October 16, 2025 • 39 mins
Communicating Social Care with Bryony Shannon
In this episode of How Language Matters, Professor Majella Kilkey (Centre for Care, University of Sheffield) speaks with Bryony Shannon, author of the popular ‘Rewriting social care’ blog and book ‘Rewriting social care: challenging and changing language and practice for a better, brighter future’. Bryony has almost 20 years experience in adult social care information, communications and practice development.
Drawing on Bryony's wealth of experience in communicating social care, they discuss:
- How changing the way we speak about social care can help to shift attitudes and reform system structures,
- How current ways of communicating social care, often using dehumanising, othering and distancing language and imagery, can be detrimental to those experiencing the social care system,
- How coproduction can improve the way we speak about social care.
Also in this episode- find out what a 'Coproduction sandwich' is!
The conversation is a crucial listen for anyone in and around the social care sector.
--------
Learn more about our research on the Centre for Care website here: https://centreforcare.ac.uk/
The CARE MATTERS Podcast is produced by Dan Williamson at the Centre for Care.
---Intro/outro music: Music: https://www.purple-planet.com is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:05):
The Care Matters podcast is
brought to youby the ESRC Centre for Care and CIRCLE-
the Centre for International Researchon Care, Labour
and Equalities.
In this series, our researcherswelcome experts in the field
and those giving or receiving careto discuss crucial issues in social care.
(00:27):
As we collectively attemptto make a positive difference to how care
is experienced and provided.
Hello and welcome
to this episode of our podcastmini series, How Language Matters.
My name is Majella Kilkey.
(00:49):
I'm Professor of Social Policyat the University of Sheffield,
where I'm also a co-investigatorin the Centre for Care.
I lead the research group CareTrajectories and Constraints
with my colleague, Dr. Jayanthi Lingham.
I coordinate this podcast mini seriesexploring issues
around languagein care, practice, policy and research.
(01:14):
So in this
episode I'm joined by Bryony Shannon.
Bryony has almost 20 years experience
working in practicedevelopment in adult social care.
Her background, though, is in informationand communications.
It's not background Bryony.
That probably helpsexplain why you decided to start a blog.
(01:36):
Your blog is called ‘RewritingSocial Care’.
Words that make me hmmm.
Or reading the blog.
Sometimes words that make me go,
I think it seems more fitting for a title.
So can you tell me a bitfirst one about the blog
(01:57):
and what motivated you to start it?
Thank you.
Thanks so much, and thanks for inviting meto be part of this.
And I'm really pleased you're doing a,
a series focusing on languages.
It's great just to know that,
yeah,the blogs definitely do some of them.
Some of the wordsdefinitely do make me really,
really go ‘Aargh!’ and really squirm.
(02:18):
And I do find myself having to try notto actually physically squirm quite often
when I hear them.
So, yeah.
So I think the blog really came about,
from, as I say, I've worked
within, adult social care practice,
in local authoritiesfor not quite 20 years.
And that sort of started offworking in a set of information
(02:40):
and comes and really sort of writing about
communicatingabout adult social care and trying.
Well, when I first,first got my first job, as an information
officer in social care, I didn't knowvery much about social care at all.
And I was just kind of confrontedwith all of this jargon, these acronyms,
this just really confusing languagethat I just genuinely didn't understand.
(03:04):
And my role was really to kind ofcommunicate about social care to staff.
So looking at writing policiesand procedures, practice guidance,
but also public information as well,and communicating in sort of factsheets,
leaflets, web pages and just, yeah,writing about social care, how it works.
And so trying to kind of translatethis really complex system
(03:28):
into kind of human friendly language.
And it just felt like it,it just didn't work.
And I think just them, the more well,I did it for a lots of years
and then kind of just felt wrongjust the way that we were communicating
about people.
The way that the sort of the languagewe use represented this whole system of,
(03:51):
around processes, really,rather than around people that sort of
I think the main purpose was the process,the policies, the performance,
and people seem to sort of relationshipshad really been lost in all of that.
So I think trying to kind of yeah,the blog really came about by
sort of highlighting that,I suppose, that sort of frustration
(04:11):
and also from from a reallypersonal perspective, trying to understand
why these words did make me go, whyI didn't like the way
what the language represented, really.
So one of the really early ones was aroundwas customer.
The use of the word customer in relationto, people during on social care.
It just felt wrong.
(04:33):
And I felt like I needed to write about itto work out why.
So it was really kind of a personal reasonjust to, for my own benefit, really.
And then happily,people were quite interested
in what I was writing and wanted to readthe blog, so, so that was really nice.
And then that's kind of just let's say
that what led to me writing moreand but also meeting some great people
(04:54):
and having having lots of conversationsabout why language does matter.
Well, let's blog your blog that we relayedto you through through the blog.
So I mean, it's clear you're an obviouscandidate for this podcast,
series on how language matters.
So really brilliant that we can havethat conversation.
We've invited you to explore languagemore in social care practice
(05:16):
given given youryour your kind of work background.
But before getting into that,I know you've been reflecting
on how social careis talked about in the media.
So what makes you go, or,
when you hearor read of social care in the news.
There's a really kind of negative
(05:37):
association, I think, with social careand a lot of that language
around the, the media use around the setup, the crisis narrative of social care.
So collapsing, ticking time bombs,a sort of sanam and silver tsunami.
It's kind of ageing populationand this whole kind of
yeah, the sort of doom and gloom narrative
(05:58):
about how it's all hopelessand it's all broken.
So largely a kind of very negative,
language then very othering as well.
It's very much about the vulnerable.
Our most vulnerable,those who are vulnerable.
It's it's a lot of it's not about us,it's about them
and that kind of distancingand dehumanising people.
(06:20):
I think, often accompaniedby images as well.
I mean, if you look atthe images that are used on
on articles about social care, often
they are very dehumanised imagesof wrinkly hands, each layer.
And if people take retreating body backs,
people retreating down corridorsor walking frames or things and not human
(06:44):
images at all,they don't have heads, no evidence
of, bodies without heads and,
they facesno sense of kind of human beings.
It's a it'sa very kind of dehumanised image way.
So it does feel very much like it'ssort of people as a problem, as a burden.
The whole caste system is broken.
(07:06):
So, yeah, very negative really.
And I think there is that sensethat we don't want to talk about it
because people peopledon't want to talk about it.
They want to think about it for themselvesand people
they love, because it feels like it'ssomething to be avoided.
And something that's associatedwith decline and kind of losing,
like losing things,but also, losing money as well.
(07:28):
I think that sort of whole kindof narrative around,
having to sell your home to pay for care.
So that's kind of the mood in narrative,the political narrative as well, really.
And then I think sort of local authority,what I saw narrative is often
that quite paternalistic,looking after the vulnerable,
protecting, caring for.
(07:50):
So there's no real sense of people'skind of rights,
citizenship in that language at all.
It's very muchthat sort of, people as passive
recipients, self-careand service users and customers.
Yeah.
I mean,for someone who works in social care,
what does that kind of the crisisnarrative do
to to the workforce?
(08:12):
Because, you know, we hear all the time,
then Hedges is collapsing, social carerscollapse, everything is in crisis.
How do people who work in that go in, dayin, day out and actually do their job?
With that narrative, I think, is.
What I think it's
it avoid or it kind of glosses overall the good things and all that, sort
of the stories that should be being toldabout what is good and,
(08:35):
how social care supportspeople to live really good lives and that,
that narrative doesn'treally come across at all.
And also the narrative around careand support for younger adults as well.
It's very much about older people,so that often there's no kind of sense
that social careis for everybody, for all ages.
(08:56):
And I think, yeah, it's it's a hard it's
hard to work somewhere that feels likeit's constantly sort of under attack.
