Copyright by Paolo Mefalopulos 2003
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Copyright
by
Paolo Mefalopulos
2003
The Dissertation Committee for Paolo Mefalopulos certifies that this is the
approved version of the following dissertation:
Theory and Practice of Participatory Communication:
The case of the FAO Project “Communication for Development
in Southern Africa”
Committee:
Joseph Straubhaar, Co-Supervisor
Karin Wilkins, Co-Supervisor
John Downing
Antonio Ugalde
Kamran Ali
Theory and Practice of Participatory Communication:
The case of the FAO Project “Communication for Development
in Southern Africa”
by
Paolo Mefalopulos, B.A., M.A.
Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin
December, 2003
Dedication
To Teodoro and my whole family in Greece, in Italy and in the rest of the world
v
Acknowledgements
It is impossible to acknowledge all the people who contributed to the
successful completion of this study. The first note of appreciation should go to my
son, Teodoro, for giving me the inspiration to carry on when the strengths and
motivations seemed to fade away. I would like to thank Karin Wilkins for
assisting me closely throughout the whole process, especially in reviewing and
editing my research well beyond what was expected. A special thank to Joseph
Straubhaar for his longtime friendship and insights that challenged my thinking
even before beginning this study. I am also grateful to Kamran Ali and Antonio
Ugalde who have stimulated me to reflect, even more critically than I intended to,
on a number of issues in this study. Finally, I would like to thank John Downing,
a valuable source of knowledge and wisdom both at an academic and personal
level.
I would also like to thank the institutions that have assisted me in this
research and in particular FAO, with its Communication for Development Group.
A full list of people I am indebted to at FAO would be too long. Therefore, I will
only mention a few, in alphabetical order, Mario Acunzo, Laura DeClementi,
JeanPierre Ilboudo, Ester Zulberti, but I omit many others that helped in this
study. I am also particularly grateful to Chris Kamlongera, the Director of the
SADC Centre of Communication for Development, for his assistance in this study
and his friendship. My appreciation goes to all the participants, consultants,
general staff and rural villagers of Southern Africa, who have been involved with
vi
the FAO Project and its Action Programme for Communication Skills
Development, based in Harare, Zimbabwe.
My thoughts go also to all those who have lost their life due to the kind of
activities described in my study. The strongest embrace goes to two good friends,
whose dedication for their work has taken them away prematurely: Moreno, a
friend truly committed to participation and communication, as well as to life, and
Ilaria, the sweetest smile in the world of communication and information.
Achieving this result would not have been possible without the assistance of my
family and friends, who have been an indispensable support through the toughest
times of these last years. In this respect, a big thanks goes to Maripau, the woman
who has been close to me through the final part of this endeavor and made my life
change for the better.
Finally, I hope this study will constitute a contribution, even if a tiny one,
towards the construction of a new, more equitable development paradigm leading
to change and I would like to dedicate it to all those who dare imagine a better
and more just world and are willing to act upon these beliefs.
vii
Theory and Practice of Participatory Communication:
The case of the FAO Project “Communication for Development
in Southern Africa”
Publication No._____________
Paolo Mefalopulos, Ph.D.
The University of Texas at Austin, 2003
Supervisors: Joseph Straubhaar and Karin Wilkins
Participatory communication is increasingly being considered a key
component of development projects around the world. Therefore, the purpose of
my research has been to conduct an in-depth review and comparison on how
participatory communication has been conceived theoretically, in the literature,
and practically, in a project dedicated to this approach. I carried out the
investigation through a case study analysis of a project named "Communication
for Development in Southern Africa," which was funded by the Italian
Government and implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), one of the major international organizations in this field.
This project started its operations in Harare, Zimbabwe, in 1994, and its main
viii
purpose was to promote the adoption of participatory communication approaches
by other development projects through training and advising activities.
This dissertation, after reviewing the literature on the subject, explores
how the FAO Project originated and how participatory communication principles
were conceived and applied throughout the process, in each phase of the project
cycle. The only phase not specifically addressed, for reasons explained later in
this study, is the evaluation phase. One of the main intent ions of the study has
been to gain relevant insight about the operationalization of participatory
communication, i.e. understanding what happens when the theoretical conception
is applied in real life situations. Key questions that emerged are discussed
throughout the study.
In its conclusions, after proposing the basis for a revisited model, this
dissertation argues that participatory communication, thanks to its horizontal and
people-based connotations, has the potential to support “another development,”
capable of addressing specific needs and priorities relevant to people and at the
same time assisting in their empowerment. While not constituting an alternative
paradigm per se, participatory communication is an approach capable of
facilitating people’s involvement in the decision-making process. It is a necessary
component, consistent with a democratic vision of international development,
needed to increase projects sustainability and ensure genuine ownership by the so-
called “beneficiaries.”
ix
Table of Contents
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... xi
List of Figures........................................................................................................ xii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
1.1 Study Rationale ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Contents of the Dissertation ................................................................... 11
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 14
2.1 Historical Overview on International Development ............................... 14
2.2 Development and the Role of Communication: Main Theoretical Approaches .......................................................................................... 21
2.3 Globalization and the Boundaries of Development ................................ 54
2.4 Communication for Development .......................................................... 66
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK............................................. 90
3.1 Research Approach................................................................................. 90
3.2 Approach to Data Collection................................................................ 103
Chapter 4: FAO AND THE PROJECT “COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHERN AFRICA”.......................................... 110
4.1 FAO Overview ..................................................................................... 110
4.2 The Role of Communication in FAO ................................................... 116
4.3 The Project “Communication for Development in Southern Africa”.. 128
Chapter 5: PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN THE PROJECT CYCLE ....................................................................................................... 154
5.1 Participatory Communication in the Identification of the Area/Sector of Intervention Phase ..................................................... 157
5.2 Participatory Communication in the Research/Needs’ Assessment Phase .................................................................................................. 166
5.3 Participatory Communication in the Formulation Phase...................... 170
5.4 Participatory Communication in the Planning Phase ........................... 181
x
5.5 Participatory Communication in the Implementation Phase ................ 190
5.6 Issues in Monitoring and Evaluation.................................................... 209
5.7 Results .................................................................................................. 221
Chapter 6: CONCLUSIONS AND USABLE INSIGHTS .................................. 231
6.1 Analysis and Synthesis of Study Findings ........................................... 231
6.2 Reflections on Models of Participatory Communication..................... 240
6.3 Valuable Insights and Recommendations ............................................ 248
6.4 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 258
Appendix A: Cover Letter for the Participant in the Research ........................... 268
Appendix B: Interview Guide Sample ................................................................ 271
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 274
FAO PROJECT-RELATED DOCUMENTATION............................................ 287
VITA.................................................................................................................... 294
xi
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Phases of the Project Cycle ............................................................... 102
Table 5.1: How PRCA is Unique and Different .................................................. 206
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Johari’s Windows.................................................................................. 6
Figure 6.1: Working Model of Communication for Development ...................... 246
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The history of development can be traced back many centuries, perhaps to
the beginning of human history (Worsley, 1984). However, the current western
conception of international development is usually traced to soon after World War
II, when President Truman in his inaugural speech stated: “We must embark on a
bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and
industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped
areas” (Esteva, 1992: 6). This statement marked a more systematic and visible
attempt to divide the world into rich and poor, modern and traditional, developed
and underdeveloped countries. Since then, the course of development has been
widely criticized by a number of scholars and practitioners who have often
compared it to an attempt to “modernize” or “Westernize” the world (Escobar
1995, Esteva 1992).
1.1 STUDY RATIONALE
More than fifty years after Truman’s speech and following considerable
investments in human, material and financial resources aimed at helping “Third
World” countries, developments efforts have been marked by major failures.
There have been only few significant improvements in the lives of poor people of
most developing countries (Bradshaw & Wallace, 1996; Jaffee, 1998; Raimondi
& Antonelli, 2001). The lack of participation in the decision-making process of
the so-called beneficiaries of development projects and programs has been
2
identified as one of the main reasons for these failures (Fraser & Villet 1994,
Chambers, 1997). As discussed in the next chapter, this prompted a new focus in
development in order to take into account people’s participation.
Since the 1990s, participation has become one of the buzzwords of
development. In order to occur effectively and genuinely participation must be
characterized by a horizontal flow of communication, which should be based
primarily on dialogue (Bohm 1996, Freire 1997). For this reason, the field of
“Communication for Development” is undergoing a number of changes in order
to adopt new models that will take into account people’s right to participate in
decision-making processes concerning their lives. If indeed the lack of
participation is a major reason for the failures of development efforts,
communication must be part of the equation in turning things around. This
research stud ies the application of participatory communication in one of the first
projects of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
specifically dedicated to promote and apply such approaches to the development
field.
Participation and communication are terms that have been hard to define
and have been used in a number of ways both in theory and in practice. By
investigating how they have been conceived and applied in a development project
I intend to investigate the main issues relevant to their use. Even though
participatory methods have been in use for some time, only recently have they
been widely acknowledged as a crucial component, if not a universal right in
itself, of development practices (Coldevin and FAO, 2001).
3
Most, if not all, international agencies are now incorporating participatory
approaches on their development projects since “participation has become the
dominating ideology in contemporary thinking in both non-governmental
organizations and governmental/inter-governmental agencies.” (Hussein, 1995:
170). A similar crucial relevance is also ascribed to communication, considered
an indispensable element for guaranteeing the success and sustainability of
development projects. Its relevance has been openly acknowledged in a number of
international conferences such as the Earth Summit in 1992, the Internationa l
Conference on Population and Development in 1994, the World Summit in 1995,
the World Food Summit in 1996 and many others.
However, the development literature and project documentation indicate
that participation and communication are two concepts highly praised but poorly
applied, or applied ambiguously in a number of different ways. There is no
consistent definition or operationalization of the term participation, neither in
theory nor in practice (Pretty, 1995). This allows the labeling of projects as
participatory even when they contain a very limited and partial involvement of the
local people, the so-called beneficiaries. Communication, on the other hand, is not
only defined in a number of different ways, but it is also usually conceived as an
add-on component, often incorporated in development projects at a later phase of
the project cycle. In this way, communication tends to be used more as a curative
approach rather than as a strategic tool, thus losing much of its effectiveness.
Participatory communication is a term that denotes the theory and
practices of communication used to involve people in the decision-making of the
4
development process. It intends to return to the roots of its meaning, which,
similarly to the term community, originate from the Latin word communis, i.e.
common (Mody, 1991). Therefore, the purpose of communication should be to
make something common, or to share. It implies the sharing of meanings,
perceptions, worldviews or knowledge. In this context, sharing implies an
equitable division of what is being shared, which is why communication should
almost be naturally associated with a balanced, two-way flow of information.
Instead the ramifications of the power structures in society and the emergence of
mass media have often reduced the conception of communication to a one-way,
top-down, flow of information, from a single source to many outlets.
Participatory communication reflects an attempt to reverse the above
model, building a new one where meanings, interpretations and decis ions are the
result of collaboration and consensus among all stakeholders. This does not mean
that it is a revolutionary approach, as it is still in many ways within the parameters
of modernity. Nevertheless, it constitutes a step towards giving grassroots
communities a gradually increasing role in the decision-making process of
development efforts. A role that should not be assigned to them by outsiders, but
that should be achieved through an awareness raising process, if empowerment
has to occur.
Despite the differences in the conception of participatory communication,
there is a wide consensus in the literature on the subject, validated also by my
own personal experiences, that the lack of, or the inappropriate use of,
participation and communication are among the main causes of project failure
5
(Anyaegbunam et al., 1998; Ascroft and Masilela, 1994). As mentioned above,
from the mid-1970s the concept of participation has been gaining an increasing
recognition and the role of communication is praised in most international fora as
the key element for the success of any development project. However, despite the
general acknowledgement of the relevance of these two key concepts, no dramatic
change appears to have happened in the outcome of development projects.
The ambivalent way in which concepts such as participation and
communication are being defined and used in development is also reflected in the
way participatory communication approaches are implemented in the field. This
makes it difficult to provide a consistent assessment of the effectiveness of these
kinds of approaches. That is why in my study I intend to investigate first how
participatory communication has been conceived, defined and understood by the
relevant stakeholders and then consider how it has been applied in the various
phases of the project cycle. The selected project, due to its specific and innovative
nature, should provide significant insights into most of these issues.
It is expected that if participatory communication could be used and
applied in a genuine and consistent way, decisions that have been traditionally
taken by outsiders (i.e. foreign experts) can gradually be made by insiders (i.e.
local communities) with the collaboration of other stakeholders. To achieve this
end, participation and communication are necessary tools, which to be meaningful
would need to incorporate the notion and practices of empowerment. Participation
cannot be reduced to people’s involvement in the implementation of projects, but
it should start from the very beginning. If people do not have the power to decide
6
their priority needs and problems there can be no true participation. Similarly,
there cannot be an open and balanced flow of information, unless all parties share
a similar amount of decision-making power in the communication process.
Figure 1.1: Johari’s Windows
Window 1: Open Knowledge
What they know
What we know
Window 2: Our Hidden Knowledge
What they do not know
What we know
Window 3: Their Hidden Knowledge
What they know
What we do not know
Window 4: The Blind Spot
What they do not know
What we do not know
The Johari’s Window shown in Fig 1.1 (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998) helps
to illustrate the collaborative effort illustrated above. This illustration starts by
acknowledging that both insiders and outsiders share something in common (e.g.
language, certain understandings and perceptions of the situation) and that
common knowledge constitutes the starting point. The next two quadrants refer to
the specific knowledge of each group. The outsider experts, with their university
degrees, their international experiences, etc., surely have some knowledge that the
insiders do not have. However, the latter, having lived in those places for
generations have an in-depth knowledge and a deep understanding of the
implications of the issues at stake that can hardly be matched by outsiders.
Therefore, starting from common grounds, both insiders and outsiders must work
7
together, combining their knowledge and experiences to deal with the last
quadrant: wha t neither of them knows. The unknown area represents a major
problem or need to be addressed and solved.
The Johari’s Window is a visually clear representation of the kind of
dialogue that communication should facilitate. Dialogue is to participatory
communication what media are to mass communication. Bohm (1996) and Freire
(1997) are two of the main scholars who extensively discussed the importance of
dialogue in human life. They both consider dialogue a necessary activity of
human conditions. They both agree that dialogue can not be performed between
antagonist parties and can only be achieved between people who do not try to
prevail on each other. Bohm (1996) discusses the difference between discussion
and dialogue. The former is a “ping-pong game,” where people are contrasting
ideas trying to score points and win the game. The latter, instead, does not expect
anybody to win, or better ‘everybody wins if anybody wins’. According to Bohm,
dialogue presupposes an attitude where nobody will try to prevail or win. This is
consistent with Freire’s conception (1997: 70) stating that “Dialogue cannot exist
in the absence of a profound love for the world and for the people.”
Both scholars, when discussing dialogue, ascribe a great importance to the
word itself, considered to be at the basis of dialogue. Bohm (1996) goes back to
the Greek roots of the term to indicate its origin: through (i.e. dia) and word (i.e.
logos) in the sense of meaning of the word. Hence, he considers dialogue as an
exchange of meanings through words flowing among individuals, eventually
leading to understanding. For Freire (1997), the word contains two dimensions:
8
reflection and action. For him, there is no true word that is not at the same time
praxis, i.e. action. Hence, to speak true words is an act of transforming the world.
