The jargon we use
13/01/13 05:23
The language we use is subject to the whims of fashion as surely as are other parts of our lives. Sometimes the jargon we use is appropriate and helpful in developing new ideas and other times it can make communication more difficult. I have been thinking of some terms that have recently become popular in news reports, politics and other arenas. The church certainly isn’t exempt from adopting jargon from other sources, either.
I have been hearing the term “evidence-based” frequently. Our state’s governor used the term frequently in his recent “State of the State” address. He was making the assumption that everyone knew what he meant when he used the term, but after listening, I’m not sure that the governor knew what he meant. The terms “evidence-based medicine,” “evidence-based practice,” and “evidence-based decision making,” all arose in the practice of medicine in the early 1990’s. They came from an attempt to bridge the gap between clinical practice and public health. The term originally was used in reference to the use of population health sciences to inform clinical practices. In this specific use, it did not mean the general application of scientific method to the practice of medicine – such practices were common prior to the use of the term. Rather it was the specific application of particular sociological studies to medical practice. The term caught on in the medical profession and soon there were multiple published studies of evidence-based practices applied to the practice of medicine.
I began hearing of the term outside of the field of medicine a dozen or so years ago. People would use the term “evidence-based” as a generic term for something that had a bit of scientific research behind it. In the church “evidence based” has been applied to everything from congregational growth to administrative practices. It generally is applied to an idea that has been tried and found to be successful in some other setting. I think that this is the way our governor was using the term in relationship to a package of judicial reforms. In that setting “evidence based” means that there is at least one other state that has tried a practice and that they found success in adopting the practice.
Taken to a logical extreme “evidence based” comes to mean the opposite of innovation. “Evidence-based” comes to mean that the idea didn’t originate with us. We saw (or heard of) someone else doing a particular thing and we have decided to imitate it. Imitation isn’t necessarily a bad thing in government or in the church, but it does tend to limit creativity and the adoption of new ideas. In political debate the use of the term in this manner leads to a logical fallacy. An idea is not inherently superior simply because it is not original. To return to the example of the governor’s speech, one part of the proposal, the expansion of drug courts, is something in which South Dakota trails the nation. All other 49 states adopted this practice prior to its use in South Dakota. It is a good idea, and one that is successful. But it was just as good an idea for the first state that adopted it and has been far more successful in places where the practice has been in place for decades. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but if “evidence based” means waiting to see how it works in some other place before we try it ourselves, we are destined to always be imitators.
Another term that has evolved from the same origins that is extremely popular in the church these days is “best practices.” Essentially it has come to mean the same thing. “Best practices” are things that have been successful in other settings. Like “evidence-based” the over use of the term “best practices” has come to stifle creativity and innovation. Ideas have to run their course before they are identified as “best practices.” This means that those who seek to always be involved in “best practices” are always imitating what has already been done somewhere else. Often their timing is off simply because they have delayed their action to see what the results of action will be in another setting. In the church “best practices” is often an excuse for a failure of leadership. It becomes a “let’s wait an see how it goes for someone else” attitude.
Another problem with the term “best practices” as it is used in the church is that it often doesn’t take into account the wide variations in settings in which the church does its work. A “best practice” in Boston, might not be the best idea for a congregation in Buffalo, South Dakota. The dynamics that produce success may have much more to do with the sociology of the setting than the program or activity that is put into place. I don’t know how many times in my career I have seen a pastor or lay leader be impressed with something that is being done in another congregation and fail when attempting to imitate the same program in their own congregation. We are not all the same and what works in one setting may or may not work in another setting.
Best practice is a buzzword that the church adopted from business management. There are accredited business management standards such as ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 with have specific practices that, theoretically, can be applied in a variety of different settings. In practice, however, chasing the standards often results in business failure. “Best practices,” are often suggestions from consultants that are brought in after multiple problems in an organization and frequently do not provide positive results in a field where innovation is a key to success. Successful businesses and successful congregations tend not to be slaves to the whims of fashion. Focusing attention on what others are doing is rarely the pathway to growth.