And, and the, the kind of the benefits
and the positive elements of itaren't really recognised or appreciated.
So yeah, I think it's a real challengeand I think it's a challenge
in terms of recruitmentas well as sort of the
(09:18):
the way that the workforce.
I'm not a massive fan of the work save,and I think it's a lot of kind of language
around the workforce and the front lineand all of those kind of ways.
But yeah, just the way that roles are kindof, again, sort of advertised.
I wrote a blog about,the language of social work, job adverts,
(09:39):
and that language is very muchabout sort of the process
led, transactional type approach, really,
moving cases through a systemand lots of language
around, sort of dealing with complex casesand managing cases
and endless references to people as cases.
So, yeah, that very transactional,
(10:00):
approach, which I don't thinkreflects the reality at all.
I mean, it does to an extent,
and I'm starting to move awaymuch away from that reality.
But yeah, I think it sort of deniesthe actual human
human relationships that really underpinsocial work and social care.
So you say a bit more about the kindof language associated with the processes,
(10:24):
because that's what got your bug from thethat's the beginning.
That's kind of that'swhat motivated the blog.
Well, I think and I think that writingthat the blog about,
social work job advertsjust I found it really hard, actually.
I found it really sad that this washow we were recruiting social workers.
We should thatthat whole profession is around
(10:46):
kind of human rights and social justiceand relationships and citizenship.
And that didn't come across at allin the job advert.
So job adverts were aroundthis kind of transactional
processing people through andand through a system
and almost the languagefelt like it could be sort of you
recruiting baggage handlers,kind of processing cases along this,
(11:08):
those conveyor beltsand, and airports and things.
So it's yeah, the a lot of the wordsI think a lot of those pregnancy words
like screening and signposting and triageand we spero
there's all of that language aboutkind of moving people through a system.
And the way that we talkabout placing people, as well
as sort of placements and placing people
(11:31):
that sort of doing to people,rather than working alongside.
So that whole power dynamic, I thinkreally does come across in the language.
Where does that come from?
What's the origins of that?
Are you talking about people or humanbeings?
Well, I think it comes from theit really comes from
that sort of care managementapproach to social work, really.
(11:55):
That sort of bringing in,
the kind of the idea of peopleas customers,
and consumers and social workersas brokers and, sort of brokering
care packages and that sort of assessmentfor services type factory.
So it makes kind of this real distancefrom people
(12:16):
and from communitiesand from being part of,
communitiesand really working alongside people.
It just the whole care management approachkind of totally took that away.
And, obviously the Care Act 2014was very much designed to step away
from that care management approachand be much more focussed on,
(12:37):
people's wellbeing and meeting needsrather than providing services.
But I think that has obviouslythat approach has a legacy
that takes a long time to get over,
and lots of how we workand how teams are structures
is kind of in response
to that way of sort of processing peoplethrough a system
and the things that we measure as well,the things that we sort of value.
(13:01):
Like,how long does it take for an assessment?
How many assessments have be completed,how many reviews we completed?
It's the very kind of quantitativemeasuring
of how many, how much, how long, rather.
And how was it?
Did it make a difference?
How did it feel and.
How did person experience, how was theirlife changed as a result of this?
(13:22):
Yeah, that's so it'skind of the secondary bit to actually.
Oh, but we've we've kind of dealtwith 40 cases this week or whatever.
It's yeah.
It's it
is that sort of just yeah, the languageof sort of industry and production lines,
in thatreal kind of distance from people as well.
And yeah. What impact does that happen?
(13:45):
The people that you're working
with so that people who needs, you know,er social care,
what, what, what does it do to themand the people around them to be
talked about in this way?
I think it's really,it feels like there is a lot of,
there's division on both sidesand there's kind of they so
(14:06):
people's perception of social workersand people working in local authorities
and such generally is often quite negativebecause of that distance
and because of that sort of seeminglyquite transactional approach.
And just yeah, the way the languagegenerally
I, the people hearing itor feeling that it's used about them,
(14:27):
it's dehumanising.
It feels like it's kind of peoplebeing lumped into these categories and,
put into boxes and often that'show we work by putting people into boxes.
And that's
we need that kind of categorisationto be able to respond to somebody,
because you have to
if you fit in this boxand you get this service and I mean, I'll
we trying to move away from that.
Generally, I think social care
(14:48):
is kind of evolving away from that,but it's still sort of underpins it.
That kind of categorisation.
And the use of labelsand that kind of need to label people are
and I think often there's aI think people feel that
they need to have labelsto get some supports as well.
That kind of idea that you,
you have to be seen as vulnerableor you have to have been at risk or
(15:12):
oh, people have to
describe people they love as in that way,as having complex
needs or, being vulnerableto actually get some support.
I mean, I was talking to somebody todaywho's saying about the term vulnerable is,
used so much in kind of writing bidsfor things to sell,
but this is going to supporta very vulnerable group
(15:33):
without actually saying I youyou mean in that group?
It's just usedas a sort of real kind of catch
all termthat doesn't actually mean anything.
Like who's nice. We're all vulnerable.
Yeah.
That vulnerable to different things indifferent times, different circumstances.
But it's that whole way of sortof labelling people as there's
(15:53):
something wrong with you,you're a problem rather than
addressing.
And so recognising the thingsthat make people vulnerable so.
Individuals it doesn't express.
And I said, I came across thisin another project I worked on, which was,
a project focussed on the experiencesof young third country nationals.
(16:14):
So people from
outside of Europe coming and buildingnew lives in, in European countries
and in the title of the projectwas, vulnerable.
I think they were called vulnerableyoung third country nationals.
And, you know, we kept having to kind of
have change the, the, the terminology,
when we were writing about the project to,to people in vulnerable conditions
(16:38):
or the vulnerabilities and conditionsof the conditions that people
there were in that make them vulnerable.
So the, you know, we agree withyou were all vulnerable,
but it wasn't, you know,they weren't innately vulnerable
because they were 15 orbecause they were, from another country.
It was because of the conditionsthat they were experiencing
(16:59):
for being absolutely irregular classes,irregular migrants
or experiences of racism,
or services not providing for
them properly rather than themas thing being vulnerable.
But it was. Which is so striking how
how easy it was for that, along withthe idea of these are vulnerable people
(17:20):
to get through and that proposedand maybe that
they that wasn't used as you say, maybethe project wouldn't have been funded.
We had to we had to call these peoplevulnerable to harm them, vulnerable
in order to get to get funding to workwith, work with.
Yeah.
And it's so much the sense of that,oh that's my well done.
That's okay then in terms of like,so the councils that have set about,
(17:42):
kind of declaring bankruptcyand kind of financial positions
and there's still lots of but
we will still look after the vulnerableand that's still kind of like this,
that's like
sort of benchmark
of the things that we will continue to dois care for the vulnerable.
And I think like.
Charity doesn't.
End up title, charity model,medical model approach.
Really.
And yeah,I think sorry, particularly during Covid
(18:05):
around the use of the termvulnerable was was everywhere.
And so I've really,
they're really dangerous.
I think the way it was used just in to,I mean, so many people who were kind of
put into the vulnerable groups,
and really resented that.
It kind of made them feel more vulnerable,
I think by being put into thatcategory and,
(18:27):
having that label
put on them, and certainlyI think there was a kind of a narrative,
around people in care homes, particularlybeing particularly vulnerable to Covid.
I think that was almost like listeningto a get out, really, because
actually they're notparticularly vulnerable to Covid.
It is all the thingsthat are going on around them
that make them more vulnerable,like discharge policies and and,
(18:50):
lack of like kind of congregateliving in the first place.
But, lack of protective equipmentand all of this kind of decisions
that were made,but it almost kind of excuses
that because it's out therevery vulnerable anyway.
So they were most likelymore likely to die.