Given the importance of words, I select carefully the terms I use to
describe aspects of development. I prefer to use the word “stakeholders” rather
than the label “target group” or “target audience,” which has ordinarily been used
to describe groups intended to be reached by media, and are now often used to
indicate selected groups of people towards which development efforts are
directed. But what could be less participatory, and a reflection of a dominant
structure, than a target, something to hit either with ideas or bombs?
The term “beneficiaries,” denotes a strong passive connotation and has
also been used in a similar context, even though, as one villager during one of my
field trips in Namibia once noticed, the biggest beneficiaries of these efforts so far
seems to be the international experts. Both of the above terms reflect a vertical,
paternalistic conception of people. Instead of these two terms, or of the vague
term “people,” I prefer to use stakeholders (primary stakeholders being the ones
having the biggest interest in the intervention) or interaction groups, which
emphasize the active role that should be played by the ones involved in the
decision-making process.
The latter term has been introduced by an innovative methodology
developed by the FAO project Communication for Development in Southern
Africa.1 This project has supported the establishment of the Centre of
Communication for Development (the first of its kind in Southern Africa) based 1 “Communication for Development in Southern Africa” is a project implemented by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, which introduced an innovative methodology known as Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal or PRCA.
9
in Harare under the auspices of the Southern Africa Development Community.
This Centre is still operating today, providing training and advice in participatory
communication to all development projects and programs that require its services.
One of the main achievements of the FAO Project and the SADC Centre has been
the development of an innovative methodology known as Participatory Rural
Communication Appraisal, or PRCA. This methodology is currently being
adopted by an increasing number of development organizations and projects
around the world (among others, Colombia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia,
Nicaragua, the Philippines, Vietnam and Zambia). PRCA will be illustrated in
more details in the next chapters.
At this point the rationale guiding this study should be becoming clearer;
i.e. how is participatory communication being conceived and applied throughout
the project-cycle within the current development framework. To explore this
issue, after an extensive literature review, I selected to investigate the FAO
Project “Communication for Development in Southern Africa,” due to some basic
considerations. First of all, the nature of this project, which has been conceived
and designed specifically to promote the adoption of participatory communication
approaches in development efforts, makes it of a high significance in this field.
Communication in this project is not a means to achieve something but it is an
end in itself. The second factor is its relevance and recognition.
Coldevin (2001) illustrates the importance and validity of this kind of
approach promoted by the Project that has been singled out and mentioned as a
step in the right direction by a number of development organizations and
10
international bodies. Among them the Southern African Development Community
and the United Nations General Assembly, which made an open call to all
international agencies, bilateral donors and development institutions to provide
support to this kind of approach. 1 Another important reason is the fact that FAO
has played a pioneering role in the field of communication for development. FAO
established its own Development Support Communication Branch (DSC) in 1969,
which has formulated and implemented a number of projects adopting
participatory communication approaches.
Finally, as a participant myself on this project for almost four years I am
familiar with many of the relevant issues and have direct access to a number of
sources. Hence, I can investigate and explore the way in which participatory
communication has been defined and used by the project “Communication for
Development in Southern Africa,” based in Harare under SADC auspices,
implemented by FAO and funded by the Italian Government. Due to the
combined structure of the FAO Project and the SADC Centre for Communication
for Development, which basically operated under a unified management, when I
refer to the project activities in the field, these often include the activities of the
SADC Centre.
Participatory communication is still a relatively new field, and much work
needs to be done in order to refine and improve its theories and practices. My
work hopes to be a small step in that direction. An in-depth study on this
particular project should provide a better understanding on how participatory
1 Resolution of the UN General Assembly (agenda Item 96), 11 November 1996.
11
communication is being conceived and implemented in development practices. It
should also allow assessing some of most critical aspects related to this issue,
highlighting how to improve the use of participatory communication. During the
study I also highlight some terms that, similarly to the ones discussed previously
(e.g. target audience, beneficiaries, etc.), are often used within a participatory
context, even if their semantic roots and their connotations are leaning more
towards a dominating, vertical conception of the world rather than a more
equitable, participatory one.
I am aware that my attempt to use alternative words to define concepts and
terms well-established in the current development discourse might be considered
as unnecessarily ambitious and that I could be criticized as a generator of further
confusion. Nevertheless, I share a similar concern and sensitivity to the power of
words as those of Bohm and Freire. I fully embrace the latter’s position that
words are an act of transforming the world and, hence, they need to be used
carefully. Thus, by attempting to substitute old terms with new, more appropriate
ones, I hope to contribute towards transforming reality. Next is a brief
presentation of the other chapters.
1.2 CONTENTS OF THE DISSERTATION
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter starts by providing a brief historical overview of the main
paradigms in the development literature. It then reviews the main body of
literature on communication for development and participatory communication,
highlighting the main issues and latest developments, including the growing
12
emphasis on empowerment, an element without which participation cannot be
truly achieved. The last section deals with the literature on communication and
participation as applied in development field projects.
Chapter 3: Methodological Framework
This chapter illustrates the decisions, methods and processes that are
followed while conducting the study. Terms such as participation and
communication will not be defined or operationalized a priori. The case study is
developed and “constructed” through interviews with relevant personnel and
review of the available documentation. The main strategy is aimed at exploring
and describing the theory and practice of participatory communication as
conceived and applied by the specific FAO project. Given the many faces of
participation a basic typology is being adopted to describe the different kinds of
participation.
Chapter 4: FAO and the Project “Communication for Development in
Southern Africa”
It provides an overall picture, and historical overview, of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). It presents its structure
and mission, focusing mainly on the department and unit that have been
systematically using participatory communication approaches. It also presents the
ways in which participatory communication has entered FAO and how it has
evolved. This is a chapter meant to contextualize the Project within the FAO
mission and structure through a review of relevant documentation and interviews
13
of key actors. The section on the Communication for Development unit provides a
preview on the FAO Project and its main features.
Chapter 5: Participatory Communication in the Project Cycle
This chapter constitutes the bulk of the study. It investigates the origin of
the project to see how it came about, how participatory communication has been
conceived in the beginning and how it has evolved in the planning and
implementation phases of the project. It tries to explore how relevant actors have
conceived participatory communication. The primary stakeholders, i.e. the people
directly addressed by development projects, will be regrettably left out of this
study. This is due not only to the lack of time and resources necessary to carry out
such a study, but is also due to the nature of the investigation that is interested in
the process through which participatory communication was adopted, rather than
just in the final impact.
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Usable Insights
This chapter summarizes the study’s findings and contextualizes them by
comparing and contrasting the data presented in the literature review with the
findings on how participatory communication has been conceived and applied in
the FAO Project. All crucial issues identified in the study will be synthesized and
discussed, highlighting points where more research is needed. Finally, I make
some recommendations and present a tentative new model for this field based on
the findings of this investigation.
14
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter assesses the current literature on communication in
development, focusing especially on the subject of participatory communication.
In order to gain an in-depth understanding of the issues revolving around this
topic, it would be useful to provide a general historical overview about the
origins, purpose and main paradigms of development and how these relate to
communication. Hence, the first part starts by providing an overview of the main
theoretical approaches concerning development, including how it is shaped and
framed within the current globalization process. The concepts of communication
and participation in development are also discussed in detail before going into the
section dealing with issues related specifically to participatory communication.
Finally, the last section deals with the literature concerned with communication
and participatory approaches in development projects.
2.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The idea of development as currently conceived appeared after World War
II, even though its roots can be placed between the two world wars, when the
major powers of the time agreed that it was necessary to device mechanisms to
avoid engaging in other catastrophic conflicts among nations. It was well
understood that better communication among countries was needed to deter
potential conflicts and that wars had their major roots in the conditions of poverty
and inequalities that characterized the international scenario. That is why one of
15
the main concerns of the League of Nations first and, subsequently, of the United
Nations was that of avoiding new wars by assisting countries around the world to
achieve a sufficient level of economic growth.
When President Truman in 1949 stated that the role of rich countries was
to address the ‘underdevelopment’ of other countries (Esteva, 1992) by fighting
the poverty that affected more than half of the world he signaled the official
beginning of “the development project.” This entailed a worldwide program to
support local economies, while at the same time promoting the spread of
democratic values and institutions. Truman made it clear that achieving greater
production, through the application of scientific methods and technological
knowledge, would lead to peace and prosperity for the whole world (Escobar,
1995). Following this line of thought, for many years to follow, development has
been considered, and dealt with, almost exclusively in economic terms.
Even then, the fact that the majority of the world population was plagued
by hunger, poverty and related problems was well acknowledged. In deciding to
address this problem, the richest countries, which basically were the major
democracies of the West, had two basic options. The first would have been to
engage in a critical reflection about their colonial past and try to address the
consequences of their actions around the world. This could have led to a
reshaping of world relations, and a redistribution of wealth and power, according
to the ideals of international justice and democracy. The second option would
have been to neglect the past and continue along the established path trying to
help or to push the rest of the world in catching up. Besides allowing the richer
16
countries to further strengthen their position, this latter option did not require any
admission of wrongdoing and did not imply any change of the status quo. Not
surprisingly, this is the option that has been adopted.
Many scholars have regarded development as an arbitrary construction
aimed at maintaining the privileges of the industrialized countries. Esteva (1992)
refers openly to “the invention of underdevelopment” as a means for the West to
perpetuate its global dominating position. Along the same lines, McMichael
(1996) refers to “the development project” to emphasize the conscious strategy of
the First World countries to deal effectively (i.e. maintaining old privileges) with
the consequences of decolonization. Framing human development in economic
terms made it easier for these countries to maintain their domination, not any
more imposing their military might, but using their equally effective economic
strength.
Escobar (1995) further supports the idea that development was conceived
and used by the West to continue its domination in the post-colonial era. He talks
about the “problematization” of poverty as a way of allowing and justifying
outside intervention in developing countries. He recognized that conditions of
poverty have existed all along human history, but most societies had developed
ways to deal with it through community boundaries and other social mechanisms.
Massive poverty appeared only with the rise of capitalism that broke down
community ties and deprived many people from access to the most basic
resources (e.g. land, water, etc.). Once the poverty problem was constructed,
properly framed and legitimized, the richer nations came up with the solution:
17
“modernize” backwards countries, and their people, and make everybody follow
in the footsteps of the most successful Western countries.
Ascroft and Masilela (1994) push a similar critique even further. When
discussing the outcome of a meeting of experts organized by FAO (1987a) they
notice how, even in the final document of the experts who were at the forefront of
participatory communication at the time, there were a number of elements
indicating how participation was still ill conceived and, almost unconsciously,
there was a tendency for viewing development aid from a vertical perspective,
rather than horizontal, and for blaming the poorest as the main cause for their
conditions. Ascroft and Masilela highlights how, in the FAO reports, statements
such as “motivate to appropriate action” or “overcome socio-cultural barriers”
were always used in reference to the people and not to the technical specialists
and they ask (1994: 279): “Is there some unilateral decision-making about who is
the problem and who is the solution?” According to them, many of the most
sincere proponents of participation have not been able to dust off the heritage of
the dominant paradigm completely, even after that had been formally put aside
even by its most fierce advocates (Rogers, 1976a).
After World War II and for many years, the field of development had been
shaped by a wider global confrontation: the Cold War. This confrontation took
place in every aspect of social life, especially at the international level, with each
of the superpowers trying to pull countries within their sphere of influence.
Development became a battlefield fought with the various development models
and approaches, even if, according to Hopkins and Wallerstein (1982), the
18
capitalist system was basically the only one available. Definitely, capitalism’s
power was so dominant that shaped the international boundaries of development,
drawing all relevant actors, including communist countries, to compete in a race
that envisioned development mainly, when not exclusively, as economic growth,
thus neglecting other important aspects of human life.
It is no surprise that one of the major economists of the dominant
paradigm labeled his book a “Non-Communist Manifesto.” In this book, Rostow
(1960) maintained that all societies were expected to go through certain specific
phases of economic growth, based on certain assumptions of the capitalist
economy. Most proponents of the Western model of development seem to have a
strong faith in the virtues of positivism, with its scientific approach, and in the
liberal policies of the free market. As it will be discussed later, modernization
became the key concept in attempting to promote and strengthen a successful
economic growth around the world.
To achieve that goal most financial and human resources devoted to
development have been channeled through projects. Framing development
through projects presented a number of advantages for those holding positions of
responsibility both at national and international level. On one hand, this
conception was not only consistent with the scientific, measurable approach of the
Western model, but it also allowed for a greater degree of control, both political
and economic, by the donors. On the other hand, recipient countries found the
project approach quite convenient as they could implement activities that they
would not have the capacity to carry out otherwise.
19
By the 1970s, projects became the hegemonic answer to development, and
as such they had to follow certain formats and fulfill certain functions along the
lines set by the dominant approach. The role of projects became so tantamount
that in many cases they became not just the focus, but the end point of
development efforts (Carden, 2000). Even if being increasingly questioned, the
role of the experts and consultants gained a central relevance within this context
(Chambers, 1998; Shepherd, 1998). The role and rationale behind “the project
approach” does not appear to be questioned by any major player of the
development world, despite the fact that overall a large number of development
projects failed to produce significant results.
A number of factors are blamed for those failures. Among the most
common are the insufficient involvement of the people whose efforts are
supposed to be directed to and the failures to implement the project within
budgets or according to the plan, which would impede achieving the expected
objectives (Cusworth & Franks, 1993). According to Hornik (1988), failures of
development projects can be divided into three main areas: theory failures, falsely
assuming that a certain development problem is linked with a certain solution;
program failures, due to inadequately designed or implemented projects; and
political failures, due to the lack of a politically conducive environment. Other
researchers have identified project failures as residing in poor formulation and
planning, inadequate design, insufficient understanding of local realities, use of
inappropriate technology, ineffective training methodologies and lack of enabling
policies (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998; Hornik, 1988).
20
In summary, most of the causes attributed to projects’ failures can be
traced back to the insufficient involvement, or the lack of involvement, in the
decision-making process by the people towards whom the development efforts are
aimed (Fraser & Villet, 1994). Most international organizations and Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working in the development world tend to
agree that lack of people’s participation is one of the major factors for the failures
of many projects (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998). It has been often sorted out as a
major cause not only for not achieving the set objectives, but also for the lack of
sustainability in projects that initially appear to be successful.
Similarly to participation, sustainable development has become another
key term in development and remains a highly controversial term, defined and
interpreted in many different ways (Ghai & Vivian, 1992). When referring to
development projects, the term “sustainability” can be defined as “the degree to
which assisted activities remain active or continued delivering benefits to people
after international funding ended” (Rondinelli, 1993: 2). In more general terms,
sustainable development can be considered to imply the use of the available
resources in such a way that they will not be depleted for future generations
(Wilkins, 2000).
Most development efforts in recent years have been re-oriented to include
these two key concepts, tightly interrelated: participation and sustainability
(Anyaegbunam et al., 1999). The World Bank, which has been one of the major
organizations devoting increasing attention to people’s participation, has
identified three main components related to the assessment of sustainable
21
development (Jaffee, 1998): produced assets, natural capital and human resources.
