Why engagement language drives us all a bit mad

Every professional world has its own particular vocabulary that helps create the clubs and cliques we like to work in. In engagement, we are no different, or should that be "in participation we are no different" or "in involvement we are no different"...? You take my point I'm sure.

And this language variance can sometimes be debilitating. If you’ve ever sat around a table with Healthwatch colleagues, councils, NHS teams, community groups and spent far too long debating and trying to find consensus on which word to use, you’ll know the pain. It starts as a mildly interesting discussion and ends with everyone wondering why we’re arguing about semantics instead of actually doing the work.

But here’s the thing: language does matter. Not because we need to win a jargon competition, but because clarity builds trust, avoids misunderstandings, and helps people understand what they’re taking part in. Which is hugely important. Especially when we’re working in partnership or engaging with communities who don’t live inside our professional bubble.

So here’s my attempt at a clear, honest guide to the terms we use most — what they really mean, how they differ, and how to use them without confusing everyone in the room.

Lived experience — the bread and butter

This is where most engagement professionals feel at home. It’s the classic “tell us what worked for you, what didn’t, and what you’d change” approach. It’s usually focused on a single service or topic and often forms the foundation for bigger programmes, including consultations.

It is powerful, sometimes painful, often thought-provoking.

Done properly, lived experience work means:

• Checking existing data — what feedback already exists, what’s been said before, what the usage data tells you.

• Understanding who uses the service — age, ethnicity, postcode patterns, digital access, etc, and what this means for the engagement.

• Designing accessible routes — digital where possible, face‑to‑face where needed, community‑led where most effective.

• Collecting demographic data — not for fun, but because it supports EQIAs, evaluation, and protects you if the project escalates into something more formal.

But, because it’s familiar, it’s also easy to get sloppy and just rush something out without these elements. Routine shouldn't mean low‑rigour. The “bread and butter” nature of lived experience work means it’s easy to slip into bad habits without noticing.

Listening exercises — the trendy one

Is this really different from lived experience engagement? In most cases… no.

“Listening exercise” is often just a modern label for traditional engagement. It sounds fresh, maybe even a bit cool, and in theory it’s a “does what it says on the tin” phrase. But it can also sound a little pretentious if you’re not careful.

If your organisation uses it to describe a specific stage in a process, great — just be consistent. If you're just using it to sound fresh, maybe give it some thought. The important thing is that people know what they’re taking part in, not what you call it.

Continuous engagement — the gamechanger

Continuous engagement is exactly what it sounds like: a constant feedback loop where people can share their experiences at any time, and you respond regularly to what you hear. No big set pieces. No “launch day”. Just a steady flow of insight.

The private sector does this instinctively — Amazon reviews, Trustpilot, Google ratings — because it improves products and builds trust.

The public sector? Often terrified of it. What if people say things? What if we have to act on them? What if it creates work? What if we can't change anything?

But continuous engagement, done well:

• builds trust

• acts as an early warning system

• enables small, manageable changes

• reduces the need for big, resource‑heavy consultations

• fulfils statutory duties (yes, NHS colleagues, this one’s for you)

Modern tools — digital forms, WhatsApp, AI, lightweight surveys — make it easier than ever. At Open Voice Lab, we believe continuous engagement is the single most impactful thing an organisation can do, which is why we built an entire business around doing it properly.

If you don't do it, we suggest you give it some serious thought, because no big public sector scandal ever came out of the blue, it came from poor processes allowing feedback to be ignored.

Pre‑Consultation Engagement — the forgotten one

IMO, pre‑consultation is the most misunderstood and most rushed phase of all. It sits between lived experience work and formal consultation, and it focuses on the known issues — known from engagement, complaints, feedback, staff, etc.

Good pre‑consultation asks:

• Have we captured the right issues?

• What’s missing?

• What do people agree or disagree with?

• What solutions do people suggest?

• What matters to them when options are evaluated?

Too often, pre‑consultation is just lived experience engagement with a fancier name and an extra question or two. That’s fine only if there’s a clear route from this phase into options development and appraisal.

A strong programme of continuous engagement can make pre‑consultation faster, richer and more robust, and a strong programme of pre-consultation can sometimes even eliminate the need for a formal consultation if consensus is clear.

And yes — pre‑consultation is a legal requirement. Skipping it or rushing it is a great way to end up in trouble later.

Consultation — the big one

All consultation is engagement, but not all engagement is consultation. Something that can often be forgotten by project/service leads and commissioners.

Consultation is specifically about seeking feedback on options. If you don’t have options, you’re not consulting yet — you’re still in pre‑consultation.

Consultation feels intimidating because of the governance, scrutiny and paperwork. It’s the “sitting at the top of the rollercoaster just before the drop” moment for many engagement teams. Some people go their whole career doing one or two. Others seem to live in a permanent consultation cycle.

But in many ways, consultation is simpler:

• the rules are clearer

• the expectations are defined

• the Gunning Principles give you a solid framework

Success depends on:

• strong pre‑consultation

• meticulous record‑keeping (seriously: record everything)

• clear governance

• transparent rationale for every decision that demonstrates due regard being given to the feedback

Consultations can also be an opportunity to try new methods — citizens’ juries, hearings, town halls if you’re feeling brave (not that we really advise them!). They don’t have to be terrifying; they can be genuinely interesting.

Co‑Production — the power‑up

Co‑production is the most powerful engagement methodology and the most misused term in the engagement world.

True co‑production requires:

• sharing power

• paying people properly

• investing time in recruitment, learning and decision‑making

• accepting slower processes in exchange for deeper trust

It works brilliantly for designing services, spaces and pathways. It’s much harder for major strategic decisions where boards must retain final accountability — like closing A&Es or fire stations.

Many organisations say they’re co‑producing when they’re actually co‑designing or just engaging. This sets unrealistic expectations and damages trust. If you’re not genuinely sharing power, don’t call it co‑production, you only lose in the long term when your perfectly valid engagement process gets called out for not being what was advertised.

Similarities

For all the differences between lived experience work, listening exercises, continuous engagement, pre‑consultation, consultation and co‑production, there are some golden threads that run through every form of engagement. These are the things that matter no matter what you call the work, what stage you’re in, or how trendy the terminology is this month.

Here’s what they all have in common:

• They must be transparent and undertaken in good faith.

  People can smell tokenism a mile off. If you’re not honest about what’s happening and why, trust evaporates.

• You need to treat feedback with respect.

  If you’re going to ask people to share their experiences, you need to know what you’re going to do with what they tell you. Engagement without purpose is just bad admin.

• You must close the loop.

  Tell people what you heard. Tell them what changed. Tell them what didn’t change — and why. Silence is the fastest route to disengagement.

• Accessibility isn’t optional.

  Multiple routes in, multiple formats, multiple ways to contribute. If only one type of person can take part, you’re not engaging — you’re filtering.

• Your decisions need to be well‑made, well‑recorded and defensible.

  Not because you’re expecting a challenge, but because you never know when one will come. Good governance is your safety net.

If you follow these principles, you won’t go far wrong — whatever terminology you choose.

So… does the language matter?

Yes — but only if it helps people understand:

• what’s happening

• what influence they have

• what comes next

The goal isn’t to win the terminology debate; it’s to build trust, share power where possible, and design processes that genuinely involve people. Use appropriate language, be clear, be honest, and do the work well.

What do you think — does this list feel complete, or is there something you’d add from your own experience?

Open Voice Lab recommendation

At OVL, we can help you look your project and decide the best engagement route for you. We can also help you develop principles and processes for continuous engagement that will lead to meaningful change.

Reach out to have a conversation with us.