On the one hand, I agree with you; I don't think we need a new terminology (and I don’t find the “paseo” term particularly instructive). On the other hand though, I do want to acknowledge that, based on my own experience within CPWF and WLE, it is sometimes difficult to give communications for development the attention it deserves. I don’t know if it’s due to the expectations of our colleagues or our own attraction or familiarity with corporate communications, but it does seem that it’s always easier to write another brochure than to engage in communications for development. I know of other development organizations that have begun naming some of their communications staff “engagement officers” to signal the intended focus of their work. Maybe the name could make a difference?
Michael,
On the one hand, I agree with you; I don't think we need a new terminology (and I don’t find the “paseo” term particularly instructive). On the other hand though, I do want to acknowledge that, based on my own experience within CPWF and WLE, it is sometimes difficult to give communications for development the attention it deserves. I don’t know if it’s due to the expectations of our colleagues or our own attraction or familiarity with corporate communications, but it does seem that it’s always easier to write another brochure than to engage in communications for development. I know of other development organizations that have begun naming some of their communications staff “engagement officers” to signal the intended focus of their work. Maybe the name could make a difference?
Marianne