Most international agencies are devoting special attention and many resources to a
sustainable development shaped by people’s participation, as the one can be
hardly delinked from the other (Rahnema, 1992). It should be also mentioned that
most of these organizations have been often accused of using participation only at
face value in order to legitimize their interventions (Rahnema, 1992; Cooke &
Kothari, 2001). Whatever the case, there is no doubt that participation,
accompanied by horizontal communication, is gaining a growing recognition in
the development world, both by major international organizations as well as by
smaller local NGOs.
2.2 DEVELOPMENT AND THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION: MAIN THEORETICAL APPROACHES
This section provides an historical overview of the three main theoretical
perspectives or paradigms in the field of international development, i.e. the
modernization paradigm, the dependency theory, with its related world-systems
theory, and the participatory paradigm. The role ascribed to communication in
each of them is also briefly discussed. It should be noted that the term “paradigm”
in this context, as stated by Guba (1990: 17) is used in its general sense to denote
“a basic set of beliefs that guides action, whether of the everyday garden variety
or action taken in connection with a disciplined inquiry.”
2.2.1 Modernization Paradigm
The modernization paradigm, which arose soon after World War II, argues
that the best, if not the only way, to achieve successful development consists in
22
the adoption and diffusion of those values and approaches that ensured the
success of the Western way of life. At the individual level, modernization requires
a high degree of empathy and an attitude ready to abandon traditional beliefs and
embrace change (Lerner 1958). At a cultural level, it requires an open mentality
guided by faith in the “scientific approach,” whose roots sink in the principles of
enlightenment. At the political level, it requires the adoption of the democratic
system. Finally, at the economic level, it advocates a strong belief in the virtues of
the free market and in the liberal doctrine.
Modernization, also known as the dominant paradigm, considers
development as a linear, cumulative, evolutionary and unidirectional process
(Servaes, 1991). Underdeveloped countries are considered as mostly responsible
for their conditions. Hence, the ball is in their court if they want to bridge the gap
that divides them from the developed ones. The only way to achieve this would be
to take advantage of the assistance offered by the richer countries and try to
follow in their footsteps. Many of the core elements of modernization, even if
criticized through the years, have achieved a powerful hegemonic dimension and
are still permeating most aspects of life. Communication, and media in particular,
has been regarded as a primary instrument needed to achieve, maintain and
strengthen modernity. Communication in this paradigm has been conceived as a
one-way process passing messages from one point to many others, usually in a
vertical, top-down fashion.
The modernization paradigm has lead to the first systematic attempts to
apply communication in development. After World War II, a number of scholars
23
started to devote increasing attention to communication processes and effects,
among them Lasswell (1948), Katz and Lazarfeld (1955), and Klapper (1960).
Some of them, such as Lerner (1958), Rogers (1962) and Schramm (1964), had a
specific interest in studying how communication could be used to foster national
development, which, as stated previously, at that time was considered
predominantly in economic terms. These were among the most prominent
scholars promoting the core beliefs of the dominant paradigm, i.e. blind faith in
science, liberal democracy, free market, and in the need for people’s to be able to
adapt fast to a changing world. To be effective, all of these would be channeled
through the institutions of the nation-state. Similar characteristics about
modernization are identified by Melkote (1991: 61), who underlines “the
importance of economic growth through industrialization, capital- intensive and
machine- intensive technology, a top-down structure of authority with economists
in charge, and a certain attitude and mind-set among individuals.”
The main role of communication in this paradigm has been that of
promoting the adoption and expansion of modernization practices. The “top-down
structure of authority” attributed to this paradigm by Melkote (1991) does not
apply only to the economic and political dimensions, but to every aspect of social
life, including communication. The basic model is a one-way linear
communication flow with a sender passing a message to a receiver (which usually
would be a mass audience) through certain channels.
The earlier models related to this paradigm, e.g. the hypodermic needle
and the bullet theories, attributed an overwhelming influence to media,
24
considering the receiver as a passive entity at the mercy of the sender. With time,
communication studies reviewed the influence of media and it was acknowledged
that their impact was not as direct and paramount as believed earlier. Theoretical
models, such as the two-step flow and the diffusion theory, recognized that
audience’s reception was a more complex phenomenon than originally
envisioned, but did not question the validity of the one-way flow of information
vertically going from the top to the bottom.
Even if communication models in the modernization paradigm have
seldom been labeled as propaganda, it is not difficult to see their manipulative
intent. Media have been used to transform the traditional- thinking attitude of
people into a modern one (much like media in communist countries were
supposed to be used to form “the new man”). In the past, the use of
communication in development projects and practices has been associated mainly
with mass media. The United Nations even set up indicators about the desirable
per-capita percentage a country should have in terms of television sets, radio
receivers and newspaper. UNESCO, in its 1978 General Conference, stated that
media were a vital tool in promoting change. The focus on media relevance was
so powerful that they appeared to be even more important than the content, in this
way echoing McLuhan’s famous slogan “the media is the message.”
Despite all the financial and human resources poured into developing
countries, the modernization approach has not resulted in significant successes.
The decade of the 1970s did not witness the expected outcomes and the optimism
based in the scientific and modern approaches of theoreticians, practitioners and
25
leaders around the world gradually faded away (Burkey, 1993). In the 1980s,
things got even worse as large numbers of people in many developing countries
experienced a significant decline in their living standards (Chambers, 1997). That
is why the modernization paradigm has been increasingly critiqued from a
number of perspectives and for a number of reasons.
First of all, it is considered to be highly ethnocentric, or better
“Westerncentric,” disregarding other possible values and approaches to life
different from those of the West. In this respect, Servaes (1991) notes how the
dichotomy between modernity versus tradition is a biased one, with no real
scientific or objective grounds to justify it. He considers the modernization
paradigm theoretically flawed, as it put the blame on developing countries without
solid arguments. From a methodological point of view, he criticizes it because it
is rooted in the tradition of evolutionism, which does not pay particular attention
to the source of change. From a logical point of view, he criticizes its theoretical
assumptions that wrongly appear to imply that a sequence of events in
chronological order is enough to establish a link of cause-effect (Servaes, 1991:
56). Finally, one of the major points raised against modernization by many of its
critics, consis ts in the predominant, if not exclusive, focus on the economic
dimension, thus neglecting other aspects of human life. And yet, this paradigm
appeared to have greatly failed precisely in its main mission; i.e. to foster
economic growth in Third World countries.
Criticisms to this paradigm became so intense that even their main
proponents started to re-evaluate some of its major assumptions. Even Rogers
26
(1976) openly acknowledged some of the main flaws announcing “the passing of
the dominant paradigm.” He started to reflect upon those flaws and paid more
attention to the people at the other end of the development equation by
recognizing the need for a different, more people-based, approach. Nevertheless,
he still could not escape from the boundaries of the traditional vertical and linear
communication model. The attempt to rethink the dominant paradigm resulted in
an ambiguous approach (e.g. Rogers’ references to Maoist China), which on one
side supported the need for popular participation and, on the other, was unable to
step out of the old one-way linear flow of communication. The category labeled
Development Communication basically followed in the same direction, using
communication predominantly to diffuse innovations and to support social
marketing campaigns, as I shall discuss later.
2.2.2 Dependency and World-Systems Theories
The criticisms against modernization resulted in the emergence of an
alternative theoretical approach that originated in Latin America from a political-
economic perspective: dependency theory. One of its founding fathers, Frank
(1969), criticizes the fact that modernization scholars usually placed the full
responsibility, and the blame, for the conditions of underdevelopment mainly
within the developing countries. Based on a structural analysis of the international
capitalist system, Frank considered development and underdevelopment as part of
the same process, caused by specific historical, economic and political factors.
Hence, the causes of underdevelopment should not be located internally within
countries, but externally (e.g. in the colonial past and other form of exploitations).
27
Dependency theory considers that the imbalance in the world’s scenario is
due to the international division of labor and to the continuation of patterns of
domination. In this conception the core countries are considered to take advantage
of their technological know-how, superior infrastructure and economic power to
strengthen their lead while the main role of the peripheral countries continues to
be that of supplying raw materials and cheap labor. In order to overcome this
situation, countries in the periphery are required to become economically self-
reliant (thus breaking the economic ties of dependency) and to form alliances
among themselves in order to carry a bigger political weight. The ultimate goal
would be to change the overall international set of relationships. In this respect,
the dependency theory fueled the demands for the New International Economic
Order as well as those of “the great debate” of the 1980s, i.e. the New World
Information and Communication Order (Nordenstreng, 1999).
The Dependency theory had a significant impact in the development
policies of a number of Third World countries, especially in the 1970s and early
1980s, resulting in the adoption of import-substitution policies by many of those
countries (Escobar, 1995). This strategy aimed at protecting national industries
from outside competition by subsidizing them and putting high tariffs on imported
products. The main idea was that of stimulating the growth of domestic
industrialization (McMichael, 1996) in order to reduce or sever dependent ties
with richer countries. Even though this strategy appeared to be partially successful
in a few countries (e.g. Brazil), it failed to achieve its goals in most countries. The
result of protecting and supporting local industries often resulted in poor quality
28
products and in inefficient productivity processes. This led to the necessity of
asking for more loans and a new kind of financial and political dependency
(Servaes, 1991).
In communication, the dependency proponents advocated a coalition of
Third World countries in order to counterbalance the power of the First and
Second World countries. They also proposed that developing countries would
increase the amount of trading, communication and information exchange. The
acknowledgement of Third World countries’ common status as an oppressed
force, assisted in compacting them into a more homogeneous movement, such as
the Non-Aligned Movement, with some significant results in the 1980s. The
debates on a New International Economic Order (NIEO) and a New World
Information and Communication Order (NWICO) started to gain momentum on
the agenda of most international institutions making the West very nervous.
However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, the bargaining power of the Non-
Aligned Movement was greatly reduced, and the NWICO demands gradually lost
relevance.
Dependency theory has been critiqued for simplistically dividing the
world into two blocs: core and periphery. This categorization neglects to
recognize the fact that there are also internal factors affecting the development of
nations, such as the role of national elites (Servaes, 1991). These elites have often
formed strategic alliances with those of the developed world and they have played
a significant role in shaping, often in negative ways, the development process of
their countries. In this way, by ascribing the causes of underdevelopment strictly
29
to the center of international capitalism, dependency theorists neglect to consider
other causes contributing to the same problem (Worsley, 1984). Another critique
regards the fact that no attention is given to the difference in the political-
economic status of developing countries, resulting in a big and potentially rich
country as Brazil or India being put in the same category of much poorer
countries such as Honduras or Mozambique.
The world-systems theory refines the theoretical model of dependency
and, through the work of Wallerstein, overcomes its flaws by adopting a more
holistic approach, encompassing world dynamics within a single system.
Wallerstein (Hopkins and Wallerstein, 1982), starting with an historical analysis
dating back to the sixteenth century, interprets the global scenario as a unified
world-system. The mechanisms operating at national and international levels are
those typical of capitalism and, despite its many forms, once deprived by its
different attributes, the essence of that system remains the capitalist one. Hence,
the dynamics of international relations and the causes for underdevelopment can
all be considered internal to the system, according to the international division of
labor and the control of resources.
By dividing the world into four main categories (the core, the semi-
periphery, the periphery and the external arena), Wallerstein addresses some of
the flaws caused by the oversimplified division of the dependency theory (that
divided the world into two camps). His main contribution consists in elevating the
framework for analysis from a national to a global level. In this way he eliminates
many of the fallacies encountered in the dependency paradigm. As it is usually the
30
case for doctrines close to Marxist positions, world systems theory has been
criticized for its strong emphasis on economic factors. I consider this critique to
be not entirely justified, since describing and analyzing the international scenario
as defined and constructed by capitalism would inevitably lead to focus ing on
economic considerations. It should be also noted that Wallerstein, even if giving
the primacy to economy factors, openly acknowledges the importance of political
and cultural elements in a number of his writings.
2.2.3 Towards an Alternative Paradigm
The search for a different vision and approach in development practices is
currently linked with people’s participation and empowerment. Participation is a
concept that has been gaining increasing recognition and prestige both in the
discourse and in the practices of development. Its significance consists in the
attempt of transforming people from passive recipients into active agents of
development efforts. There are a number of reasons for this shift. Probably the
major one is the one stated by Ascroft and Masilela (1994: 282): “if peasants do
not control or share control of the processes of their own development, there can
be no guarantee that it is their best interest that is being served.”
Nowadays, most development programs seem to carry the participatory
mark, as a sign of purification from the mistakes of the past. However, the wide
convergence in participatory approaches has not resulted in a unified paradigm,
but rather it has generated a number of well- intentioned models, not always
consistent with each other. Among this archipelago of approaches a few are
worthwhile mentioning: the Multiplicity Paradigm (Servaes 1991), the
31
Autonomous Development (Carmen, 1996), Another Development (Melkote,
1991; Jacobson, 1994) derived from the conception of former United Nations’
Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold and further promoted in the Cocoyoc
Declaration,1 the Empowerment Approach (Friedmann, 1992), the Liberation
Approach (Freire, 1997), the Dialog Paradigm (Guba, 1990) and all the
heterogeneous conception of the participatory, people-based development, such as
that of Chambers (1997) and many others.
The participatory paradigm is a frequently used term meant to describe
this family of approaches. However, despite its more limited use, I would prefer
to refer to this approach as the dialogue paradigm, as suggested by Guba (1990),
because dialogue is at the heart of participation, communication and even
empowerment (Freire, 1997). In addition, dialogue implies a positive and
constructive attitude towards problems and possible conflicts. Differently from
the proponents of the modernization and the dependency paradigms, most of the
advocates of this “paradigm-to-be,” or group of theoretical approaches, are not
even attempting to provide a grand-theory, aimed at a theoretical interpretation of
the world. They seem more interested in identifying and analyzing drawbacks and
limitations of current development practices, especially at the community level,
and in attempting to identify normative approaches that could provide operational
guidelines in the field.
Some of the basic features of this approach are the emphasis on people,
the endogenous vision of development and attention to power issues. In
1 The Cocoyoc Declaration on Self-Reliance was the result of a conference held in Mexico City in 1974 attended by social and natural scientists of many countries.
32
communication, the proponents of this perspective are supporting a radically
different conception from the traditional one: a model that is characterized by
dialogue and by a horizontal flow of information. In this approach communication
loses the top-down connotation rooted in the modernization paradigm and
becomes instead a tool of empowerment (Freire, 1997). Even when used in mass
media, messages are expected to originate from people themselves rather than
from the “experts” (Mody, 1991). Participatory approaches have been often
critiqued from many perspectives (Ranhema, 1992) and they can hardly be
considered outside of the modernity paradigm. Nevertheless, they constitute a step
directed at challenging the current development boundaries and push them a bit
further.
Unfortunately, alternative visions of development have a hard time
materializing in practice as they often encounter implicit and explicit resistance
due to established routines and beliefs rooted in the dominant paradigm. The
formal recognition of the many flaws in the modernization paradigm (Rogers,
1976; Servaes, 1991) has not resulted in a significant paradigm shift in practice,
even though the focus of development gradually shifted towards an increased
attention to all aspects of human life, not considered along merely economic
determinants.
