Starting the main discussion
Moderators
Hi Everyone,
To begin the first reflection we’d like to turn your attention to the programmes described in the manual. Summaries of some of these were sent out in The Drum Beat newsletter this week - http://www.comminit.com/drum_beat.html. These are copied below as quick references to the reflection question itself. We’d like you to think about these summaries and the full programme outlines in the manual and reflect on the question:
Do you think it is possible to develop successful communication strategies for all of these experiences using one theoretical approach?
We want to challenge ourselves with this question. It is obvious at one level that the very nature of community and local context defies a ‘cookie cutter’ approach to communication. However, what we want to get at here are questions like:
To what extent do we all say ‘one size fits all’ approaches don’t work but find ourselves using them (or perhaps stuck with them) anyway?
If this is so where do the pressures to go against our better judgement come from?
Are some of the theoretical approaches commonly used today wrapped in the language of local decision making and control while their practical application demands much community conformity to universally applied standards, results, objectives and global goals?
Or alternatively:
Does the use of multiple theoretical/methodological models and approaches merely indicate the infancy of the field?
Could it be that we can find a model that enables the kind of participation across culture, geography, gender, ethnicity and other differences that will bring about positive community change in natural resource management?
Might we not be scattering our resources and losing opportunities to scale up successful interventions with too much focus on the differences between people and not enough on their common humanity?
Below are summaries of some of the programmes presented in the manual. Please reflect on the main question above and let us all know what you think about the possibility of a universal model for communication and natural resource management.
The Summaries:
1. Namibia
The CBNRM project in Namibia works with communal area
residents on sustainable use of their resources combining reform of policy and
legislation with implementation at the community level... Pilot projects
identify community issues and test appropriate responses. Local experience is
integrated into policy and legislation development. Facilitated meetings work
out differences. Sustainable resource management training provides skills.
Meetings between communities and tour and resort companies build trust and help
negotiate deals. Research is planned and carried out by government with
community participation. Government incorporates lessons from pilot projects and
community experience into
policy.
http://www.comminit.com/stfaocommnrm/sld-8167.html
2. Cambodia
The CBNRM project in Ratanaki Province supports indigenous
people living in the highland jungles of Cambodia to earn a sustainable
livelihood from, and control the resources in, the forests they have
traditionally inhabited. Cambodian researchers work with community members whom
they train to map local resources and document local knowledge. The communities
use the knowledge and training to lobby provincial and national governments
about land use permits and laws protecting indigenous people’s rights to
possess and use public land and support their traditional livelihood
practices.
http://www.comminit.com/stfaocommnrm/sld-8174.html
3. Sri Lanka
The Kothmale Community Radio Internet Project builds on the
Kothmale community radio station and programming. The Internet project focuses
on assessing the potential benefits of new communication technologies to remote
areas. Several themed radio programmes allow listeners to request information
from the Internet. These requests are researched by radio station volunteers and
the answers are broadcast in local language over the radio. Volunteers are also
designing their own web sites and posting information on local
culture.
http://www.comminit.com/stfaocommnrm/sld-8176.html
4. Costa Rica and Nicaragua
The ICCADES project synthesises several communication
experiences and innovations in Central America to support development in the San
Juan River Basin between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. It helps local communities
design and implement their own strategies for the sustainable development of the
basin. In the San Juan River Basin, the project works with local communities,
government and media (mostly radio), cross border organisations, and national
groups and
government.
http://www.comminit.com/stfaocommnrm/sld-8202.html
5. Turkey
Bugday supports the development of a national organic food
industry in Turkey. Through education and encouraging local production and
consumption of organically grown and processed foods, it seeks to develop an
industry to improve the livelihoods of farmers and the health of consumers. It
works primarily through education to producers, consumers, traders and
processors to provide information on the value of organic foods to health and
the environment, and the importance of rural life and
tradition.
http://www.comminit.com/stfaocommnrm/sld-8203.html
One can only define certain common principles
Silvia Balit
My name is Silvia Balit and for many years I was associated with the FAO communication for development group.
To start, I would like to congratulate the authors and sponsors for this interactive resource book. I particularly liked the introduction, which sets out in a clear and concise manner the evolution in the major issues of communication theory and practice for natural resource management.
With regard to your first questions for reflection, I personally do not believe that there can be a valid single theoretical model or recipe for a participatory process or communication approach to natural resource management. Strategies and approaches will vary according to different eco-geographic conditions, economic, political, social factors and culture. Ideology will also condition the theoretical model: for example, the social marketing model stems from a western and northern ideological approach. The objective of the communication initiative (i.e. sharing of information, or sharing of knowledge and skills, social change, etc.) will also influence the choice of a model. The best solutions will always foresee a mix of communication models, functions and approaches. It is also important to remember that participatory processes can only be applied in situations where there is the political space and an enabling environment, if they are to be successful. Often government institutions at both national, regional and local levels are not prepared for participatory processes, and communities may suffer from repressive measures rather than benefit from the communication initiative.
At the same time there are certain guiding principles which have now been identified through lessons learned, which can be considered common to many applications in participatory processes. In fact, they can be found in many of the experiences cited in the manual. They include the need to foresee participatory research, listening to communities, participatory planning, participatory evaluation, respect for traditional knowledge, the need to work at different levels, gender sensitivity, etc. Thus, I believe that rather than think of a common theoretical model, one can only define certain common principles for successful communication in natural resource management.
Conceptual framework is possible
Al Santos
Regarding the question: Do you think it is possible to develop successful communication strategies for all of these experiences using one theoretical approach?
Yes, a common conceptual framework identifying a set of principles and qualities for successful communication strategies is possible. To begin with, principles of culture in communication will underpin such a common theoretical approach as reflected in the experiences. The common approach however must also recognize the quality of diversity.
Communities have to be the ones to decide
Rosmery Machicado
Hi,
My concern is around the following question:
Are some of the theoretical approaches commonly used today wrapped in the language of local decision making and control while their practical application demands much community conformity to universally applied standards, results, objectives and global goals?
