Communication for development: new paradigms?

Application of horizontal communication approaches to international development aid efforts has caused a revolutionary change in the way development projects are carried out at the ground level. It has also shifted the public’s attitude in favor of development agencies that were viewed mainly as large bureaucracies without a human face. In the face of this shift, the focus is finally drawn away from the aid workers and towards the previously silent publics. Along the lines of this transformation, the objective of this paper is to assess participatory communication approaches within the sphere of international development. The research explores procedural justice by examining differences between expert opinion and public opinion. It also seeks to answer the question of whether or not the use of participatory communication leads to a significant change in the way development projects are designed and implemented. The variety of arguments is operationalized based on three key constructs: the notion of voice, trust and power of the audience. The research builds upon a series of “case stories” and expert interviews that illustrate successes and failures of participatory approaches.

The Philippine Journal of Development Communication, 2009

This paper highlights the role of communication to facilitate community participation in a development initiative, coined by Bessette (2004) as participatory development communication (PDC). It reflects on this concept in one particular development context, that of natural resource management (NRM). Bessette (2004:9) defines PDC 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.” PDC is grounded on the assumption that participation “is the only road that may lead to development” (Bessette 2004:27), which first requires “the people’s conviction that they can change things for the better, their refusal to be the permanent victims of any situation, and the emergence of a sense of self-confidence”; and is “characterized by the process that is implemented to attain it: strengthening a community’s capacity to undertake initiatives to resolve concrete natural resource management problems, identifying and analyzing these problems, and deciding and implementing appropriate solutions” (Bessette 2004:17). We may take these assumptions even farther and view communication as constitutive of the process of development. That is, even as Bessette (2004) notes the limits of PDC pointing out that financial and material resources, as well as political will, as development requisites are outside the scope of PDC, communication is the process in which the decision is made to invest such resources in development; as well as builds the necessary political will to support and take development action. From an ontological perspective, communication creates reality (Saludadez 2004), based on a social constructionist view of reality. Humans make events happen and bring things into existence out of communicating their thoughts and views. Communication is a meaning making process where multiple meanings and realities emerge, just as development is multi-faceted.

2018

For a long time Communication has been widely acknowledged as a significant component in scholarly treatment of development discourse. There however seems to be a persistent disconnect between such academic theorisations and the real field level situation as communication continues to remain in the periphery in programme planning and interventions of donor agencies as well as implementing NGOs in India. Drawing from the experiences in two prominent but diverse national level development organisations, this paper argues that communication in practice is still poorly understood and practiced in the sector. Rather than erroneously equating communication with information and apparent image building exercises of NGOs, the paper argues that it needs to be seriously seen as the key to a community’s empowerment by enabling their people’s participation in development initiatives that concerns them and their destiny. The paper calls for communication to be brought to the centre stage of insti...

Master of Philosophy in Media Studies, 2003

This study uses the Nowak and Wärneryd model of communication campaigns (1985) as the ‘roadmap’ to present findings from an investigation conducted on the Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project (LVEMP), co-funded by the World Bank and Global Environment Facility (GEF). LVEMP’s major goal is to arrest the environmental problems affecting Lake Victoria and the 30 million people who live in its basin. LVEMP was launched in 1997 and is being implemented by the three East African countries sharing Lake Victoria (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda). This study investigated LVEMP-Uganda. The academic impetus to this study is that for development communication approaches to succeed, they ought to be based on principles of planned, and yet participatory communication (Lana, 1989; Nwoku, 1993; Servaes, 1999/2; Jacobson and Kolluri, 1999; Dervin and Frenette, 2001). Based on that conviction, this study set out to investigate the basis of claims made by some scholars of development communication accusing the World Bank of being the present-day proponents of the top-down model of development, and its linear approach to communication (White,1999:34; Wilkins and Waters, 2000:59). Whereas the Nowak and Wärneryd model provides an excellent framework in which to present LVEMP’s discernible media and communication strategy, the model is by design linear, inconsistent with the thrust of this study, which is participatory or dialogic communication. In order to assess the participatory nature of LVEMP’s media and communication strategy, this study uses Dervin and Frenette’s dialogic communication model (2001:70-85), supplemented by several other scholars in planned participatory communication (Lana, 1989:179-189; Nwoku, 1993: 16-18; Servaes, 1999/2:88-92). The findings in this study are presented in chapters four and five. In addition to presenting a situational analysis of the major environmental problems affecting the Lake Victoria Basin (LVB) people, chapter four employs mainly in-depth interviews and document analyses to assess the extent to which the problems affecting the LVB are media and communication-related. The rather extensive chapter five uses the models mentioned above to present, analyze and discuss findings from the field. Both chapters are enhanced with graphical and pictorial presentations to enable this thesis tell a more compelling story.