The increasing rise at a global level of liberal democracy, as the dominant
form of government, has opened the way for considering participation, that is
having people taking part in the decision-making process concerning their own
lives, as a required attribute in all development efforts. Many United Nations
33
agencies have been very active in promoting this perspective, among them the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United
Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP), probably one of the most outstanding agencies in this respect, as I will
discuss later.
The reasons for the adoption of participation in development, however, are
not to be located exclusively within the political context of democracy. As early
as 1982, White (as cited in McKee, 1994: 215) had summarized the major reasons
for the adoption of this approach in ten points:
1. More will be accomplished.
2. Services can be provided at a lower cost.
3. Participation has intrinsic values for participants, alleviating feeling of
alienation and powerlessness.
4. Participation is a catalyst for further development efforts.
5. Participation leads to a sense of responsibility for the project.
6. Participation guarantees that a felt need is involved.
7. Participation ensures that things are done the right way.
8. Participation ensures the use of indigenous knowledge and expertise.
9. Participation brings freedom from dependence on professionals;
10. Participation brings about “conscientization, ” i.e. it helps people
understand the nature of the constraints which are hindering their escape
from poverty.
34
Despite all the listed benefits, participation, similarly to communication,
has remained a highly praised term, but a poorly adopted one. This is probably
due also to its rather multifaceted conception and the many sensitive issues
involved in its application. Almost any development practitioner has his/her own
conception about the meaning of participation, causing some divergent views on
what participation truly entails and how it should be applied. However, the
richness or ambiguity of the concept is not considered to be a problem by
everybody. Servaes argues that in dealing with participation, rigidly defined
theoretical structures are not only not feasible but also not desirable (Servaes,
Jacobson & White, 1996). He claims that participation’s strength derives from its
flexibility in adapting its strategic approach according to the situation. However,
other scholars tend to believe that this constitutes a major weakness of
participatory approaches, which can be easily adapted and used in a number of
ways, often not consistently with the participatory philosophy.
While reviewing this literature, Huesca states (2000: 75): “Indeed,
participation has been embraced by development scholars who have incorporated
this notion into modernization practices, such as message development and social
integration. The pluralistic spirit of the participatory turn in development
communication has had the ironic effect of redeeming the Dominant Paradigm
from its critics.” This debate is indicative of the complexity and ambiguity that
this concept implies.
Uphoff (1985), in a taxonomy that has been also adopted by other
scholars, considers that participation as applied in development projects can be
35
divided into four categories: participation in implementation, participation in
evaluation, participation in benefit and participation in decision-making. Even if I
can see some of the advantages of adopting such a categorization, I also have
some major concerns. First of all, by linking participation with specific phases of
the project the whole idea of participation is somehow invalidated, since it is
supposed to be a process running from the beginning to the end.
I should add that I am somehow guilty of the same sin, with the significant
difference that as I became aware of the limitations of such an approach I have
openly acknowledged them. I decided to go ahead anyway in order to provide the
reader with a benchmark against which to assess the level of participation in each
phase. Another controversial point in Uphoff’s taxonomy consists in the way he
defined the phases related to the project. There is no mention of participation in
the assessment or research phase and, as far as “participation in benefit” is
concerned, even if providing an interesting perspective upon which assessing
participation, it seems to be rather de- linked by the others categories.
There are a number of different ways according to which participation has
been defined and sub-divided. Among the most valuable ones is probably the one
devised by Pretty (Pretty et al., 1995: 61): this well-known typology includes
seven different ways according to which development organizations interpret and
apply participation in the field. These range from passive participation, where
people are simply told what is happening and it is conceived as a mere head-
counting, to self-mobilization, where people not only have the power to take
decisions but can also initiate the process. In between these two extremes there
36
are other kinds of participation, with different degrees of people’s involvement.
The full typology, starting from the least participatory perspective, is composed of
seven different categories: Passive Participation; Participation in Information
Giving; Participation by Consultation; Participation for Material Incentives;
Functional Participation; Interactive Participation; Self-Mobilization. In the next
chapter I devise a typology of different levels of participation, by combining
Pretty’s scheme with my own experiences in this field.
Historically, terms such as participation and participatory entered the
development discourse in the 1950s (Rahnema, 1992). However, this trend started
to catch up only towards the end of the 1970s when new approaches, aimed at
giving people a bigger role in development efforts, emerged. Examples of this can
be found in research methods paying closer attention to people at the local level
(e.g. Rural Rapid Appraisal, Participatory Rural Appraisal, Participatory Action
Research) and in the increased attention paid to this approach by development
policies of many international development agencies. An example of this can be
found in the 1973 US Foreign Assistance Act calling for American aid to involve
intended beneficiaries in the planning and implementation phases of development
projects (Cornwall, 2000).
Among the family of participatory approaches, Participatory Rural
Appraisal – PRA – is probably the best known. It started to become popular in the
1980s as a research method trying to reach a balance between the researchers’
needs to be scientific in their approach and the community’s rights to participate
in activities concerning their own well-being (Chambers, 1993). By spending
37
extended periods of time in the community, PRA researchers are expected to
understand better and pay closer attention to the needs and problems identified
and defined by the community.1
Thanks to Chambers’ field work, PRA has gained increasing relevance
internationally. Starting from the consideration that the rural poor are some of the
most disadvantaged, often illiterate, members in society, Chambers uses and
promotes a number of participatory techniques and tools that need no literacy
skills. In this way, he encourages all people to bring out their knowledge and
ideas into the open. This approach facilitates people’s involvement in the problem
analysis process and it stimulates the “reversal of learning”: from the rural poor to
the experts. This point is illustrated effectively by one of the phrases Chambers
often uses in his experiential workshops: “Everyone is ignorant, only in different
fields.” His work is in many ways consistent with Freire’s approach. They both
share a sincere concern for the empowerment of the oppressed and the
disadvantaged sectors of society, which often tend to be in rural areas.
The strengths and weaknesses of participation and empowerment are also
evident in another of its best-known approaches, which originated in the 1970s:
Participatory Action Research or PAR. In the beginning, PAR was seen with
suspicion by most international agencies, as it was characterized by “an activist
and somewhat anti-professional bent (many of the early proponents quit
university posts); hence the importance given to such innovative field research
1 It is interesting to note how until the beginning of the 1990s the institutions that developed and adopted the less participatory method of RRA, or Rapid Rural Appraisal, were mostly universities, while the ones developing and adopting PRA were mostly Non-Governmental Organizations (Chambers, 1993).
38
techniques as social intervention as well as militant research with a political party
organization in mind” (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991: 24). It should be noted how
this kind of activism can also lead to a sort of ideological imposition on people,
which ultimately negates the essence of participation and empowerment.
With time PAR matured and acquired a more reflexive mode. It is still an
approach strongly opposing the basic theoretical and practical assumptions of the
dominant positivist-scientific paradigm, but its research approach is now being
applied in a more systematic and less militant way (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991).
However, its scope still remains to investigate and change unequal relations of
knowledge and power. It also maintains a number of substantial ontological,
epistemological and methodological differences from other more conventional
approaches to development, the main one being its call for change and its
renunciation of being an objective, impartial instrument. At its very core PAR
aims to be an empowering experience for the poorest peoples and those peoples
are expected to use it to bring change, hopefully for the better.
The main weaknesses of these kinds of approaches, as argued by their
opponents, reside in their “unscientific and biased” approach to development.
This critique is rooted in the traditional conception of the dominant paradigm,
which assumes that there is a single, objective and verifiable reality that can be
investigated, explained and addressed through objectively verifiable methods. The
assumption is that science will lead to the “truth,” hence marking as wrong
everybody else not in line with that process. In the dominant paradigm, science
has been regarded as the main element for modernizing the world, and this carried
39
a number of assumptions that cannot be easily eliminated. PAR and similar
approaches envision a constructivist epistemology, which does not imply a single,
objectively verifiable world, but rather a number of equally valid realities,
socially constructed. In this way, truth loses its absolute value while dialogue
becomes a methodological and epistemological instrument to change the world.
Another alternative approach, focusing on people’s participation, is
constituted by the “autonomous development” envisioned by Carmen (1996). He
considers participation to be the missing link between people and development.
At the same time, he is very critical about the way in which the concept of
participation has often been defined and applied in development, even by some of
its most renowned advocates. He argues that participation has often been used in a
way that has implicitly made the poor responsible for their own misfortunes and it
has put all the blame for their conditions on internal aspects, thus neglecting
historical, economic and political factors outside their reach.
Carmen is also critical about the well- intentioned participatory concept of
“putting people first,” as he considers it to have a somewhat paternalistic
connotation. Carmen’s conception envisions people acting autonomously, rather
than being put first by somebody else. He refers to the Manila and Arusha
declarations to further support his conception of development, which envisions
people’s empowerment as a main pillar of a new kind of development (Carmen,
1996: 87):
According to the Manila Declaration, there is a need for a “fundamentally
different” development model based on the following three principles:
40
Sovereignty of the people, the real actors of positive change. The
legitimate role of government is to enable people to pursue their own agenda.
People’s control of their own resources, their access to relevant
information, and the creation of machinery by which people can hold government
officials accountable. It is a government’s elementary duty to protect those rights.
Those who would assist the people with their development must recognize
that it is they who are participating in the support of the people and not vice versa:
i.e. the interventionist principle and interventionist arrogance turned on its head.
The process leading to people’s participation can be time consuming and
nerve-racking. That is why despite their increasing popularity, participatory
approaches have undergone a number of criticisms. The most common are their
limited effectiveness, due to contradicting approaches (top-down v. bottom up) at
different levels (i.e. research, planning, implementation, evaluation),1 that they are
easily subjected to external manipulation, that they are difficult to reproduce on a
national scale and that they often adopt a patronizing approach as a way of using
“conscientization”2 techniques (Midgley et al., 1986). The evaluation of the
outcomes resulting from participatory approaches remains a controversial issue.
Other problems include the tendency of local communities to concern themselves
too narrowly with their own self- interests and the possibility that community
participation may be “hijacked” by powerful groups within the community (e.g. 1 That is the case, for instance, if a participatory approach is applied in a community, but the local authorities or the project management do not allow a conducive environment and relevant decisions are taken outside the community. 2 This original term used by Freire is coscientizacao . It refers to the process through which the
oppressed reach the convinction for the necessity of struggle in order to achieve their own liberation.
41
men at the expense of women). People’s participation can be further discouraged
when people feel they are being looked down upon by others with higher socio-
economic status (Jones & Pandey, 1981).
The problems stated above are not slowing the momentum for
participatory approaches, which entail major theoretical and attitudinal shifts by
development workers (especially the well-remunerated international experts) in
line with the teachings of Freire (1997). These experts or professionals tend to
resist relinquishing their power as they fear losing their privileged position
(Chambers, 1993). Local extensionists and other field workers face a similar
problem. It is certainly not easy for a person who has gone through many years of
schooling and has been trained to talk and impart knowledge suddenly to have to
sit and listen, learning from the “ignorant peasants”!
Knowledge, however, is not a prerogative of those holding a university
degree. In the decision making process, indigenous knowledge and people’s own
perceptions are as important as academic knowledge and scientific information
(Chambers, 1997). A personal experience that occurred in a development project
in northern Namibia illustrates the case. Government extension agents were
complaining that local farmers were not only ignorant but also stubborn because
they failed to follow a number of procedures that would increase their crops. One
such procedure required farmers to plant their seeds in rows, while they had
traditionally done it by broadcasting (that is by throwing the seeds in the ground
randomly). The extensionists tried to convince them that research has shown a
42
higher productivity rate when seeds were planted in rows. But no matter how
many times they explained this to farmers they would not do it.
When the FAO experts were called in to carry out a participatory
communication rural appraisal (PRCA) they soon find out that there was a reason
for the farmers’ behavior. In that area they had a lot of rodents, which were fond
of their seeds. Every time they attempted to plant the seeds in an orderly fashion,
i.e. in rows, the rodents quickly found out the pattern and ate most of the seeds.
Broadcasting their seeds was not due to ignorance, but was a conscious strategy
that allowed them to save a significant amount of them from the rodents!
This is just a simple example where the scientific accuracy of
experimentation, usually done under a controlled environment in a laboratory,
was not compatible with the real situation in the field. In my years in the field I
have encountered many such situations. Researchers and projects’ personnel must
learn to listen to and understand people’s point of view since, after all, they are
the primary stakeholders of the process. The emphasis of this process is on
sharing of information, mutual understanding and reversal of knowledge
(Chambers, 1993, 1997). That is why training approaches, educational theories
and capacity building activities are crucial in this context.
A number of scholars have emphasized the relevance of participation in a
number of fields, among them: Milbrath (1965), Cernea (ed., 1985), Burkey
(1993), Chambers (1983, 1993 and 1997). Even when studied in other contexts,
participation is demonstrated to be a valuable approach. Miller and Mong (1987)
investigated participation and its effects in the decision-making process of
43
organizational systems. They indicated that participation has a number of
different attitudinal, cognitive and behavioral beneficial effects leading to
increased performance. Marshall and Stohl (1993) studied participation among
line workers and found that the degree to which workers were involved and
empowered in the information system was related to the workers’ satisfaction and
performance. No matter what the context, participation appears to be a winner,
even in two apparently contradicting realities such as that of supporting people’s
empowerment and that of improving workers’ performance.
Trying to incorporate the principles of participation within the
communication processes has basically implied changing the classic model of
vertical information flow into a horizontal, circular flow, as we shall see in the
next section. Communication models following this perspective will also have to
take power into account, since authentic participation always entails
empowerment. Participating in the development process signifies having the
power to make decisions concerning one’s own well-being. Furthermore,
participation cannot be restricted to the realm of development projects. It can not
be a simple means or strategy to increase projects’ sustainability, but it is bound
to be a component of a larger picture, as stated in the UNDP Annual Report
(1993: 21): “Since participation requires increased influence and control, it also
demands increased empowerment – in economic, social and political terms.”
The UNDP has been one of the first UN agencies trying to conceive
development beyond the strict boundaries of the economic dimension. All people
should be empowered to participate in the definition of the development
44
boundaries from the very beginning to the end. Stakeholders should not only take
the lead in this process, but they should also have the power to define their own
worlds. The issue of power is central to participation, since participation without
the power to take decisions would be a meaningless one, especially if power is
conceived as the ability to shape social context (Wilkins, 2000). Nevertheless,
empowerment can be a more relevant concept than power, due to its redeeming
and liberating qualities at an individual level as envisioned by Freire (1997) and
others, when considering participatory approaches.
Power can be defined in a broad sense using Weber’s definition (as cited
in Galbraith, 1983: 2): “the possib ility of imposing one’s will upon the behavior
of other persons.” Dorothy Rowe (as cited in Chambers 1997: 76) provides
another interesting definition: “In the final analysis, power is the right to have
your definition of reality prevail over other people’s definition of reality.” By
combining the two, it can be stated that power is the capability of imposing one’s
will upon other people in order to have a certain vision of reality prevail. Defined
in such a way, power implies the possibility and the capability of imposing a
group’s (or elite) social construction of reality upon the rest of the people in that
society and, in its most advanced hegemonic form, make it appear normal or
“common-sensical.”