I think that practice shows that most projects meanwhile are implemented with budget and resources available could successfully present results, but this situation automatically changes when the project finishes or when the technical support leaves the place - unless it is owned by the community itself. Communities have to be the ones that decide from the beginning, from phase one, when the project is drafted, priorities have to be decided by the people. I believe that some times technicias and experts know more based on their experience but sometimes what it counts more is the knowledge of the native "experts", who know better their communities. Commenting on the Namibia project for example: I think on one hand skills gained at the sustainable resource management training could give the impression of a successful project, but on the other hand if policy and legislation is not applied, and the follow up of that process is not openly discussed for political reasons then where is the failure?, why the project doesn’t make sure that both sides are implemented in the case of my country there has been several projects carried out with one side of the applications the other is left for the community to be solved without any guarantees.
Well I am not sure if this comments helps to your purpose, but I just wanted to share some of my points of view.
I hate theory when it is taken too seriously
Ian Dickson
I hate theory when it is taken too seriously.
Theory is only useful in so far as it arises from and then informs practice.
In community terms the only thing that counts is being open minded as to the following points:
1) Does the community need/want what we are offering?
2) How can we maximize the ability of the community to then get there by itself?
The answers to those questions will vary from case to case, and all the worker can do is use common sense and an understanding of common humanity - that people are more alike than not alike, and that most groups of people fall into one of several fairly clearly defined group structures e.g.:
a) Leader with power - someone/small group who can instruct and have done.
b) Leader by respect - little/no formal power, but their views carry weight and lead to action.
c) Anarchical peer group - every person makes up their own mind, but commits when agreeable.
You assess which seems to apply, (not always obvious), and tailor for it.
IMO field people are aware of the limits of theory. It is academics and administrators who take theory too seriously, and this can then pressure those more practical people to make poor implementations, because, for most people, compromise is OK if the alternative is the end of their career.
Projects that work do so when they meet a need that the community recognises that it has, and the workers understand the social dynamics well enough to make them work for the project.
Projects should ideally come FROM the community. It is only these projects that are likely to best fit the community.
Big problem - current funding structures are not well geared to providing communities with a way to access funds, and probably the biggest single thing that an outsider can do is simply help them access the resources they need to do what they want.
All of this is of course common sense, but even when bureaucratic bodies are staffed by well meaning people they tend to end up with impenetrable rules and procedures that require professionals to interpret for the non professional. Look at any Government, the UN or the EU.
If any organisation did unclog itself, it would then need to reach out to change the perception of it as clogged up.
Words are seen through different lenses
John Veldhuis
I am the Vice-chancellor of Central Buganda University (Uganda) and have lived in 5 different cultures, and from that perspective I do not think a common theoretical model can be drawn up.
Even words which appear to be understood by all parties are interpreted through a different set of cultural, historical and ethnic lenses or filters. It is important for the person working in a different culture to become acquainted with these constrains rather than assume that because we use the same language the same ideas are perceived. They are not. Failure to understand this leads to misunderstandings and a lack of cooperation of the parties involved. Words such as stewardship, ecology, renewable resources, mean many different things to many different people. A common theory will only get into the way. There are however some common principles which can serve us well in international and cross cultural projects but we need to make sure that all parties understand each other well and that terms are clearly defined.
Conceptual framework is possible
Alan Geoghegan
Dear Al Santos,
Regarding your comment: "The common approach however must also recognize the quality of diversity."
This is particularly true in your country, the Philippines, where over 78 major ethnolinguistic groups exist, and most particularly in Mindanao where there are 40 out of that 78. From village to village or from island to island the expression of culture is so vast, therefore communication strategies must take that into consideration.
I have interviewed (on video) quite a few people in your web site, notably Maria Wanan and Rosie Sula of the T’boli tribe of Southern Mindanao.
I completed some documentation of the T’boli tribe and am in the process of editing the material for initially a market in the US and the Philippines. I was moved by their dedication to the preservation of culture, with little funds, though with a lot of dedication and integrity and environmental awareness.
"Nowhere in my experience in Asia has so much diversity of languages, cultures, and history been found in a single country. Everywhere I went, a different dialect, even a totally different language was spoken. Tagalog, as the national language, ties the country together linguistically. But the individual characteristics which identify one village from another, each perhaps only several miles apart, remain today. " James R. Nelon, Photgrapher.
Common Principles
Don Richardson
First, thanks for making this discussion happen.
I like the idea of common principles - as opposed to a common theory. I work a great deal in the area of public consultation and stakeholder communications on natural resource management projects. Here are the principles that drive that work. These are derived from the publications of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) - www.iap2.org:
1) Start communicating, early in the life of a project or programme, with all the parties involved.
2) All the activities under the consultation and communication process should:
a) contribute to the social, environmental, and financial sustainability of the initiative,
b) be flexible and adapt to local needs and conditions, promote the participation of the stakeholders throughout the life of the initiative, and
c) be conducted in a transparent and open manner.
3) Provide full information promptly to encourage fair and informed decision.
4) Support consultation to the maximum by responding to information requests fully and quickly.
5) Provide opportunities for people to inform each other within the context of the initiative, and to offer advice and guidance to the initiative.
6) Help in identifying and understanding the diversity of perspectives, values, and interest.
7) Strive to work with stakeholders to identify how best the consultation and communication process can help to guide the flow of discussion.
8) Develop areas of common ground, understand where differences exists, and the underlying reasons for them.
9) Establish clear and realistic timetables for facilitating discussion, and arriving at decisions.
10) Be sensitive to the limited resources available to people and groups, and provide tools and resources for building stakeholder capacity to participate where feasible.
11) Provide information in plain language.
12) Give practical help to people and groups to take part with particular attention to equal opportunity.
13) Provide frequent feedback.
14) Stimulate constructive exchange of views.
15) Frequently monitor and evaluate the process.
