> One further thought: sometimes it doesn't pay to be too explicit about our
> underlying values and theories (at least publicly) in the current political
> climate... to get (or hang onto) funding requires pandering to whatever
> simple-minded fads are currently in vogue at Queens' Park. In other words,
> the use of vague and appealing buzz-words is perhaps more often astutely
> strategic than it is misguided.  It's not always easy to determine, as a
> reviewer, who's using the lingo in order to secure funding to more
> sophisticated and radical work, and who is using it more sloppily with
> little else in mind. (David you may not think vagueness for political
> reasons makes long-term sense, but sometimes short-run survival takes
> precedence).

But to what end?  One short term survival after the next?  And on
whose terms?  It may seem sensible to keep things vague to appeal to
everyone (and to as many potential funders as possible), but it is a
double-edged sword: if you can manipulate others they can equally
manipulate you.  I think Sherrie has given a perfect example of this
- until we get used to clarity of thinking and purpose health
promoters are going to get tied into projects that seem like a
good idea at first, only later do we realise that someone else is
pulling the strings.

Keep talking


David