We will continue to use jargon in the church and in our wider lives. There are some days, however, when I cringe at one more person using terms like “best practices” or “evidence based” when it is clear that what is needed is less talk and more action.
I have been hearing the term “evidence-based” frequently. Our state’s governor used the term frequently in his recent “State of the State” address. He was making the assumption that everyone knew what he meant when he used the term, but after listening, I’m not sure that the governor knew what he meant. The terms “evidence-based medicine,” “evidence-based practice,” and “evidence-based decision making,” all arose in the practice of medicine in the early 1990’s. They came from an attempt to bridge the gap between clinical practice and public health. The term originally was used in reference to the use of population health sciences to inform clinical practices. In this specific use, it did not mean the general application of scientific method to the practice of medicine – such practices were common prior to the use of the term. Rather it was the specific application of particular sociological studies to medical practice. The term caught on in the medical profession and soon there were multiple published studies of evidence-based practices applied to the practice of medicine.
I began hearing of the term outside of the field of medicine a dozen or so years ago. People would use the term “evidence-based” as a generic term for something that had a bit of scientific research behind it. In the church “evidence based” has been applied to everything from congregational growth to administrative practices. It generally is applied to an idea that has been tried and found to be successful in some other setting. I think that this is the way our governor was using the term in relationship to a package of judicial reforms. In that setting “evidence based” means that there is at least one other state that has tried a practice and that they found success in adopting the practice.
Taken to a logical extreme “evidence based” comes to mean the opposite of innovation. “Evidence-based” comes to mean that the idea didn’t originate with us. We saw (or heard of) someone else doing a particular thing and we have decided to imitate it. Imitation isn’t necessarily a bad thing in government or in the church, but it does tend to limit creativity and the adoption of new ideas. In political debate the use of the term in this manner leads to a logical fallacy. An idea is not inherently superior simply because it is not original. To return to the example of the governor’s speech, one part of the proposal, the expansion of drug courts, is something in which South Dakota trails the nation. All other 49 states adopted this practice prior to its use in South Dakota. It is a good idea, and one that is successful. But it was just as good an idea for the first state that adopted it and has been far more successful in places where the practice has been in place for decades. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but if “evidence based” means waiting to see how it works in some other place before we try it ourselves, we are destined to always be imitators.
Another term that has evolved from the same origins that is extremely popular in the church these days is “best practices.” Essentially it has come to mean the same thing. “Best practices” are things that have been successful in other settings. Like “evidence-based” the over use of the term “best practices” has come to stifle creativity and innovation. Ideas have to run their course before they are identified as “best practices.” This means that those who seek to always be involved in “best practices” are always imitating what has already been done somewhere else. Often their timing is off simply because they have delayed their action to see what the results of action will be in another setting. In the church “best practices” is often an excuse for a failure of leadership. It becomes a “let’s wait an see how it goes for someone else” attitude.
Another problem with the term “best practices” as it is used in the church is that it often doesn’t take into account the wide variations in settings in which the church does its work. A “best practice” in Boston, might not be the best idea for a congregation in Buffalo, South Dakota. The dynamics that produce success may have much more to do with the sociology of the setting than the program or activity that is put into place. I don’t know how many times in my career I have seen a pastor or lay leader be impressed with something that is being done in another congregation and fail when attempting to imitate the same program in their own congregation. We are not all the same and what works in one setting may or may not work in another setting.
Best practice is a buzzword that the church adopted from business management. There are accredited business management standards such as ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 with have specific practices that, theoretically, can be applied in a variety of different settings. In practice, however, chasing the standards often results in business failure. “Best practices,” are often suggestions from consultants that are brought in after multiple problems in an organization and frequently do not provide positive results in a field where innovation is a key to success. Successful businesses and successful congregations tend not to be slaves to the whims of fashion. Focusing attention on what others are doing is rarely the pathway to growth.
We will continue to use jargon in the church and in our wider lives. There are some days, however, when I cringe at one more person using terms like “best practices” or “evidence based” when it is clear that what is needed is less talk and more action.