Power can be exercised in many ways, from the most brutal and less
effective, i.e. through use of repression and terror, to the most sophisticated, i.e.
the hegemonic construction of consensus as indicated by Gramsci (1971). In
development, power is mostly exercised through decisions concerning the
45
selection of development priorities, methodological perspectives and field
implementation approaches usually exercised in offices far away from the local
realities. Participatory approaches, even if still rooted within the old paradigm, are
a step in trying to change this situation and this change presupposes power or
empowerment, according to different perspectives.
Differently from power, empowerment is a relatively new term, especially
as used in development. It is an issue that has been neglected for a long time, and
it has been investigated more in relation to working conditions than in the broader
social context. The basic difference between power and empowerment can be
identified in the different focus of the two. Power can be seen as something
established, or imposed, by individuals or group of individuals upon other
individuals or other groups. Empowerment, instead, can be considered as
something coming from within, as stated by Cornwall (2000: 33), it “is not
something that can be done to people, but something people do by and for
themselves.” This is true especially at an individual level. Melkote considers
empowerment at three different levels: individual, organization and community.
At a community level, he defines it “as a process whereby the community gains
increasing control over making decisions concerning their own lives” (Melkote,
2000: 45). In a subsequent article, Melkote (2002) has openly and directly linked
empowerment, at any level, to the establishment and exercise of social power.
Hamelink (1995: 133) considers empowerment as a necessary part of the
process through which people achieve the capacity to take control of decisions
concerning their own lives: “Empowerment enables people to define themselves
46
and to construct their own identities. Empowerment enables people to define
themselves and to construct their own identities. Empowerment can be the
outcome of an intentional strategy, which is either initiated externally by
empowering agents or solicited by disempowered people. Empowerment can also
be coincidental in which case it happens as a result of a human act that did not
intent to capacitate people or that even intended to disempower people.”
Hamelink’s statement provides a broader perspective on empowerment. He also
further reflects on the difference between power and empowerment, since, even if
he states that the original meaning of empowerment is to give power, he also
acknowledges that empowerment can be considered to mean self-empowerment,
i.e. people making themselves powerful. This conception is close to the one being
adopted in the context of the study.
Even if empowerment has been defined and conceived in a number of
ways, all of them include the notion of individuals being able to take control of
decisions regarding their lives or liberating themselves from structures and
relationships of domination (Freire, 1997). In order to understand why
empowerment has gained such significance, it would be useful to give a brief
historical overview of the history and adoption of one of the current cornerstones
of the world system: democracy. This however is beyond the scope of this study.
Let me just briefly remind the reader that the term democracy, meaning “rule by
the people,” originated in ancient Greece and the conception of democracy in
those times was quite different from the present day. After Athens’ experience,
for almost 2000 thousand years, democracy has not been a popular system in
47
other parts of the world. Only recently democracy, or at least a certain conception
of democracy, has gained a formal primacy among the political system of the
world (Fierlbeck, 1998).
There is no consensus on how exactly to define democracy. However,
there are two basic features of Western democracy that are generally considered
fundamental: freedom and equal opportunities, in social and political life. The
concept of freedom entails people being able to think, speak and act freely, and
being able to have a choice among a number of options. Equality, on the other
hand, implies that “people are fundamentally equal in some important respect and
from this it follows that all should be treated equally in certain specific political
respect” (Beetham, 1994: 8) or, similarly, that “all people have an equal
opportunity on an ongoing basis to determine the structure and direction of
society” (Fierlbeck, 1998: 14).
The idea of equality is certainly a debatable one, carrying two different
families of meanings. The first indicates a kind of sameness or homogeneity, and
the second indicates a sense of justice or being treated fairly (Lummis, 1992). The
latter is the conception most relevant to my study since the “equality assumption”
implies that all citizens are equal with respect to their right to decide the
appropriate political course of their community (Beetham, 1994). In order to take
decisions over their own lives, individuals need to participate in an active manner,
and to do that they need to have the power to decide and act upon those decisions.
This is a crucial issue for most international agencies. Since the beginning of the
1990s, UNDP has identified the lack of control over one’s own life as one of the
48
major constraints for people around the world. People’s lack of power affects
their lives in every possible aspect. Sen (1999) in a core critique to the dominant
thinking refers to the “unfreedom of poverty and inequality,” to emphasize the
limitations and the patterns of domination of the current conception of liberal
democracies.
The “Cocoyoc Declaration on Self Reliance” was one of the instances
where a different kind of development was openly discussed. A people-oriented
development, which would have participation as an essential requirement for all
its practices, cannot leave out of consideration people’s empowerment. Involving
people in the decision-making process of development implies a two-fold effort
affecting the traditional equation of power in the existing social structure. On the
one hand, grassroots communities need to become empowered to take decisions
concerning their own well being and, on the other hand, outside experts and
donors need to be “disempowered” in order to release control of the driving seat
of the decision-making process. The latter occurrence is always the harder to
achieve, as power is hard to conquer, but even harder to renounce.
In the current literature, empowerment is often treated at three levels:
personal, interpersonal and community (Parsons et al., 1988). The personal
dimension is concerned with personal growth, self-esteem and believing in one’s
self. The interpersonal is concerned with relations with others, setting limits in
giving, asserting themselves and acquiring critical thinking. Finally, community
empowerment entails taking an active part in the social and political decision-
making process of the community, however narrowly or broadly that might be
49
defined. This latter dimension is the one of most interest, even though achieving
community empowerment requires that individuals would have to be already
empowered at personal and interpersonal levels.
Paulo Freire (1997), one of the leading figures in this field, sees
communication as a basic component of people’s empowerment. A genuine
revolution, aiming at eliminating the patterns of domination in society, can be
achieved and legitimized only through dialogue with people. He believes that
people’s empowerment can be achieved through a process of awareness or
“conscientization.” This implies reaching a level of consciousness whereby the
oppressed become aware of their condition through a totality of reflection and
action. The most effective tool in this process is dialogue.
Freire rejects the authoritarian approach of most social institutions,
especially the educational ones. He believes dialogue is the best way not just to
acquire knowledge but to empower people: “Dialogue is an act of creation; it
must not serve as a crafty instrument for the domination of one person by another.
The domination implicit in dialogue is that of the world by the dialoguers; it is
conquest of the world for the liberation of mankind” (Freire, 1997: 70).
Empowerment is needed to liberate both the oppressor and the oppressed, thus
enabling a genuine participation. Freire (1997) states that years, or centuries, of
mental indoctrination, economic exploitation and political domination have
produced a perverse mechanism of dependency between the various social parties
and the only ones who can change this are people themselves.
50
Chambers, one of the main advocates of participatory approaches, deals
with empowerment from a different angle. He believes that involving the poor in
their own development efforts and allowing them to take decisions over their own
lives will lead to their empowerment. He is aware that power can be both an
enabling and a disabling factor. Misguided power can be a devastating instrument
in development (as many failures of international projects have demonstrated) and
power can also be considered a disability, when it imposes the construction of
reality of the ones on top and negates that of the ones on the bottom.
In this respect, Chambers (1997: 77) raises two interesting questions:
“whether all power tends to deceive; and whether exceptional power deceives
exceptionally.” For Chambers empowerment basically means putting people in
control of decisions concerning their own life. He considers participatory
approaches to be one of the most valuable tools in empowering people, but his
analysis tends to overlook structural constraints impeding people’s participation
and, hence, empowerment.
Finding a general consensus on a definition of empowerment is not easy.
Some definitions (Cornwall, 2000; Melkote, 2000) have been already presented.
One of the most comprehensive definitions, which includes elements of all the
main theoretical perspectives, seems to be that offered by Deming (as cited in
Hodges et al., 1997: 148):
Empowerment is a process of discovering within ourselves and in others
the capacity to bring about change. Empowerment means accepting personal
responsibility to act. As we realize our power, we become free to transform
51
ourselves and to discover untapped strengths. Our individual actions of protest
and creativity create a ripple effect that empowers others. At the heart of the
empowerment process is the phenomenon of helping someone else to see
something he or she hasn’t seen before and subsequently to act upon that insight.
It is not a bullying power, not the power to make people afraid. It is the power to
make them see new things as possible.
This definition includes both the personal dimension, through the idea of
the process of inner discovery leading to action, and the social level, through a
ripple effect that facilitates other people’s empowerment to reflect and act. It also
incorporates Freire’s concept of power as transformation, and rejects the negative
idea of power being used to dominate or impose. It is a constructive form of
power that brings hope to people. But, for as beautiful as it sounds, this kind of
empowerment is not easy to achieve, as it requires a complex effort from two
opposite sides. While people on the bottom have to struggle to increase their
power, the ones on the top have to renounce some of their power and control.
Based also on my personal experiences in the development world, empowering
people might be easier than disempowering traditional sources of power or
authority (i.e. project managers, national decision-makers and international
experts, etc.).
That is why Titi and Singh (1995) discuss the idea of “mutual
empowerment” as a way to recognize the current interdependent relations on a
global and local level among a number of actors (i.e. governments, NGOs,
international agencies, public and private donors and people). They are interested
52
in participation and empowerment for a new paradigm of sustainable development
and they claim that “alternative development thinking has focused on the
transformation of political, economic, environmental and societal institutions and
societal values through empowerment” (Titi & Singh, 1995: 18). Their article
stresses the link between “the processes of impoverishment (which are economic,
ecological, social, and political) and the disempowerment of the people.”
Empowerment, therefore, is a necessary component in the fight to reduce poverty
and in achieving equal recognition of human rights and dignity for all people of
the world.
The notion of empowerment has been also investigated by scholars and
practitioners of feminist studies. Virginia Seitz (1995: 8) defines empowerment as
“a capacity in thought and action to address the condition and position of
marginalization. Women are empowered when they recognize and act on strategic
(relational) interests as well as practical (material) interests.” It is easy to see how
this definition could be effectively applied to any oppressed or subordinate group
of people. Seitz (1995: 7) considers marginalization to be a key term of women’s
struggle for empowerment, since women “are marginalized by the social
construction of subordinate female gender roles and their accompanying
ideologies.” Again, this can be applied to any other subordinate group.
The consensus about the value of people’s participation and empowerment
appear to be so overwhelming, at least in the official discourse, that one might
wonder why such approaches are still being debated rather than fully applied. One
might also wonder if they are indeed being adopted and in what capacity. There
53
can be little doubt that participation and empowerment can bring a value-added
degree of legitimacy to any project (Rahnema, 1992). It is not only “politically
correct” to have people directly involved in the decision-making process of
development projects, but it also increases their chances of success (Coldevin &
FAO, 2001). Unfortunately, not all development agencies appear to be genuinely
promoting the philosophy and practices of people’s participation and
empowerment. Many of them appear to be merely involved in a façade operation,
where participation and empowerment serve to legitimize their operations and
avoid controversy.
Participation is also related in a number of ways to globalization, at least
as far as development is concerned. First of all, it has become a universally
accepted and “politically correct” concept that, while implying a radical change,
does not radically challenge the dominant paradigm. Most international agencies
are adopting, or claiming to adopt this approach, but very few appear to apply a
participatory approach throughout the whole decision making process. The fact
that participation can be conceived, defined and applied in a number of ways
(Rahnema 1992; Pretty et al., 1995) allows its adoption without jeopardizing the
mainstream dominant approaches. Nominal participation, i.e. without the power
of controlling the decision-making process, or partial participation, i.e. being
involved only in certain phases of the development effort, is often used to validate
projects while negating the very essence of participation, i.e. primary stakeholders
taking control of the decision-making process from the very beginning.
54
2.3 GLOBALIZATION AND THE BOUNDARIES OF DEVELOPMENT
After having revised the main theoretical approaches of development, it is
important to discuss briefly the current economic, political and cultural processes
making the world a smaller and more integrated reality. Development is closely
linked and shaped by what is often being referred to as globalization. In this
section, I do not intend to conduct an in-depth review of globalization. I seek to
provide an overview on how some of the main issues concerning development are
related and framed within the globalization discourse. Globalization can be
considered a process where the world is coming closer together, reducing the
constraints of time-space dimensions. In the literature, among the many
definitions, the one stated by Giddens (1990: 64) seems to summarize the basic
features of globalization: “the intensification of worldwide social relations which
link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events
occurring many miles away and vice versa.”
The literature on the subject appears to agree that globalization denotes a
Western-centric vision of the world, promoting principles of liberal democracies,
free trade and open markets (Kiely & Marfleet, 1998; Tomlinson, 1991). This is
not very different from the current framework of most approaches in
development, especially with the demands for structural adjustment policies.
What is different is that globalization does not have a strong focus on the nation-
state, as it is transcending this level in a number of ways, driven by its imperative
of an open global market to maximize profits. This is why so many scholars
consider capitalism to be the driving force of globalization.
55
Among those who do not attribute an overwhelming emphasis to
economics as a driving factor there is Tomlinson (1991). He considers that
globalization is not a consciously coherent or shaped process, but rather
something happening naturally and inevitably. His position, however, leaves a
number of issues unresolved. Culturally, it is difficult to sustain that there is a
somewhat balanced or multidirectional global flow of values, goods and services,
especially in the sector of communication. But also politically and economically,
development and globalization appear to have a vertical connotation (i.e. from the
center to the periphery) with their functions being complementary and mutually
supportive. McMichael considers development and globalization as two projects
more than just two processes, since they are “political economic constructs,
framed by a dominant idea” (1996: 149). They are part of a conscious effort,
shaped by the economic and political elites of the richer countries, to maintain
their dominant position in the world scene.
Despite the fact that I find considering the two as succeeding projects
objectionable, as they tend to overlap considerably, I think McMichael’s
perspective has some validity since it takes into account the role of economic,
political and cultural elites. His interpretation does not necessarily imply a
conspiracy theory, but highlights the convergence of interests in the various social
dimensions by world elites, who have a vested interest in maintaining and
strengthening the current status quo. This issue will be further discussed below.
For now it is important to note how those convergent interests can be seen as
greatly influencing development and globalization processes and how following
56
his classification allows a clearer historical overview and review of their latest
trends.
In 1999, in a rather provocative statement, Friedman symbolically set the
destruction of the Berlin Wall as the beginning of a new era and announced that
the world was ten years old. Reality is surely more complex than that:
nevertheless, his statement draws attention to a phenomenon never experienced
before on such a scale. After the fall of the Soviet Empire, only one superpower,
the United States, and one economic-political system, has remained around the
world: capitalism, with its current neo- liberal policies and the related cultural
milieu. This has not only meant the disappearance of the bipolar confrontation of
superpowers on a world scale. It has also shaped development policies being
adopted by international agencies (e.g. the United Nations) and restricted the
autonomy of weaker countries, which lost whatever bargaining power they could
use in a scenario with counterbalancing superpowers.
A few countries in the past have managed to follow a relatively
autonomous path, by playing a subtle game threatening to side with the other
camp if pressure on one side was becoming too big or trying to find a common
middle ground (e.g. the Non-Aligned Movement). With the collapse of the Soviet
Union, virtually no other country has shown the strength or interest to play a
major international role, thus drastically reducing any space of a significant
opposition or alternative to the mainstream process of globalization. Today it is
difficult to conceive of an international agency promoting development
interventions outside the neo-liberal approach.