So it's yeah, really, reallykind of horrible, horrible narrative.
And to sorry.
Yeah.
(19:10):
Just banning people into these,these groups.
Yeah. It's marginalising isn't it.
Some kind of just disempowering.
Yeah, definitely.
And just kind of denying responsibility.
I think if they're not recognisingthe things that make people vulnerable,
that can be changed. So. Right.
Just thinking our people,that's how people are.
(19:32):
Oh we need to change people.
We need to fix people.We need to do something to them.
Rather than we need to remove the barriers
and them, the things that are around themthat are making them vulnerable.
The way you talked about the kind of thecategories, numbers, people need to know
that language, which category to be fit
into, or a family member into.
(19:54):
What call that what terminology to use.
When we jumpedin, I met with the centre for Care Voice
forum to talk about this, podcastmini series,
and they talked about howif you don't know that language,
how you risk not getting what you need,it's a really exclusionary
if you can't speak the language, doyou have any kind of experience with that?
(20:19):
Brian. Yeah. That's funny.
I think there are thesesort of gateway terms.
I think vulnerable is one of those termslike complex needs, another term
and at risk and safeguarding concernor safeguarding generally is them.
They are these kind of terms that get,
yeah.
That sort of get you in. Okay.
Get you through it, through a door thatshouldn't be there in the first place.
Really.
(20:40):
And I think equally, there are words
that we sort of use that,
like, kind of try to change thingswithout actually changing things.
So this sort of looking at,like person centred and strength based
and there's kind of words that,
sort of try to change,but they're actually
(21:01):
because they just change in the language,they're not actually changing
kind of attitudes of behaviour.
So anything beneath the surface.
Yeah. So I was going to ask you about
kind of your hopefor shifting the language to you.
But what you just said is that, well,you speak the language, you don't shift
the process in the, in the to says,
but other yeah.
(21:22):
Other good examples are any examples
of organisationsreally trying to change the language.
And then we'll come on to the question,structural change.
Yeah.
I mean, well,
I think, a bit with social carefuture movement, which is very much around
trying to change the narrative
of social care and kind of having this,this vision of social care
(21:43):
as being about
people doing things that matter to them,rather than social care being seen
as sort of looking after the vulnerablein that traditional narrative.
And I think that that kind of wayof seeing social care is really being,
adopted more and more and,
sort of people'srelationship with social care
is that kind of term analogy of peopledrawing on care and support has really,
(22:08):
become used more and more and replacingthe sort of idea
of service users and customers,not totally.
There's still a lot of referencesto service users and customers, but,
yeah, just changing that dynamicreally change that power dynamic
and saying that, like, people haveor should have
agency and choice,
and be able to kind of make the decisions
(22:30):
about the care and supportthat they draw and draw on.
And also that idea that supportis something that leads to something else.
So this, this kind of getting away fromthe idea of care as a destination, some,
some way you go or somethingyou get, you move into care.
But the actually care and supportis something that enables you to get on
(22:53):
with living your life. So that kind of,
yeah,about people's rights and citizenship.
And it's something it's more of a vehiclerather than a destination,
which is the kind of the social carefeature idea around that.
So I think the social care featuremovement is very much around
trying to build that public supportfor reform.
Say yes, we we need lots
(23:15):
more kind of investment in social care,but not to kind of prop up a system
and the way that it works at the moment,but to really kind of radically change,
and to make it more about peopleand make it
much more, yeah, about all of usrather than is kind of hold them in us.
So I think there's yeah, I think there'slots of conversations trying to change
(23:37):
the narrative, like centre for ageingbetter have got a brilliant image library,
of imagesof older people trying to kind of replace
this whole kind of imageryaround the wrinkly hands.
And yeah, that'sthey're really looking to expand that.
I think in terms of kind of the wholenarrative sort of imagery around
(23:58):
social care.
So I think it'sso it's starting to change.
I definitely think it is. It is starting.
I know you've written a pieceon, co-production is one of your words.
But you know, to what extent these arethese changes,
are these kind of radical revisioning,reimagining or rewriting?
(24:20):
I think you talk about radical rewriting.
To what extent?
Those ideas being co-producedwith people who, you know, you service.
Yeah. Oh, very much.I mean, I think it's really important.
I don't I'm,I don't have a problem with co-production.
It's a bit jargony, but, but essentiallyit is about making something together.
That's kind of what it means.And that is what it's all about.
(24:43):
And I think often my problem withis who is all the words that get used
around it, like engagement and empowermentand managing expectations
and that kind of narrative,which still kind of sits the power
with an organisationwho are engaging people to kind of come,
come to us and tell us what you thinkabout the things that we want
to talk about, rather than really kind ofreally working alongside people.
(25:07):
But I think for me,the more that you do work with people
and different peopleand diverse groups of people,
well, partly that calls out the languagein the first place
because people are saying,I don't know what you mean.
I don't want a word that usethat word to talk about me.
So it calls out that languageand really highlights
that language that shouldn't be used.
(25:27):
But I'll
say, yeah, it's part of buildingthat sort of future together around
what good looks likeand really, really changing things
based on people's experienceand people's knowledge and people's ideas
and that kind of recognised recognitionthat the people who have
these experiences are drawing oncare and support,
know what good looks likeand what that looks like.
And I've got the ideas and can be sort of,
(25:51):
the people that should be drivingthose changes and really,
being part of those changesand part of the support as well.
So rather than these kind of institutions
coming in and looking after people,
that whole kind of senseof kind of peer support and people
looking out for each other,I think really shifting the idea of care
(26:11):
and support away from institutions,
and servicesmuch more towards communities.
And, yeah, the sense of peoplelooking out for each other.
So yeah, I think the wholeand a co-production, even though
like it's one of those termsthat is kind of in danger of being used
and what is alreadyI think is an abuse and slapped on things,
quite often it's a kind of like,
(26:32):
what do you think about thisthat we've already done?
And you just take this box for usand rather than that real kind of
totally different approach.
And I think that's it's doingquite a lot of work with Trisha.
Nicole, linked to the social care futurearound co-production and around me.
So it's that co-production sandwich.
But what's that like.
(26:54):
The way we made it out?
As you say, you have,you can invest in slice of bread,
which is the real fundamental stuff,
which is really how you think about peopleand talk about people and the language
that you use that people as us, we,
human beings.
And that's if you don't havethat in place, then you've got a sandwich.
Basically, you haven't got your bottomlayer of bread.
(27:15):
Then there's a bit in the middle,which is the kind of like the everyday,
like involving people in, in changingthings, developing things at the everyday.
Changes.
So, so how will you recruit people,
making sure that people who do experienceare really involved in that?
How we're designing,
new policies or bits of informationor just making changes to the changes
(27:38):
that need to be made and how we work,and then that's sort of the top
slice of bread is that kindof strategic level of co-production.
So the real sort of oversight type,making big decisions
about,how money is spent or the overall policy.
So priorities of organisationsand so kind of thing
often co-production is that top.
(27:59):
There is that that's a bitthat's seen it's thought about over.
We'll have a group that meetsbut you haven't got the bit.
You gotta have a sandwich
with just that top layer of bread,whereas you can't have an open sandwich
with the bottom layer of breadand the filling. Yeah.
So you need that strategic bit.
Obviously it's good to have it.
Oh, and I think we, we talk a lot aboutthis sandwich business about well you.
(28:22):
Have the same routine
because as you were talkingI was thinking about a Victoria sponge
for then that'sbecause I have a sweet tooth for,
might be another way.
Otherwise think about it.
But yet I really got theI really get the layering.
I think we had a conversation over coffeebefore we recorded this podcast,
and I was talking about the layer
and saying that the co-production withinthe centre for care is very much layered.
(28:45):
Yeah. So something, something similar.
But that sandwich analogy is a really,really, really good one.