16) Share with stakeholders the responsibility for effective consultation and communication.
These principles can be combined with a wide variety of common practices, or the participatory approaches and ICT applications or media that might be in vogue or practically available/workable at a given time and place. I like them because they transcend, but inform, specific practices and the use of specific communication tools.
IAP2 has published a simple toolkit matrix on practices to share information and facilitate stakeholder engagement in projects - http://www.iap2.org/boardlink/toolbox.pdf
I hate theory when it is taken too seriously
Al Santos
"I hate theory when it is taken too seriously."
As the cover of the manual suggests, there is a productive dynamic between experience and theory. I will take theory very seriously especially if this is articulated by individuals or groups drawing on their lessons, insights and reflections from experiences and real engagement with peoples and communities.
Common Principles
Titus Moetsabi
I believe in the common principles perspective but would like to add the following:
1. Strategy development in communication for social change or development is as much a rational as a creative process. Achieving a balance might not adhere to specific rules and principles but could be situational. A resident of a Kalahari Desert community once said to me, "Why do the national parks people want to fence us off from nature, the lion and myself are one." I had to jump out of the box of generic principles in this situation in order to collaborate with the community to come up with a communication strategy where the "lion and the person are one."
2. I observe natural resource communication strategies as generative as well as planned. The planned component is more the vision and mission component of the communication program wile the generative is the feed forward from social dialogue that occurs from implementation of the strategy.
3. Lastly, I want to say natural resource communication strategies should be a mixture of evolution and revolution. Gradual thinks must be better than before, but participants should go through a ‘catharsis’ - the communication program should change the individual and social perceptions as a result of the communication program.
4. From this viewpoint, guidelines are more appropriate than theoretical recipes.
Conceptual framework is possible
Tayo Odeyemi
Regarding the question: Do you think it is possible to develop successful communication strategies for all of these experiences using one theoretical approach?
I have read so many comments on this question and I agree with virtually all of them.
An additional point, from my experience is the need for transparency as a pre-requisite for successful communication.
Theory must be constructed with the other not from the other
Catalina Zuleta Palacio
First, excuse my bad English, this is a quite literal translation.
Treatment of being but precise the possible one not to confer the ideas.
With respect to the initial question, I consider that so many criteria could be gathered as practical experiences have. Nevertheless, it is possible to gather fundamental criteria that they guided a management, always considering that all the actors have:
Particular systems of communication
Particular concepts on the development
Objectives to fulfill
Necessities
That theory offers a performance frame, but it practices it faces the creativity and the putting in common. Theory offers conceptual bases to us that must be constructed with the other and not from the other. It practices it summons to us with the other.
Yes it is possible to ‘gerenciar’ the natural resources, starting off of an adaptable theory for the regional, communitarian particularities and of communication.
One can only define certain common principles
Vladimir Gai
Interesting and useful discussion! Though too many things are well known but, unfortunately, not always applied.
I do agree with Silvia Balit, but would like to add one important element: major universal principles such as:
communication as part and parcel of (sustainable, democratic) development process and each development project;
freedom of expression;
editorially independent public service broadcasting, grass roots/community/ participatory communication etc.
As Silvia said, (too) "often government institutions at both national, regional and local levels are not prepared for participatory processes, and communities may suffer from repressive measures rather than benefit from the communication initiative".
One can only define certain common principles
Collins Boakye-Agyemang
Its great to have professionals from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures all contributing to this on-line discussions.
There is an interesting International Marketing concept "Think Global act local". To bring it into communication context, I think there is the need to select the concepts and theories that are suitable to the needs of the local people. Many communication for development programmes have failed due to the reliance on theories that do not take political, economic and socio-cultural factors into consideration. I agree with Silvia and Vladimir that the lack of participatory processes can be a hurdle.
Combination strategies or theories are the best
Dr Lazarus Zanamwe
Regarding the question: Do you think it is possible to develop successful communication strategies for all of these experiences using one theoretical approach?
I believe that the use of one theoretical framework is not always the best. I believe that a combination of theories or frameworks taking what is best in given socioeconomic and cultural contexts will lead to more effective communication strategies not natural resource management. This is because a universal theory might not work too well without recognizing our cultural diversities and our different modes of communicating the same messages.
Common Principles
Mtro. Marco Antonio Sánchez Izquierdo
Hi everyone.
My name is Marco Sanchez and I work for Mexican Institute of Water Technology. From the review of experiences shared and my own experience in Mexico, I do agree with colleagues on the matter that general principles should be applied and communication strategies tailored to particular cases. However, when designing a systematic communication model an additional key element should be considered: every day communication is already going on between people that will be involved in natural resource management initiatives. Specifically, model has to allow us to identify what people think, feel and say - and what is not said - on environment, which establishes the scenario where systematic communication processes will be performed.
I would like to congratulate the authors and sponsors for this initiative.
Flexibility, flexibility, and more flexibility
Waad El-Hadidy
With respect to the first question on whether an all encompassing theory is possible, here are my thoughts:
Although it could be possible, I don’t think it is desirable. I particularly liked the book because it did not present a methodology or a process, rather a series of experiences with a number of salient issues and stimulating exercises. That’s what we need to do...think and reflect more on all of our experiences. I am not discussing whether the book achieved that purpose, I am just saying that the purpose is well founded.
I think as practitioners, we tend to get too consumed in utilizing methodologies, because it gives a sense of concreteness to our work. A surgical doctor undergoes operations, an engineer builds things, when it comes to people working in development it is rather difficult to explain what we do. Some of us resort to "conducting PRAs", or "providing extension packages" or "conducting training". Some of us lose sight of what we’re in this work to achieve and take comfort in utilizing tools and methodologies just for the sake of their application.
Development is so context driven. It requires flexibility, flexibility, and more flexibility. What is really needed is a careful understanding of each situation, some common sense, and some reflection throughout the process. Perhaps not finding a common theory is good in that it forces us all to keep thinking on what is appropriate, rather than following what theory says.