57
Even if defined in different ways, many scholars agree that globalization
carries a distinctive set of common features (Axford, 1995; Giddens, 1990;
McMichael, 1996; Robertson, 1992), which could be grouped into three main
dimensions, closely interrelated. Economically, globalization is guided by the
capitalist-consumerist engine that has proven to be successful for the West. The
influence of multinationals (MNCs) or transnational corporations (TNCs) has
increased dramatically in recent years. The increasing concentration of the global
market shares in the hands of a few actors carries implications in all other social
dimensions. Culturally, most scholars, while diverging on a number of issues tend
to agree that globalization carries a set of common values, closely linked with the
vision of the Western capitalist societies. Politically, in addition to the usual
rhetoric about freedom and democracy, globalization entails the adoption of
policies in line with the neo- liberal doctrine, aimed at reducing barriers and
promoting “free trade” internationally while reducing government interference in
the social sphere at home. This is overlapping with the economic dimension,
where the free-market is considered as the only possible approach globally.
This happens not only through national policies but also through policies
supported by international agencies, e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO (Rich, 1994). A
number of scholars have pointed out how international organizations play a major
role in supporting the process of globalization through the world (McChesney
1999; McMichael, 1996) by spreading the market liberalization ideology and its
related consumerist attitude, strongly supported by transnational corporations.
Spybey (1996) sees the reproduction of Western institutions as one of the global
58
forces behind globalization and he, similarly to Hall (1997), considers the
growing influence of international organizations, regional arrangements and
markets and multinational corporations as a factor gradually weakening the role
and power of the nation-states. Mowlana (1997) highlights how the erosion of
national sovereignty is also due to the new communication technologies that
allow borderlines crossing of unchecked information and financial transactions in
real time.
This does not imply that the nation-state is disappearing. Its role and
power are still very relevant. Giddens (1990) ascribes to the nation-state a very
relevant role, due its potential legitimate use of force (i.e. military) to defend its
interests in the internationa l arena. The most powerful states play an active role in
trying to ensure that international laws and regulations are followed and that no
“unfair” trade barriers are placed to impede free international trade. Similarly, the
state, through its military machinery, also continues to maintain its traditional
responsibilities for the defense of national interests and the security of its territory
and its citizens. In this respect, Barnet and Cavanagh (1994) raise an interesting
point. They note how the spread of global institutions, multinational corporations
and transnational financial flows have not been matched by the emergence of a
world authority, or a global mechanism, to define or support global welfare. This
further highlights the issue of inclusion and exclusion from the globalization
process, especially in regards of individual rights.
The globalization process is shaped by a convergence of factors and
interests in the various dimensions, a major one being culture. The role of culture
59
has been always relevant in any process of domination. Even during its colonial
period, imperialism has been seen as a “major diffuser of modernity” (Sreberny-
Mohammadi, 1997). In more recent times, control in the international arena has
been accomplished more effectively by shifting methods: from territorial
occupation, through the use of military force, to economic domination. This is a
more sophisticated form of control, which occurs by incorporating countries into
the global economic system, which is basically a capitalist world-system
(Wallerstein, 1990) dominated by the richer countries. Here is where Gramsci’s
(1971) concept of hegemony is of particular value.
Hegemony is a term denoting dominance or control. It is established and
maintained through a dynamic process involving both force and consent. Winning
the consent of subordinate classes tends to be a more effective way to maintain
the status quo, and it is achieved effectively when ruling elites form strategic
alliances and engage in a war of position aimed at preserving their power.
Mainstrean global media (e.g. CNN) act in support of a sophisticated form of
ideological hegemony, exercising their influence not only by the information they
present but also by omission. This implies that public opinion is influenced and
shaped through decisions over the selection and framing of information, and what
is not selected can be equally important as what is not. Information can be placed
within the cultural dimension, which Gramsci considered to play a crucial role in
achieving an effective societal control.
The hegemonic construction of the current discourse on development and
globalization does not only set the boundaries within which development is
60
designated to operate, but it also shapes cognitive psychological boundaries that
make it difficult for any individual to try to conceive possible radical alternatives.
It is clear that one of the most effective ways to achieve and maintain hegemony
is through the effective use of communication, which has a direct influence in the
sphere of culture, i.e. our worldview. Culture plays an important role in the
globalization project and this is acknowledged even by world-system scholars,
often accused of neglecting the role of culture.
Wallerstein (1990) considers culture to be a concept that constrains people
by shaping the way they make sense of the world according to established
schemes. Even if he ascribes primacy to the economic dimension, Wallerstein is
perfectly aware of the importance of culture for the maintenance and
strengthening of the world-system. By combining this with Gramsci’s concept of
hegemony it is possible to see how a number of compatible interests could be
considered to converge, or conspire, in promoting a reassuring notion of the
“globalization project.”
The current globalization process has often been accused of being
characterized by cultural domination, made possible through the use of the new
communication technologies. Herman and McChesney (1997) and Schiller
(1991), among others, consider globalization to be a more sophisticated version of
cultural imperialism. In general, communication infrastructure and technologies
are considered a development priority, due to their consistent correlation with
economic success (Brown, 2001). It is clear that globalization, being still closely
linked to the basic principles of modernization, has a strong influence on
61
development. It could actually be considered as a more sophisticated attempt to
achieve development, at least in its mainstream conception. McMichael (1996:
177) explains that: “the development project proposed social integration through
national economic growth under individual state supervision. Alternatively, the
globalization project offers new form of authority and discipline according to the
laws of the market.” According to him, the globalization project intends to
provide the world with a new organizing principle, which does not appear to have
a valid answer on how to reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Globalization is making the world smaller and closer and this is facilitated
by communication technologies. These are no longer the mass media envisioned
in development, which were often used to promote western ideology and maintain
the hegemonic coherence of society. The focus has now shifted to communication
technologies that allow information to be exchanged and travel quickly across
boundaries that were difficult to penetrate in the past (Appadurai, 1990).
However, this exchange of information has not led to a more balanced set of
relationships in the global flow of information.
Castells (1996) investigates how communication technologies have
established a new set of world relationships, by compressing time and space. He
considers that capitalism is now capable of operating effectively and in real-time
on a global scale. Thanks to the new information technologies global capitalism
can bypass the authority and regulations of the state and create a sort of
“supranational” force. He envisions a network society linking all financial centers
(i.e. major cities financially significant) around the world.
62
Economic, cultural and technological factors are all key factors in shaping
globalization. Appadurai (1990) discusses the disjunctures in the global cultural
economy identifying five dimensions that determine the framework of the global
flow: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, finanscapes and ideoscapes. He
considers these “landscapes” as a sort of imagined spaces that assist to situate
people within the various dimensions of the globalization process. Arnason
(1990) sees the re-emergence of modernity as a dominant theme in social theory
and he considers the nation-state to be a link between modernity and
globalization. Both Giddens (1990) and Wallerstein (1990) refer to modernity as a
central universalizing theme that, among other things, uses the power of the
nation-state to achieve, maintain and strengthen national cohesion and interests
even while operating in the spirit of globalization. International development is
clearly affected by the level of global cohesion or conflict, keeping in mind that,
as mentioned by Bauman (1990), the history of modernity so far has been one of
tensions between social existence and its culture.
It is evident that modernization is still alive and kicking. Its presence is not
only visible in the development discourse, but it has also been elevated and
included in the pervasive process of globalization. Advances in technology and
concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer actors have made the world smaller.
But this has raised a number of controversies, as the recent protests around the
world indicated (e.g. Seattle, Gotenborg, Genoa, etc.). On one hand, globalization
is seen by many of its advocates as an inevitable process destined to bring peace
and prosperity to the world through the spreading of an efficient economic system
63
based on a free market (Barber 1992; Boyd-Barrett 1997). On the other hand,
globalization is considered by its critics to be an homogenizing force, paying no
attention to disadvantaged people since it is driven by economic considerations
that result in further maintaining and increasing current exploitative trends and
inequalities around the world (McChesney, 1999).
While incapable of addressing the issue of the gap between the haves and
the have-nots, is globalization also leading to a more homogenized world?
Ferguson (1992), Hall (1997), Robertson (1992), Pieterse (1995) and Spybey
(1996) are only a few of the many scholars who address the issue of homogeneity
versus heterogeneity in this context. Among the various perspectives, there is a
wide consensus in considering globalization to carry both homogeneous as well as
heterogeneous traits, especially in its cultural dimension. Spybey (1996) considers
that while accommodating for pluralistic influences, the globalization process is
also promoting Western institutional and cultural models.
There can be little doubt that culture is one of the main battlefields of
globalization. Tomlinson (1999: 1) claims that “Globalization lies at the heart of
modern culture; cultural practices lie at the heart of globalization.” He describes
the condition of the modern world in terms of complex connectivity, which means
a greater global-spatial proximity. The concept of cultural proximity has also been
investigated by Straubhaar (2000). While acknowledging some of the pervasive
effects of globalization in television programs, he argues that those effects are
limited by filters provided by viewers’ “cultural capital.” In other words, elements
such as language, cultural background and social class act as mediators of the
64
globalization content of television programs. However, the fact that viewers-
consumers might prefer to buy local products rather than international brands
advertised on television does not diminish the power of the consumerist
connotation of the content, raising questions about the relevance of considering if
commodities have been produced and marketed locally or globally.
Globalization appears to be accepting and encouraging diverse viewpoints
and cultural forms, often resulting in a hybridity of social spaces (Pieterse, 1995).
At the same time though, it promotes homogeneity by supporting the overall
framework of the capitalist-consumerist conception. Borrowing a philosophical
conception, I believe globalization could be defined as carrying both
connotations: homogenization in its “essence” and heterogeneity in its
“existence.” The former implies a core consistent set of beliefs denoting
globalization, i.e. the spread of consumerism with all its political, economic and
cultural accessories. At the same time, it also promotes heterogeneity by
maintaining and co-opting the various cultural, social and even economic norms
into the globalization process. An example of this can be seen in the music
industry, where rock music is being challenged at a global level by Latin-
American and African music. However, even if artists and sounds are from those
regions, the production, marketing and distribution are usually controlled by
major multinational corporations in the richer countries.
If indeed the major trait of globalization consists of the spread of the
Western conception of liberal economy and liberal democracy, as sustained by
Spybey (1996) and others, development efforts will most likely follow within the
65
same footsteps. The implications resulting from the globalization process tend to
have a homogenizing effect on the economic policies being promoted around the
world, including those directed at development. Virtually no major international
organization or national government would dream to attempt a radical alternative
to the current practices in development. That could hardly be ascribed to the
successes of the current neo- liberal policies, which after decades of huge
investments in human and financial resources have brought only limited
improvements for poor people around the world (Black, 1999; Bradshaw &
Wallace, 1996). Even if some NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) are
looking for alternative ways to approach development (e.g. empowerment, gender
issues, etc.) no major institutions or government appears willing to challenge the
traditional vision of development, despite its limited success in all these years.
I hope the above discussion has illustrated how most of the various
features of globalization are greatly overlapping with the assumptions of the
traditional paradigm of development. Globalization appears to be a revised and
more sophisticated version of the dominant paradigm and its implications. Even if
the world system theory, in this respect, can be considered a rival perspective, as
claimed by Robertson (1992), it does not present any viable alternative. The
family of participatory models, with its decentralized and fragmented approach,
can provide some possible alternative at a local level. Nevertheless, it cannot be
expected to pose a major opposition to the building of globalization, at least in the
short run, nor can it be considered to be fully outside of the modernization
paradigm.
66
2.4 COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT
The importance of communication in international development has been
known for quite some time and it has been already illustrated that soon after
World War II a number of scholars had studied the issue giving their perspective
on how best to use it (e.g. Lerner, 1958; Rogers, 1962; Schramm, 1964; etc.). In
1980, UNESCO established the International Commission for the Study of
Communication Problems. The report of the Commission (MacBride, 1980: 258)
emphasized the importance in incorporating communication policies and
strategies in national policies as well as and the importance to adopt
communication approaches that would involve people “in the diagnosis of needs
and in the design and implementation of selected activities.”
Communication in international development is usually defined and
conceived in a number of vague, and often contradictory, ways. The confusion
and ambiguity reflected in the many terms used in the literature to characterize
this field is one of the main obstacles towards achieving an alternative, coherent
common conception. When I decided to use the term “Communication for
Development” in my research I had well in mind the point raised by a
communication expert during one of my most recent consultancies in Colombia.
He objected to use of the term “Communication for Development” to denote
participatory approaches on the basis that it could be misleading, as it has also
been used to denote a variety of top-down communication approaches. Despite
this, I decided to adopt this term to indicate the broad family of approaches trying
67
to distance themselves from the old one-way communication model for at least a
couple of reasons.
First, a number of international agencies are increasingly adopting this
term to denote participatory communication approaches, including the ones to be
included in my study; i.e. FAO, the Italian Cooperation Agency and the Southern
African Development Community - Centre of Communication for Development
(SADC-CCD). This should also reduce validity and reliability concerns when
conducting interviews (by facilitating a common understanding). The other reason
for adopting the term “Communication for Development” consists in the fact that
other terms used for the same purpose have even closer ties with the heritage of
the dominant paradigm.
Wilkins (2000: 197) refers to Development Communication as “the
strategic application of communication technologies and processes to promote
social change.” Even if participation is not clearly implied in her definition, she
uses this term paying particular attention to the issue of power in communication
as a needed component to achieve meaningful participation. However, the term
“Development Communication” has originated in the 1960s to describe the field
of communication research addressing the needs of developing countries
(Melkote, 1991) to be addressed through the vertical use of mass media. Among
some of the first well-known scholars in this field were Daniel Lerner (1958),
Everett Rogers (1962) and Wilbur Schramm (1964), all of whom envisioned a
linear one-way use of communication technologies and processes. This fact
makes it difficult to recycle the term development communication to indicate
68
current attempts to change traditional practices with alternative, more horizontal
models.
Coldevin (2001) notes that in the 1970s a number of agencies from the
United Nations started to use a number of terms to describe a growing interest in
the use of communication to support development projects, among them Project
Support Communication by UNICEF, Information-Education-Communication or
IEC by UNFPA, and Development Support Communication or DSC by FAO,
later changed in Communication for Development. All of these efforts, even if
accompanied by the best intentions, were basically efforts to include a
communication component (usually technology-driven or information-based) into
every development projects of the UN agencies rather than trying to achieve a
paradigm shift in the way communication should be conceived and applied. Fraser
and Restrepo-Estrada (1998) illustrate how, even in the quarters where these
terms originated, they were conceived primarily as a way of including media to
support the main objectives of projects. That is why the term Development
Support Communication, developed in FAO with a similar focus, is still a term
critiqued and viewed with suspicion by proponents of participatory approaches,
despite Melkote’s (1991) attempt to define it as a horizontal, two-way model.
As stated above, the term Communication for Development has been
increasingly understood to incorporate a two-way model of communication,
especially within FAO, as can be seen by the following statement (FAO, 1994b:
3), which defines Communication for Development as “a social process aimed to
establish a sincere and permanent dialogue among the different development
69
actors, to support and strengthen the selected activities in order to put the basis for
a joint management, needed for the achieving the success of the effort
undertaken.” A number of other FAO documents refer to Communication for
Development along the same lines, including the ones regarding the project
selected for this study.