Yeah, I kind of like the biscuit.
I always makes people hungry as well.
But we've talked about itwith different people
that that kind of idea of some,it's like the best sandwiches
are the messy sandwichesthat you've got like bits falling out,
poking bits back inand like they all look different
and everybody hasit looks different for everybody.
(29:05):
There's not a kind of a one sizecan actually thing is.
Yeah. Exactly.
Yes. And different types of breadsand not you kind of just you've planned
like sliced slightly killed at the edge,one size fits all kind of,
pre-prepared sandwich,but something that is yeah,
kind of bespoke and can look differentand different and places.
So yeah, I think the sandwich analogy casebut maybe it's quite useful
(29:28):
to think about that sort of the everydaythat the bottom
slice of bread and as the appetiteconversations that we're having.
Yeah.
Because I mean if you don't talk to peopleabout how they feel about the language
that's been used about them orto process them through their system, then
we don't really we're not we're not awareof kind of what that's doing to people.
(29:49):
And when Jonathan, I metwith the send for Carers Voice forum,
which is one layer of centrefor carers co-production approach,
big thing that came up was
how stigmatising a lot of the languagethat they experienced,
as the, as kind of service usersto use that language.
That might beanother kind of difficult term.
(30:13):
But yeah,how stigmatising it was for them.
And they really wanted thatto be kind of a theme that we developed
through this, through this podcast series,but without talking to people with that
lived experience, it's really hardwhen you're on the frontline.
Another to kind of know what that
what that's doingand how that's experience and felt.
(30:34):
Yeah, I mean, yeah, thethe term service uses is really kind of
whenever I speak to people, that's,that's the term I think that but really,
upsets people quite lightly.
The sort of idea that people are
put into this category kind of definedin terms of their relationship.
But the service, the whole idea of useis as well sort of connotations,
(30:55):
links with kind of drug useand abuse and sort of exploitation.
And just that.
Yeah.
The sort of like density of social careas services in terms of services,
there'skind of a whole host of reasons why.
Yeah, it's just not, it's just it's veryit is very dehumanising.
(31:15):
It's very kind of like you'reall in this category over there,
and we're just seeing youbecause you are using a service
and that sort of passive nature of thatas well.
Like. Yeah.
So when talk about co-productionand people actually having some,
an active role in kind of shapingtheir own lives, their own support,
(31:35):
but also the kind of the widerdevelopments of care and sports as well.
It's a very it's a kind of a language.
It's very passive.
It's very much kind of likeyou don't have any active role in this.
Yeah.
Over there you're in this kind of categorywith all these other people
that are the same as you,but different to us
and that sort ofreal kind of feminist divides, I think.
Yeah. So yeah.
(31:56):
So we're not all users of servicesfor your own benefit.
It's not at some point in our livesit's a different times.
Yeah.
And it's just such a termthat gets used like
anybody who has anything to do with socialcare is a service user in the same way
that anybody who has anything to do withhealth is a patient.
And they just kind of like categorisepeople
into that sort of social careis about services.
(32:18):
Health is about medication and treatment.
Rather and just
talking about peopleso as to talk about people.
And the language is oftenblaming of people as well.
So I saw that you'd written somethingabout the notion of how to reach.
And this is somethingthat we've been debated within research
(32:40):
and universities as well, because the termthat I did, people were hard to reach.
And that's, you know, this, thatand that's why they're not in this study
or we don't know anything about them
that they arethey're the problem, they're to blame.
And in research nice.
It's you find more commonlythe term seldom heard.
(33:00):
So it's not that it's it's
that we haven't done enoughto kind of hear their experiences,
but that blaming of people themselves orgroups, particular groups within society
because they're not coming for wordsor they're hiding selves away or.
Doing what we want them to do, basically.
I mean, I think a lot I mean, it's reallyrife that sort of that blaming language.
(33:22):
All of that is hard to say.
It's difficult to engage,non-compliant, challenging.
There's so many terms that blame peoplebecause I think people
because we have an expectationof how things should be,
and we want people to fit into that.
And when people don't fit into that,then we blame them being wrong or
difficult to engage or refusing to engage,that kind of that sense that people,
(33:47):
making a choice
that they, they like,they're choosing not to,
engage.
I mean, the how engage is like,it's this type of dynamic
so that anyway, in termsof kind of engaging people,
it's very much aboutcome to us do this when we want you to do.
We're going to hold a meetingon a Wednesday afternoon in this building.
(34:08):
Come and engage with us.
Well, it rather than that, like,let's go out and let's chat people
and find people where they areand kind of.
Yeah.
And ask them to join in with thingsthat are already going on
rather than kind of like itall being on our terms.
So I think a lot of that blaminglanguage is really is.
Yeah, that power dynamic issort of really sharing that power dynamic
(34:29):
and the sort of the expectations of wayspeople should behave
and just yeah, playing people as problemsrather than like,
like challenging, challenging behaviourthat sense that there is
people's behaviour is the problemrather than people's behaviour.
Like the way people behaveis communicating something.
What are they communicating?
What's behind that communication?
(34:51):
And is that distress or angeror something else that we need to kind of
look at the motivation for the behaviours,rather than kind of punishing the
behaviours with kind of restraining peopleor medicating people or whatever it is.
Let's look at.
I mean, it's like, like honourable again,it's back to that sort of like
blaming the person rather
than looking at the wider society,what's going on
(35:14):
around them, what's happened in the pastto them as well?
That's kind of behind that behaviour.
I need to hear you kind of.
Throughout Bonnierecognise the importance of structure.
And so, you know,you said even if you kind of
change the language,we have changed language.
You gave examples kind of person centredcare co-productions.
(35:36):
We can change the language,but unless we change the processes
and the systems, that'snot going to make that much difference.
And that this was a key message.
From the Voice Forum Centre for CareVoice Forum, when we talked about this
idea was that, you know,there's a risk that changing language
is just a window dressing.
(35:56):
You know, to what
extent can that really well,to what extent does
it maybe distract from the real problems,which is changing the language?
But to what extent can languagereally change the structure structures
and then equalities and the powerimbalances that you've talked about.
Yeah. Great.
It's really important. Very question,I think.
(36:17):
And you definitely both I think you can'tyou can't just change the language,
but unless you change the language,nothing else is going to change it.
I think.
So we need there have been attemptsof the saying things
like person centred and strength based,
and co-production too, in a sense as well.
I kind of used really as buzzwords andthat kind of like wheeled out and like,
(36:39):
oh yeah, this is the thing.
So strengthbased in the way that we're working or
this is so person centred,
but they've just becomethese sort of buzzwords that are used.
And I don't think there isn't actuallythat sort of underlying change
in terms of assets due to the behavioursor structures that underpin that.
And I think unless that sort of there'sthat real recognition
(36:59):
of kind of the power, behindkind of relationships and dynamics and
really how people see other people,
and while people see other peopleas kind of less worthy or needy or,
in these categories, you know,I don't think you're going to change.
You're not going to get intothat kind of person
(37:20):
centred, strength based, etc., etc.
are meaningless.
And even sort of changing structuresand things.
And I mean, then the restructuresand sort of the idea of transformation
and transforming services by a restructureor a rebranding
or renaming, and you're actually reallygetting back to that.
The button size of bread
(37:41):
really kind of like how how we seeand understand and communicate with people
as people, as human beings, as us,as we're you, rather than them over there
who are differentand somehow lesser and not quite as human.
And as we really change that,
then all the rest of the changeis meaningless, I think.
So we've got to change the language,but we've got to change the attitudes
(38:03):
and the kind of behaviours that underpinthings that they do go hand in hand.
And I think unless you really changea set of attitudes and behaviours,
you can't,
you're not going to get that really sayyou've got to change, change both.