I am by no means downplaying the role of theory. But what type of theory? The idea for guiding principles is a good one. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach is good in that respect. While there is no ready solution, there are guiding principles that keep you conscious throughout the process. That would be very useful for communication. What could also be useful in addition to the principles, is highlighting key issues to particularly look at in communication activities, such as ethics, culture, outcomes of communication, etc. These issues could be useful for studying across as many communication initiatives as possible, in order facilitate synthesis and derive lessons learned. We need to be careful though, that such type of empirical research does not become a fetish for more and improved practices, without stopping and thinking about the fundamental underpinnings. The question of ‘is a communication strategy actually needed here’ should always be asked. As for the second question on whether the absence of theory marks infancy, I don’t think it is the absence of theory. Rather, it is the abstract nature of the term ‘communication’ that makes it difficult to grasp for many, and hence difficult to stay conscious of.
I think the essence of theory (and learning) should be how can we ensure that the learning process does not stop, that we don’t become complacent with the knowledge we already have. Perhaps something that highlights the plurality and diversity in communication (and development in general) is needed to keep us constantly questioning and learning.
Common Principles
Ketline Adodo
The Spanish poet says (in the introduction of this invaluable manual): "there are no paths, paths are made by walking." I would say "yes; but". Certain paths already made deserve to be followed. That’s where orientations come from. Orientations are useful, especially when you are not walking alone, when you are called to accompany others. There is no point in walking just for walking like the man in the Johnny Walker (Whisky) advertisement "keep walking".
It’s like building a house. There will be doors, and windows, the dimensions and locations etc. may vary; yet the foundations will be at the bottom and the roof at the top. That is to support the point of view of Titus Moetsabi: a rational and creative process.
So much has happened/is happening in the area of communication theory. But there are some principles and approaches that are there to stay, which are well illustrated in all the experiences described. Among them:
Striking the responsive chord
Participation towards ownership
Sharing instead of transferring knowledge/information
Two-way communication
Behind all successful change/development initiatives one will find men and women who are driven by a genuine interest in the people they are with or are working with, and who also have two important qualities: cautiousness and perspicacity.
Thank you all for this enriching sharing experience
Conceptual framework is possible
Richie Adewusi
All the contributions are valid in there rights. However, I believe that frameworks remain what they are - frameworks. The peculiarity of specific environments should determine the type(s) of intervention(s) necessary to address issues within that environment.
Common Principles
Titus Moetsabi
Well said!
Don Richardson.
Common Principles
Ricardo Ramirez
Dear colleagues:
I think most practitioners in Communication for Development have moved beyond the need for unifying theories or models, and onto sets of guiding principles that are adjusted to local contexts (like the list that Don Richardson just shared). I have found the following principles useful in designing communication strategies - I use them as a check list that helps one stay on track with some fundamentals. The list is an integration of principles proposed by FAO/DFID and by IDRC (see source below):
1. Offer concrete solutions and use realistic technologies
2. Move forward at the pace of the community
3. Learn from mistakes
4. Localize globalized communication
5. Work with a gender perspective
6. Let people speak with their own voice
7. Generate new knowledge and promote local content
8. Address info costs: who pays?
9. Ensure equitable access
10. Strengthen existing policies and systems
11. Build capacity
12. Build knowledge partnerships
Source: http://www.idrc.ca/pan/ricardo/publications/ofelia_eng.htm Ricardo Gómez and Benjamín Casadiego. Letter to Aunt Ofelia: Seven proposals for human development using new information and communications technologies.
Flexibility, flexibility, and more flexibility
Ruwnder David Boyes Annal
Dear Friends,
This opinion of mine comes to you all after a day of reflection. Summing up the thought process, I’d like to share with all my small experience in the North Eastern Region of India. I am born and partially brought up in the same region of North East India. As a boy I behave and communicate in the same way I am to share with you now. I belong to a small indigenous tribe call, ANAL (Naga fold) living in the state of Manipur. Here in our tiny (6000 population) tribe, we act first and expected the other person to understand our intentions. As a boy I used to kicked and boxed a person who hurt me and when asked why I did, I would say that the person had hurt me by his/her apparent gestures that were not good to me.
Dear friends, I realized this as a wrong way of communicating with others only when I interacted with many other Indians at Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai and some other parts of India, where I happen to be. Less is said here in this part of the world. People perceived and act no much theories no much talking. You may say we are uncivilized, uneducated, bla bla, but the society is fine in its own right. I agree with many of you that communication theories are OK and there is no argument against it. It provides a wide spectrum of avenues for global learning. Cultural & traditional considerations are important. Flexibility in the theory is one I strongly believe.
Great discussion,
More later.
Dialogic approach extremely useful
Kate Morgan
Hello Morry
I have been following the discussion about the Communication in NRM guide with great interest. Just quickly, I think that it is impossible to adopt on theory or model of communication for any project - no universal screwdrivers. However, I have found that taking a dialogic approach, such as that advocated by Barnett Pearce and colleagues at the Public Conversations Project in Watertown, US extremely useful. It provides a framework for THINKING about relating with others, not a specific theory or model of communication. However, as a communication researcher, Barnett does draw on various ‘relational’ theories of communication developed over the years to help people act in the ways advocated by the approach.
I think we need more conceptual frameworks that guide thinking and action, rather than provide specific communication methods or tools. Like many in the forum have said, we tend to get carried away with trying to create certainty by using recipes, methods or approaches. The type of framework I envisage would be one that taught people to think about communication in more ‘fluid’ ways and to surrender the need to chase our tails looking for certainty - which in my experience is present in neither life or work.
I still draw on communication theory to some extent to design the specific steps in a project (sometimes I’ll mix them up because projects will involve a bit of PR, a bit of dialogue and a bit of Appreciative Inquiry). However, generally I find that using the PCP project generates methodologies for me - mind you, I have worked in communication for 10 years so I guess my decisions are also greatly informed by practical experience.