Master of Philosophy Thesis at University of Oslo, 2003

This study uses the Nowak and Wärneryd model of communication campaigns (1985) as the ‘roadmap’ to present findings from an investigation conducted on the Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project (LVEMP), co-funded by the World Bank and Global Environment Facility (GEF). LVEMP’s major goal is to arrest the environmental problems affecting Lake Victoria and the 30 million people who live in its basin. LVEMP was launched in 1997 and is being implemented by the three East African countries sharing Lake Victoria (Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda). This study investigated LVEMP-Uganda. The academic impetus to this study is that for development communication approaches to succeed, they ought to be based on principles of planned, and yet participatory communication (Lana, 1989; Nwoku, 1993; Servaes, 1999/2; Jacobson and Kolluri, 1999; Dervin and Frenette, 2001). Based on that conviction, this study set out to investigate the basis of claims made by some scholars of development communication accusing the World Bank of being the present-day proponents of the top-down model of development, and its linear approach to communication (White,1999:34; Wilkins and Waters, 2000:59). LVEMP provided the best ground for me to investigate those claims since it is a project co-sponsored and co-supervised by the World Bank (LVEMP News Bulletin, Vol.2 No.2, June 2002:12). Whereas the Nowak and Wärneryd model provides an excellent framework in which to present LVEMP’s discernible media and communication strategy, the model is by design linear, inconsistent with the thrust of this study, which is participatory or dialogic communication. In order to assess the participatory nature of LVEMP’s media and communication strategy, this study uses Dervin and Frenette’s dialogic communication model (2001:70-85), supplemented by several other scholars in planned participatory communication (Lana, 1989:179-189; Nwoku, 1993: 16-18; Servaes, 1999/2:88-92). The findings in this study are presented in chapters four and five. In addition to presenting a situational analysis of the major environmental problems affecting the Lake Victoria Basin (LVB) people, chapter four employs mainly in-depth interviews and document analyses to assess the extent to which the problems affecting the LVB are media and communication-related. The rather extensive chapter five uses the models mentioned above to present, analyze and discuss findings from the field. Both chapters are enhanced with graphical and pictorial presentations to enable this thesis tell a more compelling story.

Participatory communication approach has emerged from the criticism of the role play communication in the modernisation and dependency paradigm. Nowadays, this approach is considered as new paradigm on communication for development. This approach points out of the participation from local community for self-development by communication from 'bottom up' perspective. In brief, participatory emphasises more understanding of multiplicity opinions to overcome stereotyped thinking by give many respects for the counterpart's attitude to accommodate self-determination and self-reliance (Servaes,1996). In spite the promises of participatory communication, opponent of this perspective argue that participatory has obstacles in its implementation. Moreover, how the theory and practice of participatory communication has become the dominant paradigm will be examined in this essay by presenting its superiorities and limitations in term of communication for development.

This article offers an explanation for the limited uses of participatory communication in development by taking an institutionalist perspective that examines prevalent notions about communication and organizational uses in international aid institutions. The argument is that institutional goals and dynamics determine the use of disciplinary and theoretical approaches. The selection of specific communication approaches is not primarily based on their analytical or normative value, but rather, on institutional factors and expectations. Institutional dynamics undercut the potential contributions of participatory communication in three ways. First, bureaucratic requirements favor the use of informational models over participatory approaches to communication. Standard institutional procedures inside development agencies, donors and governments perpetuate understandings and uses of communication as a set of technical skills to disseminate messages. Second, the weak status of communication as a field of study and practice in development organizations undermine the prospects for expanding the understanding of communication that do not fit prevalent institutional expectations. As long as technical experts in public health or other fields expect communication to be 'the art of messaging,' communication staff lacks autonomy to make decisions and incorporate participatory approaches. Third, the institutional predominance of a technical mindset also limits the uses of participation thinking. The prioritization of technical perspectives decouples 'development' programs from local processes of participation and change.

The research set out to explore the major factors affecting the practice of participatory communication (PC) in development processes using the development and aid works experiences of a leading local NGO in Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) called Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara (ORDA) as a case study. This qualitative case study used in-depth interview, Focus Group Discussion (FGD), and document analysis and field observation for data collection. The study was framed based on the participatory model of development which has been assumed to bring about sustainable socioeconomic change of a country. The research reveals the presence of several factors affecting the practice of participatory development communication in ORDA. The factors could be divided into three sub themes which include the individual, the institutional and the environmental factors. Because of such pressing factors participatory communication is marginalized and genuine participation is the missing link in the development process. To avert such trends, the paper calls for professionalism for the development communication, structural change of the organization and holistic approach of development for successful development endeavors.

The growing dominance of project planning cycles and results--based management in development over the past 20 years has significant implications for the effective evaluation of communication for development and social change and the sustainability of these processes. These approaches to development and evaluation usually give priority to the linear, logical framework (or logframe) approach promoted by many development institutions. This tends to emphasize upward accountability approaches to development and its evaluation, so that development is driven by exogenous rather than endogenous models of development and social change. Such approaches are underpinned by ideas of pre-planning, and pre--determination of what successful outcomes look like. In this way, outcomes of complex interventions tend to be reduced to simple, cause--effect processes and the categorization of things, including people . This runs counter to communication for development approaches, which prioritize engagement, relationships, empowerment and dialogue as important components for positive social change. Alternative, participatory approaches to development, complexity theories and whole systems approaches understand social change as unpredictable and emergent. Social change is unknowable in advance, something to learn from and adapt to. The former instrumentalist approaches prioritize evaluation that is based on the categorization of abstract concepts, control of planned activities and inputs, and pre determined measures of success; the latter prioritize evaluation that captures relationships, openness, emergence, innovation and flexibility. The former are mainstream, considered rigorous, and largely based on standardized methods; the latter are alternative, considered (by proponents of the former) to lack rigour and based on a range of approaches, methodologies and methods selected according to each initiative and its context. The latter are considered most appropriate for evaluating communication for development and social change, and herein lies a double bind: On the one hand there is a need to promote the importance of communication for development and social change and demonstrate this through evaluation; on the other hand the most appropriate evaluation approaches are not well understood by mainstream evaluators whose preferred approaches are, in turn, considered inappropriate by communication for development practitioners.