But I thinkif you don't change the language
then you're going to keep that sort ofdehumanising distancing attitudes.
(38:26):
So they do go hand in hand.
You've got to have both really,
I think so I think often people say,oh, it's just changing.
Just changing the language isn't enough.
And I totally agree. Just changingthe language isn't enough.
But I think it's really importantto change the language.
Yeah.
Well, on that message,I think we'll we'll bring it to an end.
You've set up a really important challengearound changing, but,
(38:49):
thanks very much, Ryan. It's been great.
Thank you to about this. Thank you.
Thanks for. Having me. Thank you.
The Care Matters podcast is
brought to youby the ESRC Centre for Care and CIRCLE-
the Centre for International Researchon Care, Labour
and Equalities.
In this series, our researcherswelcome experts in the field
and those giving or receiving careto discuss crucial issues in social care.
(00:27):
As we collectively attemptto make a positive difference to how care
is experienced and provided.
Hello and welcome
to this episode of our podcastmini series, How Language Matters.
My name is Majella Kilkey.
(00:49):
I'm Professor of Social Policyat the University of Sheffield,
where I'm also a co-investigatorin the Centre for Care.
I lead the research group CareTrajectories and Constraints
with my colleague, Dr. Jayanthi Lingham.
I coordinate this podcast mini seriesexploring issues
around languagein care, practice, policy and research.
(01:14):
So in this
episode I'm joined by Bryony Shannon.
Bryony has almost 20 years experience
working in practicedevelopment in adult social care.
Her background, though, is in informationand communications.
It's not background Bryony.
That probably helpsexplain why you decided to start a blog.
(01:36):
Your blog is called ‘RewritingSocial Care’.
Words that make me hmmm.
Or reading the blog.
Sometimes words that make me go,
I think it seems more fitting for a title.
So can you tell me a bitfirst one about the blog
(01:57):
and what motivated you to start it?
Thank you.
Thanks so much, and thanks for inviting meto be part of this.
And I'm really pleased you're doing a,
a series focusing on languages.
It's great just to know that,
yeah,the blogs definitely do some of them.
Some of the wordsdefinitely do make me really,
really go ‘Aargh!’ and really squirm.
(02:18):
And I do find myself having to try notto actually physically squirm quite often
when I hear them.
So, yeah.
So I think the blog really came about,
from, as I say, I've worked
within, adult social care practice,
in local authoritiesfor not quite 20 years.
And that sort of started offworking in a set of information
(02:40):
and comes and really sort of writing about
communicatingabout adult social care and trying.
Well, when I first,first got my first job, as an information
officer in social care, I didn't knowvery much about social care at all.
And I was just kind of confrontedwith all of this jargon, these acronyms,
this just really confusing languagethat I just genuinely didn't understand.
(03:04):
And my role was really to kind ofcommunicate about social care to staff.
So looking at writing policiesand procedures, practice guidance,
but also public information as well,and communicating in sort of factsheets,
leaflets, web pages and just, yeah,writing about social care, how it works.
And so trying to kind of translatethis really complex system
(03:28):
into kind of human friendly language.
And it just felt like it,it just didn't work.
And I think just them, the more well,I did it for a lots of years
and then kind of just felt wrongjust the way that we were communicating
about people.
The way that the sort of the languagewe use represented this whole system of,
(03:51):
around processes, really,rather than around people that sort of
I think the main purpose was the process,the policies, the performance,
and people seem to sort of relationshipshad really been lost in all of that.
So I think trying to kind of yeah,the blog really came about by
sort of highlighting that,I suppose, that sort of frustration
(04:11):
and also from from a reallypersonal perspective, trying to understand
why these words did make me go, whyI didn't like the way
what the language represented, really.
So one of the really early ones was aroundwas customer.
The use of the word customer in relationto, people during on social care.
It just felt wrong.
(04:33):
And I felt like I needed to write about itto work out why.
So it was really kind of a personal reasonjust to, for my own benefit, really.
And then happily,people were quite interested
in what I was writing and wanted to readthe blog, so, so that was really nice.
And then that's kind of just let's say
that what led to me writing moreand but also meeting some great people
(04:54):
and having having lots of conversationsabout why language does matter.
Well, let's blog your blog that we relayedto you through through the blog.
So I mean, it's clear you're an obviouscandidate for this podcast,
series on how language matters.
So really brilliant that we can havethat conversation.
We've invited you to explore languagemore in social care practice
(05:16):
given given youryour your kind of work background.
But before getting into that,I know you've been reflecting
on how social careis talked about in the media.
So what makes you go, or,
when you hearor read of social care in the news.
There's a really kind of negative
(05:37):
association, I think, with social careand a lot of that language
around the, the media use around the setup, the crisis narrative of social care.
So collapsing, ticking time bombs,a sort of sanam and silver tsunami.
It's kind of ageing populationand this whole kind of
yeah, the sort of doom and gloom narrative
(05:58):
about how it's all hopelessand it's all broken.
So largely a kind of very negative,
language then very othering as well.
It's very much about the vulnerable.
Our most vulnerable,those who are vulnerable.
It's it's a lot of it's not about us,it's about them
and that kind of distancingand dehumanising people.
(06:20):
I think, often accompaniedby images as well.
I mean, if you look atthe images that are used on
on articles about social care, often
they are very dehumanised imagesof wrinkly hands, each layer.
And if people take retreating body backs,
people retreating down corridorsor walking frames or things and not human
(06:44):
images at all,they don't have heads, no evidence
of, bodies without heads and,
they facesno sense of kind of human beings.
It's a it'sa very kind of dehumanised image way.
So it does feel very much like it'ssort of people as a problem, as a burden.
The whole caste system is broken.
(07:06):
So, yeah, very negative really.
And I think there is that sensethat we don't want to talk about it
because people peopledon't want to talk about it.
They want to think about it for themselvesand people
they love, because it feels like it'ssomething to be avoided.
And something that's associatedwith decline and kind of losing,
like losing things,but also, losing money as well.
(07:28):
I think that sort of whole kindof narrative around,
having to sell your home to pay for care.
So that's kind of the mood in narrative,the political narrative as well, really.
And then I think sort of local authority,what I saw narrative is often
that quite paternalistic,looking after the vulnerable,
protecting, caring for.
(07:50):
So there's no real sense of people'skind of rights,
citizenship in that language at all.
It's very muchthat sort of, people as passive
recipients, self-careand service users and customers.
Yeah.
I mean,for someone who works in social care,
what does that kind of the crisisnarrative do
to to the workforce?
(08:12):
Because, you know, we hear all the time,
then Hedges is collapsing, social carerscollapse, everything is in crisis.
How do people who work in that go in, dayin, day out and actually do their job?
With that narrative, I think, is.
What I think it's
it avoid or it kind of glosses overall the good things and all that, sort
of the stories that should be being toldabout what is good and,
(08:35):
how social care supportspeople to live really good lives and that,
that narrative doesn'treally come across at all.
And also the narrative around careand support for younger adults as well.
It's very much about older people,so that often there's no kind of sense
that social careis for everybody, for all ages.
(08:56):
And I think, yeah, it's it's a hard it's
hard to work somewhere that feels likeit's constantly sort of under attack.
And, and the, the kind of the benefits
and the positive elements of itaren't really recognised or appreciated.
So yeah, I think it's a real challengeand I think it's a challenge
in terms of recruitmentas well as sort of the
(09:18):
the way that the workforce.
I'm not a massive fan of the work save,and I think it's a lot of kind of language
around the workforce and the front lineand all of those kind of ways.
But yeah, just the way that roles are kindof, again, sort of advertised.
I wrote a blog about,the language of social work, job adverts,
(09:39):
and that language is very muchabout sort of the process
led, transactional type approach, really,
moving cases through a systemand lots of language
around, sort of dealing with complex casesand managing cases
and endless references to people as cases.
