So, it is a bit surprising to me that not only have I been promoting a new visual profile for PRIO, but now I am actually going to suggest that PRIO should change its name as well. I realize this sounds dramatic, but the actual proposition, I think, is rather moderate:
Current name: International Peace Research Institute, Oslo
Suggested new name:
Peace Research Institute, Oslo; alternatively:
Peace Research Institute Oslo
Here are the reasons for this suggestion:
- The current name does not correspond with the abbreviation PRIO (nor to the Norwegian name, which is Institutt for fredsforskning)
- A surprising number of PRIOites do not know the correct name of their employer, and actually currently use what I am suggesting
- Less surprisingly: People outside PRIO are utterly confused as to what we are called (in a recent survey of think thanks of the world, I detected no less than 5 versions of our name)
- Cutting the word ‘international’ does not make PRIO less international
- Such a change will make the design/logo process easier and contribute to a neater end result
- If we are to make the change, it should happen now, since we are producing new stationary, etc anyway
- Quite a few PRIOites have been informally consulted on this during the last weeks. No one has protested!
Such a change would require an extra-ordinary IC meeting, since we would need a change of the PRIO statutes, and a quite fast decision-making process, not to delay the logo/design-progress.
Before moving on to formally propose the name change, I invite comments on the blog (or to my email address), to make sure that all voices are heard. Take note that there are currently two versions of a changed name; hence, comments on the comma before Oslo are very welcome. The deadline for this round is Thursday 4th March.
The floor is yours!
I haven't exactly been sleepless about that comma but it does make things convoluted for little or no reason, especially if in the middle of a sentence.
ReplyDeleteSo I'd vote for Peace Research Institute Oslo.
I think you are correct Kristian that there is confusion about the name.
ReplyDeleteThe option 'Peace Research Institute Oslo' sounds grammatically awkward to me, but I think it is crucial to keep the abbreviation 'PRIO' and, therefore, suggest the following:
Peace Research Institute, Oslo
or
The Peace Research Institute in Oslo
Anita
Good thinking, Kristian!
ReplyDeletePersonally i referred to PRIO as the
"Peace Research Institute OF Oslo" for quite a few months before i realized i was missing something. To me that sounds more natural, and it should not confuse the abbreviation either.
Just a thought..
When I read Agnete's email, my heart did stop for a minute so I was rather pleased to find that the change you propose is not radical. In fact, it is a great idea for the name to actually correspond to the acronym(!) Why have we not thought of this before?! For grammatical reasons, my vote would be for Peace Research Institute, Oslo.
ReplyDeleteI vote for 'Peace Research Institute Oslo'.
ReplyDeleteThe comma is a bit awkward, and a name doesn't have to be gramatical (its 'United Nations' not 'The United Nations').
Lets also devise alternate acronyms for PRIO that can be read out at the Julebord.
I join Nic and also vote for "Peace Research Institute Oslo"
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great idea, there has indeed been quite some confusion about exactly what we're called.
ReplyDeleteI actually rather like Torbjørn's suggestion, quite possibly because I on several occasions find that I say "Peace Research Institute _of_ Oslo" when telling people where I work. But then again, just getting a name that matches the acronym would be the main priority!
1. I’m all in favour of removing the comma before Oslo!
ReplyDelete2. History: As the acronym indicates, at the start PRIO did not have "International" in its name. But the early prioites soon regretted this and added the word to make it clear that this is an international institute – as opposed to ISF (from which it started out), NUPI, FFI, ...
3. A piece of objective information: When we remove the word "International" from our name but simultaneously inform that we still are as international as before, then some bout not everyone will end up knowing that we still are as international as before! Removing the word "International" conveys in itself that we are not, or do not consider ourselves, (as) international as before. Only some but not all will get the extra information that we are just the same as before. This is a simple fact about disseminating information to an open group (like "Norway", like "The World", like "The international studies community", whatever). Not everybody get all the information you disseminate! We create _some_ confusion about ourselves here. This is not something that I _think_, this is a fact. Whether it is important enough to take into account, is a question though. There may be differing opinions on that. Personally I think it is more important than are the reasons given for the change of name (which I, to be honest, am surprised to learn that so many consider as being of much importance at all ... ! ).