Theory is useful when it distils our thoughts
Al Santos
In a ricefield when it rains, farmers take out an umbrella that is raised or worn - made of straw, plastic, cloth or grass. In an urgent village meeting, participants express agreement intensely by stomping feet, bowing, jumping, laughing, shouting or smiling quietly. There is commonality of thought and action articulated in a diversity of ways.
Perhaps, theory does not have to be regarded as all-embracing truth. Its function could simply be to affirm our ability to appreciate our similarities and our differences, to understand elements that unite us and divide us, voices that free us or control us, ideas that appeal to us or repel us. Theory is useful when it distils our thoughts and enables us to become more honed in practice.
Our experiences when observed in theory can allow us to think and act more clearly. And by the way, with the downpour of ideas in this forum, I’ll wear my umbrella upside-down.
I hate theory when it is taken too seriously
Terry A. Olowu
Dear All,
It is real nice to be part of this discussion.
My reactions to "Do you think it is possible to develop successful communication strategies for all of these experiences using one theoretical approach?"
First, yes it is possible. While some have said that it is not but rather we should generate a set of guiding principles, I believe we can use these same guiding principles to build a theoretical approach/theory. Maybe we are not quite agreed on what a theoretical approach or theory is? If that is the problem then it should be sorted out.
Second, if the theory we are envisaging is based on lessons learned from field experiences, then there is no need for us to have any disgust for theory. Practice should inform theory and of course, theory should modify practice. Indeed, Ian Dickson made this submission earlier.
Finally, let us accept this challenge and in the midst of all these situational differences identify the "common strands". I think it is possible to use these "common strands" to develop a theoretical framework for successful communication strategies.
Common Principles
Silvia Balit
I really like the guiding principles which Don Richardson and Ricardo Ramirez submitted. In particular, I like the idea of a practical checklist.
A common framework of essential fundamentals
Maria Protz
Friends and colleagues:
It is a pleasure to participate and to learn so much from the different views and the synergies that are being expressed. I am very pleased to be part of a panel focused on issues which are very close to my heart.
My name is Maria Protz and I have been working in the field of participatory rural communication for natural resource management for about 13 years on projects related to soil fertility, biodiversity, watershed management, water quality & sanitation, IPM, irrigation and organic agriculture.
My own thoughts and reaction as to whether or not it is possible to develop successful communication strategies using one theoretical approach is first to ask, What is "theory" if it is not careful, honest and critical reflection on actual "experience"? What I like very much about the book is that it is sharing of experiences that can help to inform our own actions.
May I throw a different perspective and a bit of wrench into the mix? There are many different experiences, cultures and natural resource problems and issues, and there obviously is no "one size fits all" approach to anything, but I do think that in the field of development and participatory communication today - based on the experience of the past 40 years - we do have more than just general guiding principles for our work. Many mistakes have been made. Many things have been tried. We know that certain approaches will not work. While I agree that a single theoretical approach might not be possible, I feel quite strongly that guiding principles alone are not strong enough. They do not have enough leverage or "clout" in my view in many instances. It is usually very difficult to get governments, projects, agencies and others to recognize how critical participatory communication is to any sustainable development process unless we are offering something that is results based and which can really show it makes a difference on a sustained basis. I guess this resonates a bit better with Ricardo Ramirez’s point about "fundamentals" which to me are somewhat different from guiding principles.
I would argue in fact that there are far too many examples of bad (ok, poor) communication efforts (even so called "participatory ones"), especially in the field of natural resource management, precisely because they followed general principles but were not structured enough with clear indicators and milestones that result through a process of genuine participatory communication. In the Caribbean, for example, the majority of GEF funded projects related to NRM have focused on "public awareness" and "communication", but in many cases they have produced little more than lovely posters, brochures, videos, and feel good "anecdotal" case studies and reports. Most of these efforts would likely be described as "participatory". But little is known about what impact they’ve had on the ground. Guiding principles alone, I fear, are not sufficient and are often left to chance. We can all "talk the talk" very well, but walking the walk is always different. Certain basic steps and strategies need to be considered and followed as necessary. Of course they need to be flexible, but if these fundamentals are not MET (not just considered), our efforts won’t be sustainable. Our efforts have to bear results and make a difference in real concrete ways to people and to the protection of our natural resources or we’re not doing our jobs properly.