So, yeah, that very transactional,
(10:00):
approach, which I don't thinkreflects the reality at all.
I mean, it does to an extent,
and I'm starting to move awaymuch away from that reality.
But yeah, I think it sort of deniesthe actual human
human relationships that really underpinsocial work and social care.
So you say a bit more about the kindof language associated with the processes,
(10:24):
because that's what got your bug from thethat's the beginning.
That's kind of that'swhat motivated the blog.
Well, I think and I think that writingthat the blog about,
social work job advertsjust I found it really hard, actually.
I found it really sad that this washow we were recruiting social workers.
We should thatthat whole profession is around
(10:46):
kind of human rights and social justiceand relationships and citizenship.
And that didn't come across at allin the job advert.
So job adverts were aroundthis kind of transactional
processing people through andand through a system
and almost the languagefelt like it could be sort of you
recruiting baggage handlers,kind of processing cases along this,
(11:08):
those conveyor beltsand, and airports and things.
So it's yeah, the a lot of the wordsI think a lot of those pregnancy words
like screening and signposting and triageand we spero
there's all of that language aboutkind of moving people through a system.
And the way that we talkabout placing people, as well
as sort of placements and placing people
(11:31):
that sort of doing to people,rather than working alongside.
So that whole power dynamic, I thinkreally does come across in the language.
Where does that come from?
What's the origins of that?
Are you talking about people or humanbeings?
Well, I think it comes from theit really comes from
that sort of care managementapproach to social work, really.
(11:55):
That sort of bringing in,
the kind of the idea of peopleas customers,
and consumers and social workersas brokers and, sort of brokering
care packages and that sort of assessmentfor services type factory.
So it makes kind of this real distancefrom people
(12:16):
and from communitiesand from being part of,
communitiesand really working alongside people.
It just the whole care management approachkind of totally took that away.
And, obviously the Care Act 2014was very much designed to step away
from that care management approachand be much more focussed on,
(12:37):
people's wellbeing and meeting needsrather than providing services.
But I think that has obviouslythat approach has a legacy
that takes a long time to get over,
and lots of how we workand how teams are structures
is kind of in response
to that way of sort of processing peoplethrough a system
and the things that we measure as well,the things that we sort of value.
(13:01):
Like,how long does it take for an assessment?
How many assessments have be completed,how many reviews we completed?
It's the very kind of quantitativemeasuring
of how many, how much, how long, rather.
And how was it?
Did it make a difference?
How did it feel and.
How did person experience, how was theirlife changed as a result of this?
(13:22):
Yeah, that's so it'skind of the secondary bit to actually.
Oh, but we've we've kind of dealtwith 40 cases this week or whatever.
It's yeah.
It's it
is that sort of just yeah, the languageof sort of industry and production lines,
in thatreal kind of distance from people as well.
And yeah. What impact does that happen?
(13:45):
The people that you're working
with so that people who needs, you know,er social care,
what, what, what does it do to themand the people around them to be
talked about in this way?
I think it's really,it feels like there is a lot of,
there's division on both sidesand there's kind of they so
(14:06):
people's perception of social workersand people working in local authorities
and such generally is often quite negativebecause of that distance
and because of that sort of seeminglyquite transactional approach.
And just yeah, the way the languagegenerally
I, the people hearing itor feeling that it's used about them,
(14:27):
it's dehumanising.
It feels like it's kind of peoplebeing lumped into these categories and,
put into boxes and often that'show we work by putting people into boxes.
And that's
we need that kind of categorisationto be able to respond to somebody,
because you have to
if you fit in this boxand you get this service and I mean, I'll
we trying to move away from that.
Generally, I think social care
(14:48):
is kind of evolving away from that,but it's still sort of underpins it.
That kind of categorisation.
And the use of labelsand that kind of need to label people are
and I think often there's aI think people feel that
they need to have labelsto get some supports as well.
That kind of idea that you,
you have to be seen as vulnerableor you have to have been at risk or
(15:12):
oh, people have to
describe people they love as in that way,as having complex
needs or, being vulnerableto actually get some support.
I mean, I was talking to somebody todaywho's saying about the term vulnerable is,
used so much in kind of writing bidsfor things to sell,
but this is going to supporta very vulnerable group
(15:33):
without actually saying I youyou mean in that group?
It's just usedas a sort of real kind of catch
all termthat doesn't actually mean anything.
Like who's nice. We're all vulnerable.
Yeah.
That vulnerable to different things indifferent times, different circumstances.
But it's that whole way of sortof labelling people as there's
(15:53):
something wrong with you,you're a problem rather than
addressing.
And so recognising the thingsthat make people vulnerable so.
Individuals it doesn't express.
And I said, I came across thisin another project I worked on, which was,
a project focussed on the experiencesof young third country nationals.
(16:14):
So people from
outside of Europe coming and buildingnew lives in, in European countries
and in the title of the projectwas, vulnerable.
I think they were called vulnerableyoung third country nationals.
And, you know, we kept having to kind of
have change the, the, the terminology,
when we were writing about the project to,to people in vulnerable conditions
(16:38):
or the vulnerabilities and conditionsof the conditions that people
there were in that make them vulnerable.
So the, you know, we agree withyou were all vulnerable,
but it wasn't, you know,they weren't innately vulnerable
because they were 15 orbecause they were, from another country.
It was because of the conditionsthat they were experiencing
(16:59):
for being absolutely irregular classes,irregular migrants
or experiences of racism,
or services not providing for
them properly rather than themas thing being vulnerable.
But it was. Which is so striking how
how easy it was for that, along withthe idea of these are vulnerable people
(17:20):
to get through and that proposedand maybe that
they that wasn't used as you say, maybethe project wouldn't have been funded.
We had to we had to call these peoplevulnerable to harm them, vulnerable
in order to get to get funding to workwith, work with.
Yeah.
And it's so much the sense of that,oh that's my well done.
That's okay then in terms of like,so the councils that have set about,
(17:42):
kind of declaring bankruptcyand kind of financial positions
and there's still lots of but
we will still look after the vulnerableand that's still kind of like this,
that's like
sort of benchmark
of the things that we will continue to dois care for the vulnerable.
And I think like.
Charity doesn't.
End up title, charity model,medical model approach.
Really.
And yeah,I think sorry, particularly during Covid
(18:05):
around the use of the termvulnerable was was everywhere.
And so I've really,
they're really dangerous.
I think the way it was used just in to,I mean, so many people who were kind of
put into the vulnerable groups,
and really resented that.
It kind of made them feel more vulnerable,
I think by being put into thatcategory and,
(18:27):
having that label
put on them, and certainlyI think there was a kind of a narrative,
around people in care homes, particularlybeing particularly vulnerable to Covid.
I think that was almost like listeningto a get out, really, because
actually they're notparticularly vulnerable to Covid.
It is all the thingsthat are going on around them
that make them more vulnerable,like discharge policies and and,
(18:50):
lack of like kind of congregateliving in the first place.
But, lack of protective equipmentand all of this kind of decisions
that were made,but it almost kind of excuses
that because it's out therevery vulnerable anyway.
So they were most likelymore likely to die.
So it's yeah, really, reallykind of horrible, horrible narrative.
And to sorry.
Yeah.
(19:10):
Just banning people into these,these groups.
Yeah. It's marginalising isn't it.
Some kind of just disempowering.
Yeah, definitely.
And just kind of denying responsibility.
I think if they're not recognisingthe things that make people vulnerable,
that can be changed. So. Right.
Just thinking our people,that's how people are.
(19:32):
Oh we need to change people.
We need to fix people.We need to do something to them.
Rather than we need to remove the barriers
and them, the things that are around themthat are making them vulnerable.
