Development Communication Praxis

2002

All those involved in the analysis and application of communication for development-or what can broadly be termed “development communication”-would probably agree that in essence development communication is the sharing of knowledge aimed at reaching a consensus for action that takes into account the interests, needs and capacities of all concerned. It is thus a social process. Communication media are important tools in achieving this process but their use is not an aim in itself—interpersonal communication too must play a fundamental role.

1991

Oxford University Press, 2018

Here we, on the one hand, revisit the standard operating procedure in development strategies—“communication (technologies) for development”—and move instead to “development for facilitating communication” through exploring questions such as: Does communication facilitate development? Or does development facilitate communication? Which kind of communication can engender development? Which kind of development can ensure communication with the “margins”? We thus tighten and deepen the connection between the nature of development and the nature of communication; in the process we see communication for development and development for communication as mutually constitutive. We also invoke the question of praxis in three forms: (a) by exploring the connection between praxis and communication and seeing communication as not just a technique but as a question of praxis—where theories of communication and practices of communication are in a relationship, (b) by seeing developmental praxis as intimately tied to the question of communication, and (c) by letting praxis emerge as the “middle term” or the connecting link between development and communication. We deconstruct three discourses of development: the growth-centric discourse, those offering “developmental alternatives” (like human developmental perspectives), and those presenting “alternatives to development” (like postdevelopmentalist positions focused on “third world” or the “local,” etc.), to move to a fourth discourse that problematizes both modernism and capitalism, as it opens up the discourses of communication (modernist, dependency theory, participatory approach, etc.) for inquiry. We attempt to go beyond the modernist and capitalist understandings of development to introduce the logic-languageethos of “world of the third” as against third world-ist imaginations. This helps us rethink the praxis of communication in creating, on the one hand, community- or social movements–driven developmental futures and, on the other, engendering post-Orientalist and postcapitalist forms of life in local or world of the third contexts. We also emphasize the need to reflect on the question of the “subject” (as also psychoanalytic conceptualizations of the “psyche”) and the need to learn to “work through” “groups” in order to usher in depth and nuance in the praxis of development communication.

In March 2014, I was invited by LinkedIn to contribute professional articles to their online publishing platform. Over a period of nine months, I uploaded 25 short opinion pieces on openness, environmental communication, ICT4D, ASEAN integration and other topics (www.linkedin.com/today/author/173195569). Ten of the posts, dealing with the state of play of of development communication, were commented on mostly by my doctoral students. I’ve compiled these and arranged them logically and chronologically sans their comments and my subsequent responses, which the reader may access on LinkedIn. Note that these are not academic papers but insights and commentaries meant to enrich the development communication discourse among our current (and future) crop of graduate students.

Development projects as we know them date back to the fairy tale triumph against evil in WWII and the heroic and idealistic Zeitgeist of the ensuing decades. Projects have been executed en masse to modernise and develop nations struck by poverty, illness and lacking education but the heroes and ideals of post-WWII have not saved the world any further. The Western quest for fairy tale social change (where everybody lives happily ever after) has fostered two paradigmatic forms of communication for development; modernisation and participation – and proven to be complicated. This paper will outline the conceptual frameworks of both paradigms, before describing the methodological repertoire of each. Despite the contrasting list of characteristics for each conceptual framework, there remain some convergences which go beyond theory. Conceptual Frameworks of the Modernisation Paradigm and the Participation Paradigm Modernisation as a communication paradigm within the field of development employs communication as a product, with unchallenged executive decisions being delegated down a bureaucracy with the objective to persuade and change the behaviour of beneficiaries of development projects. The communication dynamic is lineal, vertical, monologic and top-to-bottom. Modernisation projects are planned and designed in exclusively economic terms and prescribe funds to remedy all problems. There is no consideration of historical, cultural, political or geographic contexts and such projects are subject to political interests on the modernisers' side. Modernisation projects are confined to cooperation with the governments of developing countries. The objectives are large scale and typically staffed by foreigners – who are seldom specialists in the local context. Ineffective legislation ensures neither accountability nor transparency. Modernisation has no interest in existing power relations and presumes that those in power will act benevolently for their national populations. Under the paradigm of modernisation, the " change " in the much sought social change is transitive; passed from the donor to the beneficiary. Participation as a communication paradigm within the development industry sees communication as a process to investigate matters and seek consensus over them from the bottom of the development hierarchy upwards. Participation interprets problems beyond a purely economic perspective and ascribes human rights the potential to improve many problematic situations. It emphasises dialogue and listening to the beneficiaries of development, creating a horizontal and circular dynamic for communication. It fosters small-scale, individually contextualised projects and nurtures politics on a

 Historical snippets  What is Development Communication?  Communication for development  Key elements of the development communication approach  Methods used for communication development  Characteristics of a development communication officer  Tasks to be performed by the development communication officer  The development communication process  Some pointers on content in development planning  Institutionalising development communication  Some development communication scenarios .

The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies, 2021

Communication: An Audience-Centered Initiative 1. Introduction Participatory development communication is the use of the mass media, traditional and interpersonal modes of communication to empower communities in their bid to discover solutions to their development problems and goals. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2018) defines the term 'participatory' as the provision of opportunity for individual participation. It also defines 'communication' as the process of conveying information from a sender to a receiver with the use of a medium in which the communicated information or message is understood the same way by both the sender and the receiver. Development on its part is defined by Oso (2002) as a term that came into widespread application after the Second World War to mean growth, industrialization, change, modernization and democracy. The summary of these definitions is that participatory development communication is a process in which community members are brought in to contribute and share ideas about how to bring about development to their communities. Kheerajit and Flor (2013) describe it as a key process in the bringing together of stakeholders for cooperation in the task of addressing the problem of the environment and to work towards the enthronement of a sustainable social change away from individuals. While noting that it is a tool that enables stakeholders to work together towards producing a sustainable social change away from individual behaviour change in their communities, they remark that participatory development communication offers local community members the platform to discuss and address natural resource managements in their communities and to build an improved policy environment. Anaetoand Solo-Anaeto (2010) align with this observation in their definition. They assert that it as the process of seeking the active involvement and participation of community members and groups in development initiatives through strategic utilization of various communication strategies. Guy Bessette (2004, p. 6)holds an identical view, as he argues that participatory development communication is a powerful tool to facilitate the development of putting people first in the promotion of community self-organization. He is of the opinion that the term should be analyzed within the context of 'facilitating the active involvement of different community groups, along with other stakeholders involved and the many development and research agents working with the community and decision makers. 'Bessette (2004, p. 9) offers a definition of participatory communication as 'a planned activity, based on the one hand on participatory processes, and on the other hand on media and interpersonal communication, which facilitates a dialogue among different stakeholders, around a common development problem or goal, with the objective of developing and implementing a set of activities to contribute to its solution, or its realization, and which supports and accompanies this initiative.' The notion of stakeholders here refers to active community members, local and regional authorities and sometimes the non-governmental agencies who work at community levels to seek to persuade the people towards behaviour change.

The Communication Initiative Network, 2018

Communication for Development and Social Change (CDSC) has been a dynamic field where there is still a lot to explore and many ideas are yet to crystalize. A lot of scholars have proposed different frameworks at different points in time and will continue to do so to help understand and explain this ever-changing field of scholarship and practice. Meanwhile, I take the opportunity to share the framework that is helping me these days to understand the range of practices in CDSC (or C4D or CSC, whatever name you prefer). And for the lack of a better name, I would call it what it is, a just another framework.

Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, 2021

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2012