To summarize, it should be clear by now that a number of different terms
have been used to illustrate new models and participatory approaches of
communication in development, among them: Development Communication
(Mody, 1991; Wilkins, 2000), Development Support Communication (Melkote,
1991) and Communication for Development (Coldevin, 2001). All of these are
controversial terms, as they have been also used in ways that could be hardly
defined as participatory. In my experience, the use of the term participatory
communication allows a clearer understanding about the approach in question.
Hence, I decided to adopt the term Communication for Development to refer to
this field in general and to facilitate a common understanding among the people
being interviewed. At the same time, I use the term participatory communication
with a normative connotation, indicating approaches trying to establish models
envisioning people’ participation and empowerment.
2.4.1 Participatory Communication
When two hard-to-define terms are combined to form a new concept, it is
easy to predict that this new term would not likely be rigidly defined either.
Hence, rather than trying to establish a uniform definition of participatory
communication, I review diverse approaches to this concept. I pay special
70
attention to the main characteristics of this concept, highlighting common features
while recognizing its ambiguity.
Participatory communication started to gain ground in the late 1980s/early
1990s, when a number of scholars worked increasingly within this perspective,
among them Wang and Dissanayake (1984), Servaes (1991), Modi (1991) White,
Sadanandan and Ascroft (1994). Servaes (1991) addressed openly the need for a
new paradigm in communication for development and Melkote (1991) discussed
possible alternative paradigms, both being aware of the need for a new, more
participatory communication model. The common ground for all these scholars is
the focus on a more horizontal flow of communication, away from the traditional
top-down model that basically envisioned a sender, a message and a receiver. The
emphasis is more on a user and bottom-up oriented approach in order to involve
people in the decision-making process (Servaes, 1996). Participation is also
raising other questions and the issue of power and empowerment assumes higher
relevance.
Ascroft and Masilela (1994) summarize the main obstacles encountered by
this approach in its initial stages into three major problems. First, the birth of what
was then called Development Support Communication was the credibility and
acceptance with which this approach was received. Most development specialists,
especially extensionists, failed to see the advantages of adopting such an approach
and tended to be more suspicious than relieved by the new concept. The second
problem concerned the location of DSC services, which were placed under
information divisions, rather than under planning or broader development units. In
71
this way communication was still conceived as a media-driven activity, rather a
people-based one.
Finally, the third problem was the lack of personnel specifically trained in
this field. There was a lack of specific curricula in this field in practically all
countries around the world, developed or developing ones alike. For years, the
heads of the development communication units and divisions had a multiple
background ranging from agricultural extension, to mass communication, rural
sociology or even international law. They all had to adopt and promote this
discipline by applying its principles through a painful process of learning by
doing, having very limited sources and models to guide them.
Definitely the main characteristic of participatory communication is the
horizontal exchange of information among all parties involved (Anyaegbunam et
al., 1998; Coldevin, 2001; Fraser & Restrepo-Estrada, 1998; Jacobson & Servaes,
1999; Melkote, 1991; Mody, 1991), which is often identified with dialogue. In
this model, there is no pre-determined sender or receiver since everybody is
expected to be both at the same time. Clearly, this implies not just a shift in the
old communication model, but rather a paradigmatic shift, as it requires a
different normative conception of the world and a different balance of power,
which would be more equally distributed. If yesterday’s passive recipients are
going to be empowered and become active, they have to make their voices heard
in the decision-making process. On the other hand, it is clear that yesterday’s
decision-makers would have to give up a big part of the power they use to hold in
making those decisions. If at the basis of communication there is dialogue,
72
planning of development projects that claims to be participatory can no longer be
decided in far away offices, but should be carried out in the relevant communities
with the people, not for them.
Another characteristic of participatory communication is the fact that it
should be considered as a process rather than being represented as a static model.
FAO has been working in this direction since the 1980s (Balit, 1999) conceiving
participatory communication as social process that intended to achieve a common
understanding among all participants and then have them act on the base of the
consensus achieved. This implies that participatory communication should be
present throughout all the phases of any development intervention. Considering it
a process not only shifts the focus toward a more complex and articulated reality,
but it also nulls one of the questions being asked in this respect: “participation in
what activity?”
Finally, the endogenous focus of participatory communication (Melkote,
1991; Servaes, 1991) indicates that there cannot be predetermined formula for
universal messages, channels or models to be followed, but rather a search for the
most appropriate way according to the situation and culture. This search should be
conducted with, and guided by, the primary stakeholders. However, even if the
applications are different, the foundation of participatory communication should
be solid and well-defined, following the core principles illustrated here. If this is
achieved, then its theoretical framework can be consistently interpreted, its
practices uniformly applied and its results clearly assessed and recognized.
73
There is still too much ambiguity in this area and this mainly derives from
the difficulty of fitting participation within a definite theoretical box, in line with
the positivist tradition. The major weakness of participatory communication stems
from the vagueness of its definition and the variety of interpretations that affect its
practices. Its strength resides in its dynamic process, built through dialogue,
whose outcome cannot be easily predicted, nor needs to be.
Synthesizing the main body of literature, it can be noted that, first of all,
participatory communication requires having an open attitude, being ready to
listen and learn. It also requires a strong commitment to work with all people,
especially the poorest and most disenfranchised ones, and accept that their
empowerment will mean a loss of power for the outsiders. Only then the specific
skills in participatory communication will be significant: skills that would assist
the community to investigate and identify their problems, needs and priorities and
skills that would assist the community in formulating and selecting appropriate
strategies. Unfortunately, at the moment, participatory communication continues
to be a vague concept and unless its ambiguity is dealt with, it will continue to be
a compliant, “spineless” concept that could be used for any purpose.
By being defined and conceived in ways often vague and inconsistent,
participatory communication is not likely to be applied consistently in the various
phases of the project cycle. On the contrary, it is likely to be used in different
ways, at different stages and for different purposes. This vagueness is a sensitive
issue, since it can be an asset for those sincerely committed to participation,
allowing flexibility that leads to more effective strategic maneuvering on people’s
74
side. But for those more preoccupied with projects’ budgets and quantifiable
results rather than people’s empowerment, the ambiguity of this concept provides
a comfortable protection, capable of legitimizing almost all sort of approaches,
even the most vertically guided ones. It should also be noted that participatory
communication can be directed towards a particular end, or be open-ended and
non-directive (Mody, 1991).
Mody discusses how development communication has been used for both
participatory communication approaches. She even suggests that participatory
communication can be used in a “non-participatory way”, for example by
involving people in designing messages aimed to produce programs attempting to
manipulate the audience according to someone’s else priorities or interests. Her
position in that respect is that participatory communication could be used to
involve audiences in the message design by enabling them to decide the kind of
content and formats they want and need. This is in line with the main philosophy
of this concept, as agreed upon by most scholars and practitioners.
Tehranian (1990) highlights one of the biggest, unresolved contradictions
in the establishment of the participatory approach. That is, whose development
are we talking about? By discussing national development of Third Word
countries can we assume that it is about the people of that country? Tehranian
presents two, often contradicting, perspectives. He compares the different role and
functions expected by communication as seen from the top, i.e. government
decision-makers, versus the ones expected from the bottom, i.e. the majority of
people usually in rural areas. Its discussion highlights some of the few
75
contradictions rooted in participatory communication as conceived and applied
nowadays.
For those who attempted to apply participatory communication approaches
in real life situations, it should be evident how the two perspectives mentioned
above, are usually opposite to each other. In one perspective, communication
basically tends to serve the following purposes: promote and consolidate people’s
consensus on national goals; maintain and reinforce the social order; support
national agendas as defined from the top. In the other perspective, instead,
communication assumes a different connotation. It becomes a means to have
people’s voices heard and empower them in taking an active part in decisions
concerning their own lives, both at the local level (i.e. the community where they
live) and eventually within their societies. More specifically, communication is
expected: to facilitate education and learning approaches through media; to
encourage and promote participation in the development process; to promote
people’s participation in institutional activities; to identify and provide channels
for horizontal as well as vertical networking to exchange relevant information;
and to provide relevant information on grassroots priorities and needs to policy-
makers. Tehranian’s analysis is a useful reminder of the practical obstacles to be
encountered in the road towards full participation in the decision-making process.
Participatory communication, while providing a radical departure from
many of the shortcomings of the dominant paradigm, is still riddled with
contradictions and vestiges from the past and it does not seem to go far enough in
turning the table around. If participation is the name of the game, then the whole
76
way of thinking about communication must be changed (i.e. from a vertical uni-
linear process, to a horizontal multi- linear one), as people’s participation is likely
to result in changes in power patterns. That is why participation is not always
welcome, especially by governments with a stronger authoritarian connotation
(Lisk, 1985). Power is inherent in the communication process; hence to achieve a
more balanced and participatory system the communication model must be
changed accordingly. Along the same lines, much of the current terminology
should be changed, as words shape the way we think and define the reality around
us. Terms such as target groups, audience and even message design are rooted in
the dominant paradigm and they should be substituted by more appropriate ones.1
I have advocated replacing the term participatory communication with
empowerment communication (Mefalopulos, 2000) in order to emphasize further
the empowerment issue and cut the legacy of the old paradigm, still present in
some of the participatory communication conceptions. Even if sincerely
concerned with involving people in the process, most participatory
communication scholars have not been able to envision a fully circular process
outside of the hegemonic sender-receiver model. If participation means
empowerment, and this means having people define and decide their own reality,
communication for development must be entirely stripped from its persuasive and
hierarchical connotations. International and other outside experts are only a part
1 In PRCA the term interaction groups replaces the traditional terminology such as target groups or audiences, similarly discussion theme is used in a complementary way with message design, to emphasize the importance of dialogue over persuasive communication.
77
of the development process, which should be shaped and guided by the priorities
of the primary stakeholders.
The name empowerment communication signifies a way of exchanging
and sharing meanings (much in line with the original semantic meaning of
communication), knowledge and experiences without pretending to know what is
better “for them.” Even if not fully established, there are a number of indications
that a genuine participatory paradigm is on the making. In addition, from the
insights offered by the proponents of participatory communication, a few attempts
are quite significant in showing a valid alternative. Escobar (1995) questions the
whole concept of development and considers social movements to be a possible
solution to the current problems in development.
Wang and Dissanayake (1984) present an interesting approach in
communication for development. They try to combine opposite concepts (e.g.
tradition and modernity, continuity and change) to be integrated in the
communication process, in line with an Asian perspective of unity. The most
radical proponents for a new paradigm, however, are to be found in scholars from
other fields as discussed previously, namely Freire and Chambers. An attempt to
break from the traditional participatory model is also engaged by Anyaegbunam,
Mefalopulos and Moetsabi (1998) with their work in Southern Africa. In this
respect, it should be noted how the writings of all these authors present a major
difference from that of many others; their work is derived from their field
experiences rather than from academic knowledge.
78
The gap between the academic and scholarly discourse and the applied
field of participatory communication is another major controversial issue. Most of
the communication proponents dominating this field and guiding the course of
communication for development are academic researchers and educators and
among them very few ever had the opportunity, and the knowledge, for applying
the theoretical constructs in practical situations (Ascroft & Masilela, 1994). This
left a gap between the theory and the practices of participatory communication.
Participatory communication needs to combine both the theoretical
knowledge and the practical experiences to adopt the integrated approach that is
often referred to in the literature. It is a concept and a practice that holds great
potential, provided that the system within which it is applied is truly democratic.
People’s capability and opportunities to shape their own destiny are well-
supported ideals. Yet, the application of these ideals is very limited. Why?
The answer appears to lie in the structures of power that enable or limit
people’s lives. Freire (1997) simplified this by considering how these structures
impacted people, who were basically divided in two major categories: oppressors
and oppressed. Trying to provide an exhaustive answer to this issue is not easy,
and maybe not even possible, and it is not the focus of this study. Hence, I would
like to keep this as a question meant to challenge the reader’s mind, planting the
seed of doubt and hope. Participatory communication is in many ways still related
to the dominant paradigm, but it also constitutes a sincere effort to break free
from old boundaries. It is also evident that, once adopted, it cannot be restricted
just to the decision-making process in the development context. The dynamic
79
relations present in the process affects every dimension of the social, economic
and political sphere of life of each individual.
2.4.2 Communication and Participation in Field Projects
Communication and participation are key terms not only in the academic
discourse but are also a primary focus in the documentation related to
development projects. In the previous section, the origin and rationale of “the
project approach” have been briefly presented. Cusworth and Franks (1993: 3)
define the project as “the investment of capital in a time-bound intervention to
create productive assets.” Projects can cover a variety of initiatives in virtually
every possible sector and they can be funded by a variety of sources, even if
typically the richest countries account for the biggest share of projects funding.
Moreover, as mentioned previously, the project approach satisfies both the donor
and the recipient country, as illustrated by Shepherd (1998: 120): “There was a
coincidence of interests around the Project. Donors felt they could ensure
accountability if funds were disbursed to projects rather than put into a common
revenue pool. They often insisted on special administrative arrangements to
ensure their influence. Recipient governments, on the other hand, preferred using
projects to achieve projects rather than policies.”
Due to their very precise objectives and temporary nature, projects have a
very well defined nature and rationale, which differ from other approaches. For
instance, the routines and operations of an on-going project, aimed at reducing
mortality rates in children under five, differ significantly from the system that will
be in place for the same purpose when the project ends. This difference is not
80
easily grasped by development managers (Cusworth & Franks, 1993) and even in
those instances when it is understood, managers do not have much autonomy for
maneuvering due to the existing structural constraints. This applies even more in
projects of a participatory nature.
It has already been noted how participation is being increasingly
considered as a crucial component of many projects and yet, as an institutional
unit, the project is not particularly suited for participation, especially from an
administrative point of view. Shepherd (1998: 136) explains that projects “are
unlikely to be linked to whatever participative mechanisms it exists. Since the
very logic of the project is that of insulation of its activities from society or
routine government and the by-passing of routine administration, project
managers or designers are unlikely to be willing to subject their activities to the
influence of the public.” The difficulty of managing projects in a participatory
way constitutes a major hurdle in implementing this approach in a fully integrated
manner.
Shepherd (1998), however, also mentions how an evaluation of USAID-
funded projects revealed that top-down approaches are less successful than
participatory ones. This is consistent with most of the available literature.
Bagadion and Korten (1985) show how a participatory approach, intended to
involve farmers in the layout and design of new canals and structures to be
incorporated in the planning of a new irrigation system, led to an increase in rice
productivity. The increase was significantly higher than those of systems that did
not adopt a participatory approach. The World Bank provides further evidence on
81
the benefits of participation and drawing from its own experiences asserts that
development projects are more successful when they are participatory in design
and implementation. By reviewing thirty World Bank projects completed from the
1970s an internal review found an average rate of return of 18% for projects that
were judged “culturally appropriate”, i.e. people were involved to some degree,
but only 9% for projects that did not include mechanisms for including social and
cultural feedback of local people (World Bank, 1992).
Hence, participation is not only a basic human right for every person but it
is also considered a component prone to facilitate the achievement of projects’
objectives, whatever they might be. Participation is also closely linked, and
greatly overlapping, with communication activities, even if the latter have not
always been used in a participatory way. For instance, in discussing
communication in field projects funded by the International Fund for Agricultural
Development, a review document (IFAD, 1993: 31) states that “the most common
purpose for which communication was used was the dissemination of technical
information, predominantly from the project to beneficiaries.” UNICEF is another
UN agency keen to adopt participatory approaches and it has also been very
active in communication, even if it has traditionally relied mostly on advocacy
approaches and campaigns (Beigdeber, 2001), which do not carry a particularly
strong participatory focus.