The way you talked about the kind of thecategories, numbers, people need to know
that language, which category to be fit
into, or a family member into.
(19:54):
What call that what terminology to use.
When we jumpedin, I met with the centre for Care Voice
forum to talk about this, podcastmini series,
and they talked about howif you don't know that language,
how you risk not getting what you need,it's a really exclusionary
if you can't speak the language, doyou have any kind of experience with that?
(20:19):
Brian. Yeah. That's funny.
I think there are thesesort of gateway terms.
I think vulnerable is one of those termslike complex needs, another term
and at risk and safeguarding concernor safeguarding generally is them.
They are these kind of terms that get,
yeah.
That sort of get you in. Okay.
Get you through it, through a door thatshouldn't be there in the first place.
Really.
(20:40):
And I think equally, there are words
that we sort of use that,
like, kind of try to change thingswithout actually changing things.
So this sort of looking at,like person centred and strength based
and there's kind of words that,
sort of try to change,but they're actually
(21:01):
because they just change in the language,they're not actually changing
kind of attitudes of behaviour.
So anything beneath the surface.
Yeah. So I was going to ask you about
kind of your hopefor shifting the language to you.
But what you just said is that, well,you speak the language, you don't shift
the process in the, in the to says,
but other yeah.
(21:22):
Other good examples are any examples
of organisationsreally trying to change the language.
And then we'll come on to the question,structural change.
Yeah.
I mean, well,
I think, a bit with social carefuture movement, which is very much around
trying to change the narrative
of social care and kind of having this,this vision of social care
(21:43):
as being about
people doing things that matter to them,rather than social care being seen
as sort of looking after the vulnerablein that traditional narrative.
And I think that that kind of wayof seeing social care is really being,
adopted more and more and,
sort of people'srelationship with social care
is that kind of term analogy of peopledrawing on care and support has really,
(22:08):
become used more and more and replacingthe sort of idea
of service users and customers,not totally.
There's still a lot of referencesto service users and customers, but,
yeah, just changing that dynamicreally change that power dynamic
and saying that, like, people haveor should have
agency and choice,
and be able to kind of make the decisions
(22:30):
about the care and supportthat they draw and draw on.
And also that idea that supportis something that leads to something else.
So this, this kind of getting away fromthe idea of care as a destination, some,
some way you go or somethingyou get, you move into care.
But the actually care and supportis something that enables you to get on
(22:53):
with living your life. So that kind of,
yeah,about people's rights and citizenship.
And it's something it's more of a vehiclerather than a destination,
which is the kind of the social carefeature idea around that.
So I think the social care featuremovement is very much around
trying to build that public supportfor reform.
Say yes, we we need lots
(23:15):
more kind of investment in social care,but not to kind of prop up a system
and the way that it works at the moment,but to really kind of radically change,
and to make it more about peopleand make it
much more, yeah, about all of usrather than is kind of hold them in us.
So I think there's yeah, I think there'slots of conversations trying to change
(23:37):
the narrative, like centre for ageingbetter have got a brilliant image library,
of imagesof older people trying to kind of replace
this whole kind of imageryaround the wrinkly hands.
And yeah, that'sthey're really looking to expand that.
I think in terms of kind of the wholenarrative sort of imagery around
(23:58):
social care.
So I think it'sso it's starting to change.
I definitely think it is. It is starting.
I know you've written a pieceon, co-production is one of your words.
But you know, to what extent these arethese changes,
are these kind of radical revisioning,reimagining or rewriting?
(24:20):
I think you talk about radical rewriting.
To what extent?
Those ideas being co-producedwith people who, you know, you service.
Yeah. Oh, very much.I mean, I think it's really important.
I don't I'm,I don't have a problem with co-production.
It's a bit jargony, but, but essentiallyit is about making something together.
That's kind of what it means.And that is what it's all about.
(24:43):
And I think often my problem withis who is all the words that get used
around it, like engagement and empowermentand managing expectations
and that kind of narrative,which still kind of sits the power
with an organisationwho are engaging people to kind of come,
come to us and tell us what you thinkabout the things that we want
to talk about, rather than really kind ofreally working alongside people.
(25:07):
But I think for me,the more that you do work with people
and different peopleand diverse groups of people,
well, partly that calls out the languagein the first place
because people are saying,I don't know what you mean.
I don't want a word that usethat word to talk about me.
So it calls out that languageand really highlights
that language that shouldn't be used.
(25:27):
But I'll
say, yeah, it's part of buildingthat sort of future together around
what good looks likeand really, really changing things
based on people's experienceand people's knowledge and people's ideas
and that kind of recognised recognitionthat the people who have
these experiences are drawing oncare and support,
know what good looks likeand what that looks like.
And I've got the ideas and can be sort of,
(25:51):
the people that should be drivingthose changes and really,
being part of those changesand part of the support as well.
So rather than these kind of institutions
coming in and looking after people,
that whole kind of senseof kind of peer support and people
looking out for each other,I think really shifting the idea of care
(26:11):
and support away from institutions,
and servicesmuch more towards communities.
And, yeah, the sense of peoplelooking out for each other.
So yeah, I think the wholeand a co-production, even though
like it's one of those termsthat is kind of in danger of being used
and what is alreadyI think is an abuse and slapped on things,
quite often it's a kind of like,
(26:32):
what do you think about thisthat we've already done?
And you just take this box for usand rather than that real kind of
totally different approach.
And I think that's it's doingquite a lot of work with Trisha.
Nicole, linked to the social care futurearound co-production and around me.
So it's that co-production sandwich.
But what's that like.
(26:54):
The way we made it out?
As you say, you have,you can invest in slice of bread,
which is the real fundamental stuff,
which is really how you think about peopleand talk about people and the language
that you use that people as us, we,
human beings.
And that's if you don't havethat in place, then you've got a sandwich.
Basically, you haven't got your bottomlayer of bread.
(27:15):
Then there's a bit in the middle,which is the kind of like the everyday,
like involving people in, in changingthings, developing things at the everyday.
Changes.
So, so how will you recruit people,
making sure that people who do experienceare really involved in that?
How we're designing,
new policies or bits of informationor just making changes to the changes
(27:38):
that need to be made and how we work,and then that's sort of the top
slice of bread is that kindof strategic level of co-production.
So the real sort of oversight type,making big decisions
about,how money is spent or the overall policy.
So priorities of organisationsand so kind of thing
often co-production is that top.
(27:59):
There is that that's a bitthat's seen it's thought about over.
We'll have a group that meetsbut you haven't got the bit.
You gotta have a sandwich
with just that top layer of bread,whereas you can't have an open sandwich
with the bottom layer of breadand the filling. Yeah.
So you need that strategic bit.
Obviously it's good to have it.
Oh, and I think we, we talk a lot aboutthis sandwich business about well you.
(28:22):
Have the same routine
because as you were talkingI was thinking about a Victoria sponge
for then that'sbecause I have a sweet tooth for,
might be another way.
Otherwise think about it.
But yet I really got theI really get the layering.
I think we had a conversation over coffeebefore we recorded this podcast,
and I was talking about the layer
and saying that the co-production withinthe centre for care is very much layered.
(28:45):
Yeah. So something, something similar.
But that sandwich analogy is a really,really, really good one.
Yeah, I kind of like the biscuit.
I always makes people hungry as well.
But we've talked about itwith different people
that that kind of idea of some,it's like the best sandwiches
are the messy sandwichesthat you've got like bits falling out,
poking bits back inand like they all look different
and everybody hasit looks different for everybody.
(29:05):
There's not a kind of a one sizecan actually thing is.
Yeah. Exactly.
Yes. And different types of breadsand not you kind of just you've planned
like sliced slightly killed at the edge,one size fits all kind of,
pre-prepared sandwich,but something that is yeah,
kind of bespoke and can look differentand different and places.