An example: in the Caribbean today there is still not enough known about the real "knowledge, attitudes and practices" of people using natural resources. Yet, many assumptions are made, much money spent and many campaigns and communication efforts are launched based on these assumptions. I realize that in some circles there are strong negative views about "social marketing" techniques and I’m not suggesting that a KAP per se always need to be a first step - particularly if enough information is known, but it is important not to proceed on assumptions alone - even when these are views expressed by rural communities. Fortunately, as the book describes, PRCA techniques are an excellent way to engage communities in a KAP effort. There are other tools and techniques. In Jamaica, this was eventually possible in the Ridge to Reef Watershed project, and the findings were completely unexpected for all concerned including people living in watersheds and who were most vulnerable and closest to the natural resources. In that instance, while there had been many assumptions, stereotypes and value judgments about what people knew and didn’t know (even within communities through much consultation), the findings for the most part indicated that people did value the environment tremendously, they knew what things were harmful and what the costs would be in the long run, but they didn’t know what alternatives existed (for example, to throwing garbage in the river when there were no rural sanitation services). The "principle/fundamental" point of being realistic is especially important and well taken. It is also absolutely critical to be clear about what the real options are, but again - this often takes a lot of work and requires a participatory communication process. Many options/solutions definitely do emerge from communities and their own local practices, indigenous knowledge and creative wisdom. And of course, the building of community capacity is absolutely essential for self-sufficiency and sustainability. But communities don’t have ALL the answers or all the resources either. Also, not everything is possible and consensus has to be gained on what is and isn’t. This too requires the skills, not just the principles, of patience, discernment, diplomacy, negotiation, and so on. Part of participatory communication involves working with stakeholders to outline the full range of options so that informed choices can be made and joint solutions found that will encourage good governance and help to garner agreement on the roles and responsibilities of all involved (including the rural communities). Often local services and local officials resist participatory communication efforts because they are concerned that expectations will be raised that cannot be fulfilled. And they are right. That is often what happens. Win-win scenarios need to be found if they are to be sustainable and to keep pace with, and build capacity, of the agencies who are ultimately meant to serve rural communities. Otherwise even participatory communication efforts can be no different than great advertising when there is nothing on the shop shelves to sell. I realize that these are the same points being expressed as principles/fundamentals and we are talking about the same things really, except that I believe they are more than principles and actual steps, techniques and skills needed in a sustainable process. I guess I’m coming from a background of working predominately in one country and one region to generate participatory communication with stakeholders (communities, government entities, private sector, NGOs - and myself, personally) over a sustained period of time - not just through a project cycle or on short-term consulting basis - but rather over the long-haul where one gets to know all the characters, their interests, their agendas, their issues and tactics, and their joys, because we all live together in the same place. I think another thing to note is that there are "moments" in these processes. Often there is one step forward, two steps backward, one step forward, five steps backward. This is different from flexibility to me though. Participatory communication is like a dance in a long term relationship - it requires each partner taking the lead at different times, depending on what is needed and what music is playing. As Silvia Balit has said in the past, it is both "an art, and a craft". Many of these moments should be recognizable to practitioners of participatory communication. That is what a theory can provide - signposts (fundamentals) to be on the lookout for and that one should expect to see if things are working or which serve as red flags if they aren’t. When exactly these moments may happen, or what communications tools are used to get there, may vary, but over a long term certain actions and changes must be evident or the process isn’t working.
To me, the book touches on many of these issues. Perhaps then, rather than a common theoretical approach what is possible is common "framework of these essential fundamentals". The critical elements of building awareness, capacity, consensus, gender inclusivity, setting indicators to assess progress, being realistic, taking action, reflection, advocacy, monitoring changes and impact, negotiation, revising actions, adjusting for new needs that arise...." these are all "moments" that are likely to be experienced if participation is genuine. But they are "concrete steps in a process" not just guiding principles. They are fundamentals that require skills. Perhaps they will take shape in different ways and at different times in different projects and with different results, but these moments will happen. Guaranteed. This is not just "theory."
..in defence of Theories
Kim Witte
Hi folks,
This issue of theory and application interests me very much. Theories, which I define as explanations for why things work the way they do, or more formally, how two or more variables work together to influence outcomes, are used implicitly and explicitly by almost everyone I know. I find that even the most ardent "anti-theory" persons are actually using their own informal theories (or explanations) for why people behave the way they do (for example). Academics even have a name for it - naive theories - defined as the theories people use everyday to explain why things happen to them and why the world works the way it does. Theories seem to get a bad rap because they are often written up for academic journals in jargon and difficult-to-understand language. Further, to establish causality, most theories are tested in artificial settings with specialized populations (like on a university campus with college students as the test population). However, theories are incredibly useful in that they offer shortcuts to intervention success. Also, for perplexing findings or behaviours they can offer that needed "ah-ha" that puts the whole picture together.
I think the key is that theories need to be clearly explained without jargon or a Ph.D.- level vocabulary. And, as others have pointed out, the best theories are flexible, can be adapted to unique situations, and offer clear guidance for successful interventions.
Several years ago I tried in vain to develop an "African-Based Health Behaviour Change Theory" with Solomon Nzyuko at AMREF. We took several health behaviour change theories and tested their constructs both quantitatively and qualitatively (e.g., susceptibility, self-efficacy, subjective norms, etc.). Before doing this, we presented the theories and what we wanted to do to a group of behaviour change practitioners in Nairobi (non-academics). They almost universally pooh-poohed the theories and constructs as being Western. We took what they said to heart and were hoping to find unique African-based variables to develop our unique theory. Mr. Nzyuko is a native Kenyan and had years of field experience himself so we set off to develop theory.
Much to our disappointment, we found that the theories and their respective constructs held in the field. That is, we could adequately measure them and when analyzed the theories predicted outcomes as specified (and did it very well!). What WAS different, however, was HOW the variables were DEFINED. That is, different cultures DEFINED the theoretical variables in ways unimaginable to my Western perspective. Once the theoretical variables were defined according to a SPECIFIC CULTURE’S VIEWPOINT the theories worked as expected. Therefore, in all of our current work we spend much time up front in formative research discovering how focal populations define the variables of interest.
Finally, in defence of theories, they often explain why things fail as much as why they succeed. This information is invaluable as it prevents mistakes. Take "fear appeals," for example. The academic research shows that fear appeals consistently work across different topics and populations, yet field practitioners often despise them! On top of this, when asked "what type of campaign would change behaviour in your community," respondents almost always say something like, "you need to scare us! we don’t believe there’s a problem!" (for example). Why these discrepant views? The theory that I’m working on (after nearly 100 studies across different topics and populations) explains this discrepancy and because of this, my hope is that it would be useful for practitioners, prevent mistakes, and cut the lead time needed to do an intervention (because it offers some sort of guidance). (Again, the key to its usefulness cross-culturally is to define the theory’s variables within a specific culture’s framework.)
I think a lot of theories offer similar shortcuts and can prevent mistakes - especially if the variables are defined according to the focal population’s perspective.
Good luck everyone!
Flexibility, flexibility, and more flexibility
Bolaji Adepegba
Hello all,
I’m enjoying this show.
I want to agree perfectly with Waad El-Hadidy about the need for flexibility and will also love to hazard a little illustration about a basic development need.
A whole community can all be hungry and it is just theoretically apt to airlift genetically modified grains to the rescue with little consideration for the impact on the individual who could stand apart by either taste or appetite or any other body requirement, given a choice. On the part of the benefactor, feeding may have been achieved but on the part of the hungry, the need may not have been met. And unfortunately, the needy themselves may not be absolutely aware. This is the crux of the matter. In the end what is met is the desire for benefaction and not the target desire. One size theory may not fit all for communication initiatives.
