A friend, who knows little about our world of scrutiny, heard about something needing to be scrutinised and said “ah, that sounds like an unpleasant procedure!”

It started me reflecting on the words we use to talk about scrutiny and the impact this has on our scrutiny work. Perhaps you are careful about the language you use - I know I’ve been careless in the past.

And does this matter? Well, I suspect that it does.

As Deborah Tannen says, the words we use can shape our reality, for example, when we use military metaphors to describe disagreements, they become more like arguments. For example, ‘leap into the fray’, ‘going into battle for’, ‘not wanting to be shot down’, or ‘take a shot at it’. Similarly, in the world of social care, Bryony Shannon, highlights how ‘frontline’ is a term that ‘suggests and reflects division and conflict’.

All of which shapes our reality. As Deborah Tannen says ‘When we think we are using language, language is using us’. It moulds the way we see the world and shapes the way we act.

I’ve used a Benton and Russel quote before, from a committee chair who expressed the view that government ‘aims to make policy as committee-proof as possible’. Whether intentional or not, this metaphor gives a sense that we need to be protected from scrutiny in the same way as a bullet-proof jacket or a bomb proof bunker might protect us from an attack.

So, how do we talk about scrutiny? And what effect does it have?

Well, ‘needing to be scrutinised’ does sound like ‘requires an unpleasant procedure’. In fact any of those ‘ised’ words, imply a one way process - we are recipients not participants. We might be radicalised, traumatised or lobotomised. Perhaps not every -ised word has this feeling, but often they do.

When a report is to be discussed at a scrutiny committee, we often say it will be ’subject to scrutiny’. These words, ’subject to’, often go in phrases like ’subject to discipline’ or ‘subject to interrogation’.

Similarly, executives or other witnesses, will be asked to ‘appear before scrutiny’. Who else do we ‘appear before’? The judge? The magistrate? The court?

And yes, scrutiny does involve an important element of judging, but shouldn’t we also leave room for talking about scrutiny as an improvement conversation.

And what might be better language to use?

Think about other helpful professional conversations we might have. We don’t expect to be doctorised or therpapised or mentorised. Instead we might ‘see the doctor’, ‘speak to a therapist’ or ‘talk with our mentor’. Similarly we might invite people to meet with, talk with or even work with scrutiny.

I think the language is better when it comes to talking about what people might do when they come to scrutiny. They might attend an evidence session, a follow up or hearing, for example. I wonder whether a visit to scrutiny might also be spoken of as a check up, consultation or improvement session, for example.

So, as for my non-scrutiny friend, he, perhaps understandably, remains a little confused, but my hope is that, next time he hears a mention of scrutiny, it’s less that something needs to be scrutinised and more that someone is looking to benefit from a scrutiny discussion.

References

Russel, M and Benton M (2011) Selective influence: The Policy impact of House of Commons select committees, The Constitution Unit

Tannen, D (1998), The Argument Culture. Stopping America’s War of Words

Shannon, B (2021) Words that make me go hmmm… Frontline https://rewritingsocialcare.blog/2021/05/29/frontline/​