What's in a name? The problem with 'Infrastructure'
Submitted by Georgina Anstey on Fri, 05/03/2010 - 14:33
The name 'Infrastructure' can be confusing and alienating. Should we be concentrating on talking about what infrastructure organisations do rather than trying to define them by a term?
The truth is that most organisations or individuals that we exist to support, especially on a community level, haven't heard of the term infrastructure used in this context. It is used mainly in circles of infrastructure organisations themselves. Outside of this circle the word is more commonly used to refer to national infrastructure such as roads, railways or telecommunications.
Some might argue that this connotation is useful in helping people to understand what we do. Support for the voluntary and community sector could be conceived as the roads, bridges and railways that exist to help and connect organisations. It has been suggested that the name helped government to invest in this support as they understood it's importance.
But has this meant that government have tried to fund and control vcs infrastructure in the same way as they might for roads and railways? This may not be the way forward for a series of networks, associations and councils that have arisen organically where need was identified or through dissatisfaction with existing provision.
We think it is important to focus on spreading understanding of what infrastructure organisations do and the impact they have rather than promoting general use of the term. We've developed a map of functions to try to represent this work. We’re also working with a group of infrastructure organisations at the moment to develop a map of common impacts.
We'd be interested to know what you think.
Does the name help or hinder voluntary and community sector infrastructure?
There is quite a bit of jargon in the voluntary sector - especially among the organisations which support front line charities. It would be refreshing to launch a plain English campaign.
Simple terms are clear, accessible and inclusive. People understand what you're saying, the likelihood is that they understand what you're doing - and why you're doing it. Leaving out impenetrable labels (eg "waste management and disposal technician") is a good way forward.
I was at a launch of an Infrastructure Partnership the other day where there was a lengthy description on what the partnership was and did.
What they do is fantastic but that name!
Infrastructure support is a horrible word to describe something as good and simple as support to voluntary and community and social enterprise organisations.
Any ideas for an alternative accessible and inclusive description will be very welcome as I have been asked to develop a framework for infrastucture support and want to use something that will be meaningful to frontline organisations. How about 'third sector support' or is that also too mysterious andor cryptic?
It's interesting. I like the overly simplistic labels (eg "organisations that give advice and support to charities") - the only difficulty is, you've got to load your description with the shopping list of organisations covered (eg community groups, social enterprises, community interest companies) and probably the shopping list of activities undertaken. Which is I suppose why people came up with the term "infrastructure"!
I really like the simplicity and concise nature of 'Third Sector Support'.
I can initially spot a couple of potential pitfalls:
How about:
Any others ideas?
I like the last one! Though again, it's a question of whether we are truly networks and not (more clumsily) "organisations that help organisations to achieve their mission".
'Support' is a loaded term and agree it often gets confused with counselling or care. Though 'support' says more about what we do than 'infrastructure', methinks.
Thank you both for your comments and suggestions. I will consider them carefully and get back to you in more detail. Keep the thoughts coming in. We are nearly there I am sure.