Communication challenges
Paolo Mefalopulos
Being part of one of the organizations supporting this forum I would have liked to be able to be involved on a more regular basis. Unfortunately I am currently in Durban, for the World Park Congress, and I have some problems in connecting to access the internet.
I have read with interest all of the interventions, especially those of some of the people I know and I have worked with. I would like to mention what is happening here, where a sub-section of the Congress is dedicated to Communication, dealing with arguments and themes very much in line with those of the NRM Manual. I would like to bring to your attention a couple of interesting questions being posed at this venue.
The first concerns how can we "professional communicators" convince "development managers and decision-makers" about the importance, or the necessity to include communication in a strategic and integrated way from the very beginning? And, what are the criteria or features that define "professional communication"? Everybody here seems to agree that communication has a number of different conceptions and meanings, and there is an urgent need to differentiate the ones that have the knowledge and the skills to do communication on a professional level, from the "occasional communicator" given the fact that many people still seem to believe that since everybody communicates everybody can be a good communicator! In this respect a common general theoretical framework might be needed to ensure a standard quality of the communication process.
Communication challenges
Linda Kelsey-Jones
Dear Paolo,
I have never contributed to this forum before and am not part of any of the organizations although I share an ongoing interest in everyone’s good work - I think I got connected to this through Cecil Cook - you may know him from South Africa.
At any rate, I just wanted to say that I think you have addressed the crux of the matter - possibly the crux of everything important on the planet in the realm of sustainability and development. From one on one relationships on up to international politics. Effective communication is the essential ingredient for the long term positive outcomes of work by all agencies, indeed the health, welfare and unfolding of the ever-advancing civilization - even survival.
It seems that professional communication, in part, is built on skills learned or not learned in early communication, because, when disagreements occur, people tend to drop their professional stances and fall back on banging shoes on the table if that is what they learned worked in their familial or community learning environments. My thought is that what we need all-in-all is to insist that communication be considered a core subject in schools world-wide. Perhaps this could happen from this subsection you are involved with as a global initiative. Or by initiating some kind of global communications standard there might be a trickle-down effect. If, instead of spreading pop culture, technology and viruses to every corner of the earth we could develop a foundation in civil, respectful, successful communication methodology and practice we would take a quantum leap in every developmental area.
I applaud this Congress for taking on this essential aspect of things and would very much like to stay informed about its progress.
Thank you for sending this message out!
Common Principles
Moderators
Moderators Note:
Ricardo Ramirez also wanted us to be aware of a further source for his list of guidelines proposed by FAO, DFID and IDRC:
It is called:
A Livelihoods Approach to Communication and Information to Eliminate Poverty and can be found on the FAO Waicent web site at:
http://www.fao.org/waicent/portal/outreach/livelihoods/en/index-en.html
Conceptual framework is possible
Shamiel Adams
Great discussion group - wonderful insights.
What I always find missing in the use of theory or developing appropriate communication strategy is the need to look at the individual and/or groups who are guiding the intervention/s. It seems to me that often assumptions are made by those who apply theory and the recipients that the former is in the know.
Theory also does not account for the infinite unpredictable influences which shape the communicator, the communication and the recipients of the messages. It is when we use other channels NOT just intellect to communicate that ‘development’ indeed becomes possible.
In simple terms - we often need to work more on ourselves, before we start working on others....
Conceptual framework is possible
Ms. Efua Irene Amenyah
Hello Morry,
Communication has been all the time a great part in human life. In every aspect of life, men and women, adults and youth or children, communicate in their everyday life. At the beginning of 90s, a new communication initiative, founded on the principle that everyone has a right to access vital information. This initiative engages everyone in the development of innovative communication strategies to reach all categories with better information and skills. In addition, promoting humans’ participation in the development, implementation and evaluation of programmes and projects, the initiative aims to respond to the expressed needs of people’s for livelihood skills.
A new community participation as practiced now is designed to better address issues o/a challenges from rights perspectives. It looks at the extent to which and how communities, districts, regions or countries have incorporated partners at different levels in their country development programmes. It also explores how much communities are involved in the implementation of their country programmes/ projects. And finally, it is designed to provide an overview of the participation approach and the facilitation of social change through meaningful community participation.
The main objective of communication is to empower local authorities and communities to drive their own development process by strengthenin their local planning capacity and undertaking their own planning through triple A approach and the use of key indicators.
Thank you all for sharing experiences.
Participation is the issue
Guy Bessette
Hi Chris and friends,
Thanks for inviting me in this conference. I’m actually travelling and unfortunately, I do not have enough time to participate fully in this right now, but I would like nevertheless to make a small contribution to the discussion.
I visited Hong Ha and Ratanakiri - two of the case studies presented - some time ago. Both communities were living on a precarious level of subsistence, relying mostly on slash and burnt type of agriculture. In both cases, CBNRM type of research and development activities were trying to make a difference.
In Hong Ha, the researchers from Hue were trying to introduce new practices (improving the use of manure, local feed sources, pig production.) Their initial focus was to help the upland villagers in diversifying and improving their modes of production. For this they organized training with the villagers and provided guidance and feedback. However, after some time, they realized they had not reached the villagers which really needed support: the poorest.
Now they have started another CBNRM process in Hong Ha and in another commune and they are asking contact farmers how themselves could reach the poorest. One of the answers is that villagers should reach villagers, instead of establishing the communication process on an expert-villagers relationship. Another one is that different cultural or socio-economic groups in a community will have different kind of needs and preoccupations and we should start from there instead of a general plan.
