we   may   perform   today   is   guided   by   reflection,   grounded   in   moral  
understanding,  and  helps  to  bring  about  change  towards  a  vision    
• is  not  merely  best  practice  but  a  strategy  built  on  good  practice  that  helps  deliver  different  
outcomes  
• is  reflexive,  it  takes  account  of  the  vulnerability  and  strengths  of  others  in  order  to  achieve    
a  difference.  
• looks  outwards  and  reaches  beyond  current  boundaries  with  the  notion  of  boundaries  and  
borders,  inclusive  practice  happens  at  the  edge  where  activity  exists  
• is   a   by-­‐word   for   leadership   activity:   it   is   through   our   daily   reflection   that   our   conversations  
spell  out  the  dreams  to  which  we  aspire  
• is  about  moral  ambiguity:  most  decisions  we  are  faced  with  do  not  have  an  ideal  outcome,  
many  only  satisfy  the  most  favourable  option  which  therefore  require  an  expert  judgement.        

 
  

Final thoughts – The respectful visitor

I  define  vulnerability  as  uncertainty,  risk,  and  emotional  exposure.  …  To  put  our  art,  our  
writing,   our   photography,   our   ideas   out   into   the   world   with   no   assurance   of   acceptance   or  
appreciation  –  that’s  also  vulnerability.58  
 
Respecting   people's   ownership   is   the   traveller’s   job.   In   this   analogy,   inclusive   practice   is   like  
walking  onto  another’s  patch.    It  requires  a  willingness  to  sit  for  a  while  with  the  unfamiliar  and  
unknown.  It  takes  time  to  fall  into  step  with  nuances,  tones,  and  rhythms.  When  travelling  across  
different  lands  it  is  up  to  me  to  pick  up  on  local  custom.  Rather  than  feeling  daunted  or  afraid,  I  
enjoy  the  discovery  of  new  fabric:  with  each  different  locality  come  new  ideas  and  new  meaning,  
even   if   the   spoken   words   are   shared.   I   grew   up   in   France,   and   being   bilingual   meant   I   had   one  
vocabulary  that  was  twice  the  size  of  my  peers’.  What  I  still  find  fascinating  is  that  when  I  speak  in  
one  or  the  other  language  the  words  follow  a  different  sequence  even  when  the  topic  is  the  same.  
Re-­‐sequenced,  ideas  can  deliver  the  unexpected  and  previously  unexplained.    
 
 

 
 
   
  

References  
                                                                                                           
1
 (Zeldin,  1998  ,  p.  14)  
2
 (Shohamy,  2006,  p.  7)  
3
 (Dorling,  2011,  p.  32)  
4
 (Gilbert,  2006)  
5
 (Wheatley,  2002,  p.  37)  
6
 (Fullan,  2011)  
7
 (Shohamy,  2006)  
8
 (West-­‐Burnham,  2009)  
9
 (Fullan,  2011,  p.  14)  
10
 (Wilson,  1956)  
11
 (Ladyshewsky  &  Flavell,  2011)  
12
 (Kline,  1999,  p.  89)  
13
 (Shohamy,  2006)  
14
 (Holtgraves,  2002,  p.  37)  
15
 (Wilson,  1956)  
16
 (Pennycock,  2010)  
17
 (Holtgraves,  2002)  
18
 (Thomas,  Wareing,  Singh,  Stillwell  Peccei,  &  Jones,  1999)  
19
 (Thomas  et  al,  1999,  p.  14)  
20
 (Zeldin,  1998  ,  p.  12)    
21
 (Coleman,  2011,  p.  12)    
22
   (Sennet,  2003)  
23
 (Holtgraves,  2002,  p.  38)  
24
 (Schön,  1983,  1991,  p.  18)  
25
 (Holbeche,  2012)  
26
 (Sennet,  2012,    p.371)  
27
 (Margaret  Mead  p.25)  
28
 (Thomas,  Wareing,  Singh,  Stillwell  Peccei,  &  Jones,  1999)  
29
 (Freire,  1970)  
30
 (Fullan,  2011)  
31
 (Dewey,  1916)  
32
 (Freire,  1970)  
33
 (Reagan,  Case,  &  Brubacher,  2000)  
34
 (Reagan,  Case,  &  Brubacher,  2000)  
35
 (Crawford,  2009)  
36
 (Spolsky,  2004,  p.  129)  
37
 (Sennet,  2003,  p.  82)  
38
 (Pennycock,  2010;  Shohamy,  2006)  
39
 (Reagan  et  al,  2000,  Shohamy,  2006,  Montgomery,  2008)  
40
 (Ryan,  2012)  
41
 (Montgomery,  2008;  and  Simpson  &  Mayr,  2010)  
42
 (Sennet,  2003)  
 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
43
 (Reagan,  Case,  &  Brubacher,  2000)  
44
 (Dweck,  2006)  
45
 (Brown,  2012)  
46
 (Berlin,  2001,  p.  12).  
47
   (Russell,  2011,  p.  9)  
48
 (Daniels  &  Macdonald  2005)  
49
 (Sennet,  2003;  Gladwell,  2008)    
50
 (Kretzmann  &  McKnight,  2003,  p.  27)  
51
 (Wilkinson  &  Pickett,  2009)  
52
 (Sennet,  2007  p.  77)  
53
 (Ryan,  2012)  
54
 (Sergiovanni,  2011)  
55
 (Sergiovanni,  2011,  p.  37)  
56
 (Pennycock,  2010,  p.  50-­‐51)  
57
 (Holbeche,  2012,  p.35)  
58
 (Brown,  2012,  p.  34)