-------------
Original Text
>From [log in to unmask] (Michael Kenward), on 01/12/98 10:29:
To: [log in to unmask] ("k.john-pierre")
-----Original Message-----
>And what does it mean when it says "fails to distinguish between aims and
>objectives"? Maybe PUSET folks have different definitions. But they appear
>to be pretty well synonymous in most writing.
>
Hi Mike - you have just identified the problem - too many people think that
aims and objectives are synonymous, they're not! Aims are broad ideas of
-----End Quoted Message-----
In that case, I am not the one with the problem. Going against the standard
use of language is, I humbly suggest, bonkers in a field dedicated to
communication.
It is just plain daft to say that the reader is the one who is wrong. As
someone who lives by getting the words right, the first person I point the
finger at is myself if someone misunderstands me.
Get some new definitions and then you will find it easier to explain to
people what you are talking about.
Do not forget that you are trying to communicate to a wider audience here,
This is not some arcane group considering the entrails of the quark, where
everyone understand the odd use of perfectly ordinary words, like charm.
If you cannot get this one right, what hope is there for the rest of the
agenda?
I suspect that this one needs "qualifiers". So it should be "strategic aims"
or "strategic objectives" for the big picture. When you get down to detail,
it is "specific aims" or specific objectives".
Not perfect, but a whole lot better than constructing an edifice that only
the cognoscenti can comprehend. Sadly, in this area I do feel that we have
some deliberate obfuscation in an attempt to exclude people.
MK
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael Kenward OBE / Phone: +44 (0)1444 400568 Fax: 401064
/
Science Writer & Stuff / Have words will travel
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|