Does Our Language Need Refreshing?

Over the years, we in Extension have developed certain words and phrases to describe our work. Among those descriptive phrases is “research-based education.” Other terms include unbiased, non-formal, practical, and responsive. But according to findings of a recent national survey of Extension administrators, some of these phrases might be due for a refreshing.

When asked whether Extension’s method for accomplishing its work was education, engagement, or both interesting results emerged. Not a single individual said that our method was solely education. Twenty percent said that our method was engagement while eighty percent said that our work is a mix of education and engagement. This latter perspective suggests Extension sometimes serves in a convener role working in partnership with community members to co-create solutions to local problems. In this role we enter into a partnership with the community based on reciprocity and mutual benefit where we both learn from each other.

The same group was also asked to indicate whether they prefer to use “research-based” or “science-based” when describing the derivation of the content we communicate. Fifty-seven percent preferred “science-based” while less than one-third preferred “research-based.” A move toward using the phrase “science-based” may also be supported by studies that have shown a more positive public perception of the word “science” than the word “research.” Interestingly, the word science is derived from the Latin word for “knowledge.” Contrasting with that are definitions of research that characterize it as a process of acquiring knowledge.

Finally comes the word “unbiased.” Some would say that higher education is inherently biased toward empirical ways of knowing truth and tends to disregard pragmatism, intuition, authority, revelation, and rationalism.

What are your thoughts about how we communicate what we do?

12 thoughts on “Does Our Language Need Refreshing?

  1. I think it must depend a lot on the discipline. I rarely use, hear or see the term research-based. My perception is that “science-based” has been the more common term used in lay publications as well as grant proposals. I am surprised about the statement “sometimes serves in a conveyor role working in partnership with community members to co-create solutions”. This should always be the case. Stakeholders drive both our research and outreach activities. We exchange knowledge and then come up with science-based strategies to solve problems. It is this exchange of knowledge that contributes to using the term non-biased. Unbiased implies that our information/research is free from bias, which is never the case. Non-biased implies neutrality, which is the best that we can achieve.

  2. I love a good discussion of epistemology! How do we know what we know? There are five sources of knowledge and justification: (1) Perception (five senses), (2) Introspection (inspecting inside of one’s mind), (3) Memory (knowledge of the past), (4) Reason (empiricism), and (5) Testimony (knowledge gained from credible sources, i.e., authority). (Epistemological sources are different than the popular psycho-education “styles of learning.”) As teachers we can utilize these sources of knowledge to better get our message across. For example, if I’m teaching a seminar on a given parenting topic, I can move between asking parents to reflect on their past experiences in a given parenting situation (Memory), to showing them a video or doing a vignette about how someone else may parent in a similar situation (Perception), to finding out how they felt about it or how children might experience the situation (Introspection), to sharing empirical data to support the practice of the topic (Reason), and then to giving my personal experiences with the topic (Testimony). Each can be accomplished with different teaching techniques. -JSB

    • You present a great case for how we can tap into learners’ ways of knowing truth to strengthen our teaching.

    • Fabulous review. We in Extension can get caught up in practice… and detach from theoretical underpinnings. But they go together. The intersection of theory and practice is where I’m trying to work!

  3. Interesting discussion. I remember a very interesting strategic program which was taught and rolled out company wide, while I was at YUM brands. It was called “Breakthrough Thinking”. There were key sections or tools around the idea of seeking “know-how”. In other words knowledge, which is key towards innovation opportunities. I like this thought of knowledge education.

    • I like the idea of seeking “know-how.” Certainly conjures in my mind the value of memory of experiences that seem to work.

  4. I think another key point that we need to consider is the consumer perspective. Roger states that “we in Extension” have chosen words to describe the work we do. The national survey was of Extension Administrators. We often use these words to describe Extension, when we hold ourselves up as researchers who are unbiased knowledge providers. But the reality is, does the consumer (or clientele) really care the source of information? Do they trust their friends more than government and corporations? Even in my own quest for information, I often start with Google.com versus extension.org or extension.osu.edu

    There is a vast knowledge base on the web; some being placed by our competition. These bloggers or corporations might have information that rises to the top of the search engine, whether it is correct or not. The real question may not be whether we use science-based or research-based terminology, but what do our clientele (and those who are not using Extension) look for in their quest for information.

    • Really good comments, Mark! As an external stakeholder — or in the interest of “real” words, I should say Extension outsider — I wholeheartedly agree.

  5. We especially find it difficult at times to try to teach Science to Emotion with the consumer. This can be exampled in the whole GMO controversy or the battery caged egg production systems to name just a few. Even though “science” says its safe or that this is the most efficient food system, the consumer doesn’t either want it or trust it. I guess it might be the that the huge multinational ag conglomerates and food processors and retailers are making all the money while food prices in the average consumers cart doesn’t go down in price much.

    When the buying public starts voting with their food dollars American Ag will change regardless of the science. BTW, having nitrate advisories in your water for most of Columbus and algae blooms on Lake Erie doesn’t help us with the average Ohioan.

  6. Had not thought about using the term science-based rather than research-based. I encounter agency and education folks asking for programs which are evidence-based. It takes more time and documentation to show that our programs are evidence-based.

  7. Great thread. We always need to think about the language we use in terms of what will resonate with our customers in addition to our internal perspectives. Several studies have shown that the terms “non-biased, research-based” don’t draw people to our offerings. I also believe that we need to think more carefully about what we name programs. I don’t want to single out any specific ones but we should always think about how a potential funder might perceive a program title in addition to how it attracts participants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *