We asked, you answered: Inclusive language in global development

As the global development sector grapples with decolonization and calls to “shift the power,” a reckoning with long-accepted language is also taking place. Devex asked members of the development community for their take on some alternatives to the status quo for terms most used in our media coverage. In a series of polls in the Devex — International Development group on LinkedIn, we asked for your preferences and alternatives for terms including decolonization, local organizations, capacity building, LGBTQI+, people who menstruate, or developing countries. While broad equity language guides “are proliferating,” development-specific repositories are less common. Oxfam’s "Inclusive Language Guide" released earlier this year is an extensive resource for common English-language terms in the nonprofit sector. Yet with this project, Devex sought to hear perspectives on the words we often encounter in our coverage directly from global development professionals in our community, in an effort to spark debate and help inform our news coverage. This list is by no means exhaustive, nor is it intended as a guide for best practices. Decolonization Decolonization implies a fundamental shift in power dynamics. We asked: What is the best way to describe a redistribution of power? “Self-determination” was the favorite alternative with almost 40% of votes, followed by “empowerment,” with 32%, and “supporting people to claim power,” with 19%. The alternatives suggested ranged from “revolution” to “restitution,” and from “power shifting” to “epistemic justice.” In conversations around empowerment, the notion of willingly “giving up your power,” as one of the poll respondents, Abdi Isaak, put it, needs to avoid falling into a familiar narrative where the dominant group gifts power. The implication “can be patronizing,” Cicely McWilliam wrote, while for Lama El-Awad, decolonization must go beyond global development to infuse broader conversations around resource exploitation. Given the difficulty of choosing one expression for such a complex and long-standing issue, Abdul Basir Salehee’s comment describing the process of redistributing power was perhaps the most comprehensive. For him, it is a “transformative process that involves dismantling existing power structures, promoting equitable resource allocation, amplifying marginalized voices, and fostering inclusive and decentralized decision-making to achieve a more equitable and just distribution of authority.” Beyond developed vs. developing or high- vs. low-income country Given the innate dynamics of global development where flows of assistance — budget or otherwise — historically have gone from so-called “rich countries to poor countries,” or the “West to the rest,” or the “global north to the global south,” reexamining how we name specific geographic and socioeconomic groups is very much a part of the current conversation — here’s why two global development professionals from Zimbabwe and Tanzania have stopped using the term “sub-Saharan Africa,” for example. So we asked: What terms are most appropriate to describe the socioeconomics of a country or region? The majority of respondents picked “High-income/low-income country,” with 53%, while 23% voted for “Developing/developed country.” Only 16% chose “Global south/global north,” while the rest voted for “other.” Alternatives put forward included calling individual countries “by their name” to avoid erroneous groupings, and using geographic sub-regions to group countries to be more precise. As Leilani Elliott also put it, “it should be on the basis of designators which they themselves have chosen (e.g.: political or regional groupings).” The divide between terminology used by the global development community and the “layperson” outside the sector was also a recurrent point made. This was best summed up by Donna Rosa, who has seen "third world/first world" used a lot outside the international development community — which is “cringeworthy.” ‘Local vs. proximate’ organization We asked which term our audience preferred to use between “local” or “proximate” when referring to organizations that are not international NGOs or donors. Eighty percent of the poll respondents voted for “local,” while only 9% preferred “proximate” organizations and a number of alternatives were suggested: “I find local to be condescending when used in reference to an entire country,” Elana Pollak commented, going to the heart of the debate of perspective when it comes to local. “National organizations” was put forward as an alternative by Gerdien Seegers, to which Shazina Masud responded: “I think this would also help define the reach of a local organization. So we could have Community based organizations and National organizations.” And a “branch office” of an international NGO should be referred to as such, so its affiliation and remit are clear. The term “proximate” in itself sparked some debate, with Daniel Stokes stating that it “seems unnecessarily technical in tone to me when a more natural-sounding synonym exists in “local.” For Siân Platt, “proximate is very confusing and not intuitive to a native English speaker so presumably confusing to everyone else.” On the other hand, Jeroo Billimoria explained that while her preference is with proximate organizations, there are still issues with that expression: “Is it just another way to keep the hierarchy in development language with a 'nicer' word?” she asked. Our editor’s pick? We liked Andrey Shilov’s option, “Frontline heroes,” for its simplicity and recognition of the way local development workers pivot to being the first on the ground in times of disaster or conflict — as seen in Ukraine, Sudan, or Yemen. Capacity building, sharing, or technical assistance? Here Devex sought to understand what expression global professionals think is most appropriate in the sharing and transfer of knowledge, from the options: “capacity building,” “capacity sharing,” and “technical assistance.” Of the three options, “capacity building” was the most favored, with 47% of votes, followed by “capacity sharing,” with 25%, and “technical assistance,” with 19%. As some pointed out, capacity and knowledge need to be considered differently. Capacity for an NGO’s accounting system, for example, would include elements such as software, data storage and protection systems, and monitoring staff — not simply understanding or knowledge of how the systems should work. “When we are talking about capacity building of NGOs we [are] also talking about budget for NGOs to purchase all the necessary systems, assets and services,” to carry out their work, not only training, Marina Ryzhkova explained. One of the most cited alternatives to the three proposed options was “knowledge exchange.” Indeed, a recurring theme among those who commented was the importance of considering flows of knowledge and that these are not exclusively one way. For Rashmir Balasubramaniam, “language that reflects it's always a two way process” is key. Beyond that, “one sided knowledge sharing is very limiting,” Elizabeth McLean wrote, and implies a one-way process from point A to point B — or global north to global south, or experts to nonexperts, Sara Jewett explained. Insights from our community also included the positive consequence of this knowledge and capacity exchange: innovation. Bringing together different lived and learned knowledge and experience creates what is not yet known and can lead to innovating, hence Shannon McVey and Danette Wilkins’ suggestions of “technical/capacity exchange and innovation.” People who menstruate or women and girls who menstruate? Using “people” or “women and girls” who menstruate is a matter that regularly comes up in our news coverage given the geographic and cultural breadth of the stories we report on, and the specifics of development programming. We, therefore, decided to put this question to our global audience and community: “Should it be the norm for global development organizations to use people who menstruate instead of women and girls who menstruate?” Of the respondents, 25% agreed that “people who menstruate” should be the norm, while 43% disagreed — and 30% voted on it needing to be “context-specific.” With regards to global development language, the very specific nature of different programs are likely to best inform the type of language used. As Haifa Ungapen explained, “if you're operating a programme designed to support women and girls, specifically, because … you're looking at gender biases that affect them and affect their menstruation self-care, healthcare, and rights, then you say that this is a programme for women and girls who menstruate. In the same way, an organisation looking at advocating for trans people SRHR might specify they focus on care for trans people who menstruate.” The danger of using a set expression for every context has the potential of contributing to “cultural imperialism,” Richard Grange pointed out. While something may feel “just and right” in one context, it cannot become a rule to be imposed in another context. A valuable insight for any choice of language for the global development sector. From LGBT to LGBTQIA+ Global development organizations and institutions do not have a common term to describe the broad and diverse LGBTQIA+ community. So we asked which of the following options were preferred within our community of global development professionals to be most inclusive of gender, sexuality, and identity: LGBT, LGBTQ+, LGBTQI+, or LGBTQIA+. The most voted, with 46%, was “LGBTQIA+,” followed by LGBTQ+. Given the geographic diversity of the development community, one of the most commented aspects of the use of these acronyms was the importance of considering more context-appropriate terminology. There is a need to research local customs and Indigenous knowledge around these concepts, as “just because it comes out of the Western world does it mean that is fitting”? Natalie M. Leblanc wrote. The term “SGM,” for Sexual and Gender Minorities, was discussed as an umbrella term that is better at avoiding the cultural- and language-specific terms of the LGBTQIA+ acronym. For Joseph Sewedo Akoro, with SGM, “you can be sure of not excluding any group.” Still, as Danette Wilkins pointed out, it is important to note that we are at a point of “evolving language,” and to caveat any specific language choice with that idea. “SOGIESC,” or Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics, also featured in the responses, as “quickly becoming the widely accepted and neutral term in global policy spaces,” according to Tucker Landesman in particular. The notion of allyship, or the active support for the rights of people from diverse groups, was also mentioned. “I worry that asking such a broad group may mean that we wind up with the terminology that allies prefer, rather than the terminology that the marginalized group prefers,” Ellen Bevier commented — underscoring the importance of ensuring opportunities for input and agency of any group being supported through global development programming. Have your say on inclusive language in global development This project was sparked in part by the comments, opinion articles, and conversations with sources our news team has had with a dedicated community of global development professionals. If you would like to pitch us with an opinion piece regarding any of the language above or more, here are our guidelines for guest columns. We welcome submissions sent to editor@devex.com, which, if published, would feature in our inclusive development column.