So yeah, I think the sandwich analogy casebut maybe it's quite useful
(29:28):
to think about that sort of the everydaythat the bottom
slice of bread and as the appetiteconversations that we're having.
Yeah.
Because I mean if you don't talk to peopleabout how they feel about the language
that's been used about them orto process them through their system, then
we don't really we're not we're not awareof kind of what that's doing to people.
(29:49):
And when Jonathan, I metwith the send for Carers Voice forum,
which is one layer of centrefor carers co-production approach,
big thing that came up was
how stigmatising a lot of the languagethat they experienced,
as the, as kind of service usersto use that language.
That might beanother kind of difficult term.
(30:13):
But yeah,how stigmatising it was for them.
And they really wanted thatto be kind of a theme that we developed
through this, through this podcast series,but without talking to people with that
lived experience, it's really hardwhen you're on the frontline.
Another to kind of know what that
what that's doingand how that's experience and felt.
(30:34):
Yeah, I mean, yeah, thethe term service uses is really kind of
whenever I speak to people, that's,that's the term I think that but really,
upsets people quite lightly.
The sort of idea that people are
put into this category kind of definedin terms of their relationship.
But the service, the whole idea of useis as well sort of connotations,
(30:55):
links with kind of drug useand abuse and sort of exploitation.
And just that.
Yeah.
The sort of like density of social careas services in terms of services,
there'skind of a whole host of reasons why.
Yeah, it's just not, it's just it's veryit is very dehumanising.
(31:15):
It's very kind of like you'reall in this category over there,
and we're just seeing youbecause you are using a service
and that sort of passive nature of thatas well.
Like. Yeah.
So when talk about co-productionand people actually having some,
an active role in kind of shapingtheir own lives, their own support,
(31:35):
but also the kind of the widerdevelopments of care and sports as well.
It's a very it's a kind of a language.
It's very passive.
It's very much kind of likeyou don't have any active role in this.
Yeah.
Over there you're in this kind of categorywith all these other people
that are the same as you,but different to us
and that sort ofreal kind of feminist divides, I think.
Yeah. So yeah.
(31:56):
So we're not all users of servicesfor your own benefit.
It's not at some point in our livesit's a different times.
Yeah.
And it's just such a termthat gets used like
anybody who has anything to do with socialcare is a service user in the same way
that anybody who has anything to do withhealth is a patient.
And they just kind of like categorisepeople
into that sort of social careis about services.
(32:18):
Health is about medication and treatment.
Rather and just
talking about peopleso as to talk about people.
And the language is oftenblaming of people as well.
So I saw that you'd written somethingabout the notion of how to reach.
And this is somethingthat we've been debated within research
(32:40):
and universities as well, because the termthat I did, people were hard to reach.
And that's, you know, this, thatand that's why they're not in this study
or we don't know anything about them
that they arethey're the problem, they're to blame.
And in research nice.
It's you find more commonlythe term seldom heard.
(33:00):
So it's not that it's it's
that we haven't done enoughto kind of hear their experiences,
but that blaming of people themselves orgroups, particular groups within society
because they're not coming for wordsor they're hiding selves away or.
Doing what we want them to do, basically.
I mean, I think a lot I mean, it's reallyrife that sort of that blaming language.
(33:22):
All of that is hard to say.
It's difficult to engage,non-compliant, challenging.
There's so many terms that blame peoplebecause I think people
because we have an expectationof how things should be,
and we want people to fit into that.
And when people don't fit into that,then we blame them being wrong or
difficult to engage or refusing to engage,that kind of that sense that people,
(33:47):
making a choice
that they, they like,they're choosing not to,
engage.
I mean, the how engage is like,it's this type of dynamic
so that anyway, in termsof kind of engaging people,
it's very much aboutcome to us do this when we want you to do.
We're going to hold a meetingon a Wednesday afternoon in this building.
(34:08):
Come and engage with us.
Well, it rather than that, like,let's go out and let's chat people
and find people where they areand kind of.
Yeah.
And ask them to join in with thingsthat are already going on
rather than kind of like itall being on our terms.
So I think a lot of that blaminglanguage is really is.
Yeah, that power dynamic issort of really sharing that power dynamic
(34:29):
and the sort of the expectations of wayspeople should behave
and just yeah, playing people as problemsrather than like,
like challenging, challenging behaviourthat sense that there is
people's behaviour is the problemrather than people's behaviour.
Like the way people behaveis communicating something.
What are they communicating?
What's behind that communication?
(34:51):
And is that distress or angeror something else that we need to kind of
look at the motivation for the behaviours,rather than kind of punishing the
behaviours with kind of restraining peopleor medicating people or whatever it is.
Let's look at.
I mean, it's like, like honourable again,it's back to that sort of like
blaming the person rather
than looking at the wider society,what's going on
(35:14):
around them, what's happened in the pastto them as well?
That's kind of behind that behaviour.
I need to hear you kind of.
Throughout Bonnierecognise the importance of structure.
And so, you know,you said even if you kind of
change the language,we have changed language.
You gave examples kind of person centredcare co-productions.
(35:36):
We can change the language,but unless we change the processes
and the systems, that'snot going to make that much difference.
And that this was a key message.
From the Voice Forum Centre for CareVoice Forum, when we talked about this
idea was that, you know,there's a risk that changing language
is just a window dressing.
(35:56):
You know, to what
extent can that really well,to what extent does
it maybe distract from the real problems,which is changing the language?
But to what extent can languagereally change the structure structures
and then equalities and the powerimbalances that you've talked about.
Yeah. Great.
It's really important. Very question,I think.
(36:17):
And you definitely both I think you can'tyou can't just change the language,
but unless you change the language,nothing else is going to change it.
I think.
So we need there have been attemptsof the saying things
like person centred and strength based,
and co-production too, in a sense as well.
I kind of used really as buzzwords andthat kind of like wheeled out and like,
(36:39):
oh yeah, this is the thing.
So strengthbased in the way that we're working or
this is so person centred,
but they've just becomethese sort of buzzwords that are used.
And I don't think there isn't actuallythat sort of underlying change
in terms of assets due to the behavioursor structures that underpin that.
And I think unless that sort of there'sthat real recognition
(36:59):
of kind of the power, behindkind of relationships and dynamics and
really how people see other people,
and while people see other peopleas kind of less worthy or needy or,
in these categories, you know,I don't think you're going to change.
You're not going to get intothat kind of person
(37:20):
centred, strength based, etc., etc.
are meaningless.
And even sort of changing structuresand things.
And I mean, then the restructuresand sort of the idea of transformation
and transforming services by a restructureor a rebranding
or renaming, and you're actually reallygetting back to that.
The button size of bread
(37:41):
really kind of like how how we seeand understand and communicate with people
as people, as human beings, as us,as we're you, rather than them over there
who are differentand somehow lesser and not quite as human.
And as we really change that,
then all the rest of the changeis meaningless, I think.
So we've got to change the language,but we've got to change the attitudes
(38:03):
and the kind of behaviours that underpinthings that they do go hand in hand.
And I think unless you really changea set of attitudes and behaviours,
you can't,
you're not going to get that really sayyou've got to change, change both.
But I thinkif you don't change the language
then you're going to keep that sort ofdehumanising distancing attitudes.
(38:26):
So they do go hand in hand.
You've got to have both really,
I think so I think often people say,oh, it's just changing.
Just changing the language isn't enough.
And I totally agree. Just changingthe language isn't enough.
But I think it's really importantto change the language.
Yeah.
Well, on that message,I think we'll we'll bring it to an end.
You've set up a really important challengearound changing, but,
(38:49):
thanks very much, Ryan. It's been great.
Thank you to about this. Thank you.
Thanks for. Having me. Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!