In the province of Ratanikiri, researchers and development practitioners from different organizations but working under a common UNDP umbrella have been establishing
NRM plans with entire villages. They started by facilitating the identification of common goals the community would want to attain. Generally, these were linked with the sustainable use of forests and non timber products and to appropriate forest management. Again, it was found that sensitization in sustainable use of their resources was not enough to promote change. In that case also, external facilitators and experts, helped in this case by facilitators from the community, were establishing a dialogue with the communities and regional authorities. When invited to reflect on the modalities of intervention, one those participating teams realized the limits of such a communication approach.
This team is now active in working with specific community groups instead of the whole of the community and they facilitate discussions in which each of these groups identify different management options they would like to experiment with. This is accompanied by a strong communication program with the other stakeholders involved in the same area and the authorities.
The reflection made by the teams involved bring us back to some basic guidelines of development communication. The two cases show the importance of:
There are no magical recipes we can follow blindly, but interventions which do not respect these kinds of guidelines often miss their target. The key word is participation and participation must take place at the moment of project identification not only at the moment of the implementation of activities.
Participation is the issue
Kaustuv Ghosh
Hi there,
I want to bring to your attention a small instance of how we use the media to accelerate participative development in India - three years ago, we launched the Pollution Watch on TV, based on a network of local information gathering groups. This has become a benchmark for participative development and empowerment of common people. This has almost surely been a contributing factor to the increasing green cover of our capital Delhi and a dip in pollution levels across most cities. While this example is a little removed from what has been discussed so far, it is instructive in pointing out how local conditions such as the impact of media on people, empowered local communities and grassroots level debate and democracy can help and be helped in furthering human development - and the environment is tied up with development.
Naturally, one must be adaptive to local conditions in each country to make such work effective.
Hope this helps.
Conceptual framework is possible
Ian Dickson
In message <http://www.comminit.com/majordomo/faocomm/msg00034.html> Shamiel Adams writes:
It seems to me that often assumptions are made by those who apply theory and the recipients that the former is in the know. In simple terms - we often need to work more on ourselves, before we start working on others....
In the summer I spent a week at a development conference. (We were sponsoring part of it).
My background is actually entrepreneurial - not academic, not development, but very much managerial (which can be summarised as the art of getting more out of people than they thought they could do).
The conference was divided into three main groups - academics, development people, and some of the recipients.
It was clear that from the way the recipients were talking, they were exceedingly hacked off with the way that most development process functioned - that of time limited projects, with an immense superstructure of "accountability".
Indeed some recipient groups had taken to getting out of the "official" type programs and preferred to take 10K without superstructure than 50K with. They could do more, and faster, with 10K than 50.
The "official" development people were appalled. They took great umbrage that things were happening on their patch that they didn’t know about. They wanted "consultation" and "studies". The recipients just wanted to get on and improve their world.
Also it is clear to me that the truth that dare not speak it’s name is that if a project is scheduled for 2 years, then after one year the "professionals" are spending more time trying to sort out their next project than running the current one. Understandable. Also, unlike in business, there seems no general attitude that good projects will continue to be funded, and no way to can bad ones early. This is extraordinarily inefficient and does no one any favours.
Accountability - funders seem to be terrified of spending money that might not work, so a huge overhead of accountability is built up. Studies are done to assess ideas etc. This all takes time and all takes money.
I asked "why?" I was told that it was like in business - you don’t invest in new products or services without doing market research, so they can’t invest without researching.
They were stunned to learn that in fact most SMALL or medium businesses do not spend money doing research, let alone market research. Maybe a day. Basically they operate on gut feeling - and this is usually pretty good because they are so close to the market. The reason is simple - if a project has a small budget (up to several tens of thousands) it is faster and cheaper to simply do it and see if it works, than spend money trying to guess whether or not it will. If it looks like something isn’t working, it’s killed. No sentimentality.
Only big companies do all that prior assessment stuff - because if you intend to spend a million on a call centre and 2 million on advertising, it’s worth spending a few thousand testing the idea first.
This seemed to be news to them. I have no problem with accountability, feasibility studies etc where the costs of such work are low in relation to the project, but for people doing local impact projects in poor parts of the world, it seems to me that the most efficient way to find out what works is to just let people get on with it. Can the bad ones, continue the good ones, learn from results.
Interestingly all the development people liked to pat themselves on the back re their recipient oriented recipient centred attitude and process. The recipients didn’t tend to see it that way.
Out of perhaps 200 development people there. I’d guess that less than 10% were actually following in practice, (as perceived by the recipients) the general principles that seem to have been highlighted here.
Participation is the issue
N. Hari Krishna
I agree with Kaustuv that one must be adaptive to local conditions in each country to make any initiative to be successful. The same is reflected in Ismail’s suggestion that our instinct to read specific situations and understanding of the issues from grassroots is very important. When introduced Pollution Watch, NDTV broke the myth among the mainstream that general public will not be interested in such information. However, the media agencies have to advance much from there. Most of the programs on environment are basically on pollution with excess urban orientation but have very little to talk about specific issues around natural resources. Same is the case with the press also. There are several reasons for that, one-the belief that people will be more interested to read more on politics & business but not about the issue that determine their basic livelihood and long term sustenance.
We have been organizing training for various media persons on reporting the issues of NRM & Disaster Management. While, young media persons participate with great interest, many senior media persons have a different opinion. While continue efforts with non formal communication approaches to reach out to the public, we must not ignore the potential of main stream media channels, especially in India situation, for they create necessary public opinion for the desired change.
Flexibility, flexibility, and more flexibility
Richie Adewusi
Hello all,
This discussion is getting really usefully interesting, (i.e. if there is any such thing as "usefully" interesting).
I am particularly drawn to Gupta"s contribution, especially, his suggestion that workshops can get the ‘office people’ and the ‘foot soldiers’ together and simulate intervention environments for the ‘office people to understand that theory is theory framework or not.
Bolaji Adepegba’s illustration to me, puts the matter to rest. frameworks are good, but flexibility should be the soul of communication frameworks. Especially when we remember that communication itself has no life of its own, outside of what the people within the communication relationship (and I should add) environment put into the relationship.