It has also been argued (Alamgir, 1989) that farmers’ acceptance and
commitment to projects’ objectives are necessary elements for the success and
sustainability of those projects. Based on IFAD experiences, Alamgir identifies a
82
few advantages of participatory approaches in development projects. First of all, it
utilizes the wisdom and knowledge of local people, who are familiar with most
issues concerning their environment. These factors when coupled with external
resources and expertise “can result in projects which are manageable in scope, do
not rely unduly on imported technology, have low recurrent cost expenses and
which beneficiaries themselves can voluntarily maintain after the project has been
completed” (Alamgir, 1989:6). Alamgir states that another advantage of
participation, closely linked with communication, consists in its capacity of
facilitating the organization of training, especially those of vulnerable groups (e.g.
women), and the diffusion of innovations.
Participatory communication has been used also for political action,
especially at community level. According to Riaño (1994), participatory
approaches in community media offer an alternative to mainstream media. She
offers an array of cases where participatory communication has been used in
development projects to empower women and involve them in the planning and
decision-making process of such efforts. Thus communication provides not only
an array of options upon which to built appropriate strategies, but in this context it
is also an empowering tool, similarly to participation.
Uphoff (1991) analyses three projects that have been implemented without
a participatory focus in Nepal, Ghana and Mexico. His aim is to show that, unless
projects actively involve “the intended beneficiaries” in all the decision-making
processes, their chances of success are greatly reduced. He notes how the purpose
of most projects is to introduce innovations, but many projects’ staff believe that
83
this can happen only if these innovations are assessed favorably by donor
agencies. They also believe that this is more likely to happen if traditional
approaches and established institutional routines are followed, thus leaving out
more innovative paths, such as people’s participation, from the initial phases of
projects’ formulation and design.
I conceptualize that participation can broadly be divided into two
categories aimed to address two different types of situations: Exploratory PRCA
and Topical PRCA. The former refers to the ideal use of this methodology, which
occurs in the initial stages of the projects’ ideation. Anyaegbunam, Mefalopulos
and Moetsabi (1988: 61) state that: “PRCA is most effective when done as part of
a larger multi-disciplinary study with the community at the initial stages of
development project formulation.” I will discuss further this topic in the next
chapters.
Topical PRCA, instead, is concerned with the diagnosis and correction of
critical issues in on-going projects. This has two major limitations. First, people’s
participation, which has most likely not been addressed from the beginning, is
now being readmitted, resulting in partial, and often confusing, attempt to involve
people. Second, the effectiveness of the strategy design is greatly impaired as it is
applied to predetermined situations, which are already compromised. Despite this,
there are very rare chances to use exploratory PRCA, i.e. from the very beginning
of the process, as communication still tends to be considered as a support after
project objectives have been defined and often it is used as a last resort when
everything else fails (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998).
84
There is a substantial convergence of views, regarding the conception of
the project cycle, both in the academic literature and in the documentation of
international and national organizations working in development. The only
differences regard the articulation of the different phases, which in some cases are
divided in a more detailed fashion. In a handbook produced for the European
Union, Mefalopulos and Barros (2001) divided the project cycle into five phases:
1) Identification: where the rationale and purpose for the conception of the project
is conceived; 2) Research: where needs, problems opportunities and solutions are
identified and discussed; 3) Planning: where a strategy is designed and put into an
administrative framework; 4) Implementation: where the project’s activities gets
executed in the field; and 5) Monitoring and Evaluation: where on-going activities
are assessed and corrective action is taken if needed and where the overall impact
of the project is assessed.
Rondinelli (1977: 7), on the other hand, presents a much more detailed
project cycle, breaking it down into nine stages: Project Identification and
definition; Project Formulation, preparation and feasibility analysis; Project
Design: Project Appraisal: Project Selection, negotiation and approval: Project
Activation and organization; Project Implementation; Project Completition or
termination and output diffusion; Project Evaluation and follow-up analysis. In a
book published by the World Bank, Cernea (1988:16) provides a classification of
the typical project cycle for rural development project, dividing it into five phases,
namely: 1) Project Identification, including research; 2) Project Preparation,
85
including design; 3) Project Appraisal, including design corrections; 4) Project
Implementation, including monitoring; and 5) Project Evaluation.
It is not difficult to see how the different models, even if they present
some differentiation in naming and subdividing the various phases, are all
compatible with each other. A UNICEF publication presents the project cycle in a
similar manner, dividing it into seven phases (Robirosa et al., 1990). The first one
is concerned with the original idea of the project. The second is an appraisal or
assessment of the situation. The third is called the integrated problem model and
refers to the analysis and interrelations of the problems identified in the second
phase. The fourth is the stakeholder analysis and formulation of strategies. The
fifth phase is about the planning of activities and resources. The sixth phase
includes the implementation of the activities and the related. Finally, the seventh
phase is the evaluation. It should be noted here how, compared with other models,
the research phase is treated in more detail and it is present from the second to the
fourth phase.
There is no point in listing more examples of different models of project
cycles, since none of them denotes a radical departure from the others. For the
purpose of clarity, and validity, while investigating the relevant questions in my
study I refer to the project cycle as a combination of the models reviewed above
and those presented by FAO, specifically concerned with the planning and
implementation of communication programs. Those include the FAO model
presented in a publication about rural development (FAO, 1989a) and that defined
jointly by the FAO project “Communication for Development” and the SADC
86
Centre of Communication for Development presented in their publication on
PRCA (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998). Based on the above considerations, for the
purpose of this study the project cycle has been considered divided into six
phases, which are discussed in more detailed in the next chapter: 1) Identification
of area/sector of intervention; 2) Needs assessment/research; 3) Project
Formulation; 4) Planning; 5) Implementation; 6) Evaluation (and Monitoring).
Some points should be clarified here, keeping in mind that the cycle is not
straightforward and neatly separated sequentially, but has a lot of overlapping and
variation. Table 3.1 in the next chapter discusses all these phases and their main
function in more detail. For the moment it is sufficient to know that the first
phase, i.e. identification of area or sector of intervention, can be originated by any
party having an interest at stakes, e.g. a government agency, an NGO, an
international organization, a community or any group with a specific need or
interest.
Once there is an interest on that issue, the cycle enters its second phase,
that is needs assessment or research, which is done on location usually with the
involvement of all stakeholders. This provides the needed information to
accomplish the next phase: project formulation. Here the goal, objectives,
resources and duration of the projected are defined. Typically, this phase is
carried out at headquarters and the participation of the primary stakeholders vary
according to the situation and to the degree they have been involved in the
previous two phases, but it is seldom a significantly active one. At times a draft
87
formulation phase, based on secondary sources, can precede the research and
being reviewed and finalized subsequently.
The fourth phase is the planning or strategy design, based on the goal,
objectives, resources and duration of the project, as defined in the previous phase.
This is often the point where the project management shifts from the headquarters
to the field. The fifth phase concerns the implementation of the activities needed
to achieve the designated objectives. Finally, the last phase is that of monitoring
and evaluation. Combining these two concepts can raise some objections, since
the former is concerned with the on-going process and the latter with the impact
and results of the project intervention. Nevertheless, the two share a similar
methodological rationale. Some models include monitoring within the
implementation phase, but this means excluding monitoring from the previous
phases where it can also be of great value.
In the project cycle communication can, and should, be used from the very
beginning to create the necessary dialogue and horizontal exchange of
information needed to ensure the appropriateness, relevance and importance of
the project. However, this does not yet happen often and communication usually
becomes an add-on component meant to address problems arising during the
implementation phase (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998). In Mexico, PRODERITH
(Programme of Integrated Rural Development in the Tropical Wetlands) is an
example of how FAO provided its expertise in the field of communication for
development to assist a major development effort. Communication was planned
as part of the overall integrated approach from the beginning and this constituted
88
a definite advantage in ensuring an active involvement of the peasants concerned
with the program’s activities (FAO, 1996a). Communication in this case was also
used for situation analysis and for motivation purposes, elevating it from its
traditional status of diffusion of innovation.
Surely participation is not a panacea to every problem, as with some
benefits also come some aggravations, the main ones being more time and greater
costs. There is also need for extra care in not idealizing and considering the
community as a homogeneous group, neither culturally nor from a socio-
economic perspective, as it has been often done in participatory approaches (Guijt
& Shah, 1998). Each community is a complex system with differences in terms of
age, economics, religion, gender and other factors. Neglecting this complexity is
bound to lead to projects’ failure. For instance, one of the main weaknesses of the
Comilla Rural Development Program in Bangladesh resided in its lack of taking
into account these differences when adopting the participatory approach (Zaman,
1984). The Comilla project succeeded in involving a great number of farmers, but
the biggest share of the benefits went to the relatively richer and most influential
ones who were able to control the development initiative. This ultimately defeats
the philosophy of these types of approaches, meant to lead to a redistribution of
economic, cultural and political power.
The goal of development cannot simply be that of benefiting a small
percentage of people, but it should ensure that the population involved is equally
active and responsible in the decision-making process and in the sharing of
benefits resulting from the project’s activities. By now, it should be clear that “the
89
project” is a complex entity and that genuinely integrated participation of all
primary stakeholders in all the various phases of the process is not a goal easily
achieved in the short term. Within this framework, the main role of participatory
communication consists in providing the basis upon which the different
perceptions, experiences and knowledge can be shared and analyzed, allowing all
stakeholders to play an active role in the decision making process. While the
nature and the structures of international development do not allow this to be a
truly alternative paradigm, participatory approaches carry the seeds that could
lead to a radically different conception of development. Until that moment, the
higher the degree of genuine participation, the closer projects will be to that ideal.
90
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
The significance of participatory communication and the increasing
recognition of its role in field practices and in the development discourse have
been discussed extensively in the previous chapter. Nevertheless, this term still
remains an elusive and vague concept, which is understood and adopted in a
number of different ways. My study intends to investigate how participatory
communication has been conceived and applied in a project specifically designed
to promote the use of such an approach. I believe that by exploring the issues, the
constraints and potential associated with this approach, on both a theoretical and
practical level, I can provide new valuable insights.
Through a case study approach, I investigate the conception and
application of participatory communication through the project cycle, from the
inception to the implementation of field activities. The main objective of this
study is to explore and probe deeper how participatory communication has been
adopted in the decision-making process of development practices. Unlike other
studies, where participatory communication is analyzed and discussed either from
an academic perspective or from the practitioner’s point of view, this study
intends to explore these two dimensions as part of a continuum.
3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH
As already stated, when dealing with two elusive and hard to define
concepts such as participation and communication, the most critical issue resides
91
in ensuring, as much as possible, to achieve a clear understanding of the issues. It
is evident that in many instances the conceptual and practical boundaries of
participation and communication overlap. The former cannot exist without the
latter, since any form of participation requires a horizontal communication. That
is why the terms participation and participatory communication in many
occasions can be used interchangeably. They often indicate not only the active
involvement by the stakeholders but also the flow of knowledge and experiences
being shared. Since the term participatory communication is going to be
“constructed” or refined during the investigation, the review of FAO
documentation and the related interviews provide the tools to understand how it
has been conceived and implemented in the course of the project. In the study’s
conclusions, the way participatory communication has been defined and used is
also contrasted and compared with the current literature on the subject.
The main research question of this study is concerned with how
participatory communication has been conceived and applied in the FAO project
“Communication for Development in Southern Africa,” which from now on is
going to be often referred to as the ComDev Project. This project is well-suited
for such an investigation, since it has originated exclusively to support and
promote the use of participatory communication approaches. It should be noted
that this project, differently from many others typical international development
projects, is not addressing directly the ultimate stakeholders, i.e. rural
communities. This project has been designed to provide advice and training to
staff of institutions and organizations involved in development and other
92
development projects, which in turn are expected to adopt this approach when
working with the relevant stakeholders, usually in rural areas.
In order to study how consistently participatory communication has been
applied in the process, the project cycle has been divided into six phases:
identification of sector of intervention; research; formulation; planning;
implementation; evaluation. This categorization has been derived from the FAO
documentation on the subject, which is compatible with other related literature.
Participatory communication issues will therefore be investigated and discussed
for each of the various phases being considered. Other related sub-questions are
also investigated. Among those, I am particularly interested in exploring if the
initial conception of participatory communication has changed through the
different phases and if so how. I also intend to discuss eventual similarities and
differences between participatory communication as conceived and applied in the
FAO project and the way it has been reviewed in the literature.
3.1.1 Assumptions and Biases
No matter how objective and scientific a researcher may try to be, he or
she will never be able to eliminate his or her intellectual, professional and cultural
background and related biases. Hence, I intend to state from the beginning, as
openly as possible, my biases and main assumptions, in order to allow the reader
to account for them while going through the study. The more basic one is
probably my male gender, followed closely by my double ethnicity, i.e. Greek and
Italian. My academic undergraduate background is in sociology, while my
graduate studies, conducted in the United States, have been in communication.
93
Having worked for about ten years in the development field, mainly with
UN agencies, I have undergone a change of focus in the use of communication.
From the classic use of media and communication technologies to diffuse
innovation and promote change through social marketing approaches, I have
gradually become more interested in a process-oriented approach. Here
communication becomes a tool to open up dialogue among all stakeholders
leading to problem-analysis and problem-solving strategies. The final goal is to
use communication as an empowerment tool allowing all stakeholders to play an
active part in the decision-making process.
The theory and practice of participatory communication allowed my
academic knowledge to be combined effectively with my field experiences, fitting
the crucial role I believe communication should play in social change. In this
respect, my value system is close to that of the Participatory Action Research
(PAR) scholars, who considers that participatory approaches can never be neutral
or detached from practical implications since, by aiming at empowerment, they
imply a “spiritual and ideological commitment to promote people’s praxis.”
(Rahman and Fals-Borda, 1991: 25).
Finally, another major bias might come from having worked for almost
four years in the project being investigated. However, this circumstance, while
carrying some preconceived ideas about the ComDev Project, also constitutes an
asset since it allows me an understanding of issues that an outsider might not fully
grasp. My own previous participation in this project complements current
94
research on the issue of participation. I triangulate the findings with my own
experiences and reflect upon issues that emerged from the study.
The main assumption guiding this study, also supported by a significant
part of the available literature, is the belief that participatory communication is an
approach having the potential to shape significantly theoretical approaches and
field practices. Even if this approach does not totally break out of the boundaries
of the dominant paradigm, it signals a shift from the old perspective. Some of its
principles follow in the footsteps of more radical theories, such as the one by
Freire (1997), with the potential to bring significant changes in the lives of people
around the world, especially, even if not exclusively, to those in the poorest parts
of the world.
I believe this study can generate new knowledge further facilitating and
promoting the comprehension and adoption of similar approaches. Nevertheless,
it should not be automatically assumed that the findings of this study can be
applied to all situations. The issue of “representativeness” in such a context is a
thorny one, since the vague and multifaceted understanding and interpretation of
participatory communication makes it difficult to reach a consensus or a common
understanding about what that truly entails.
I should also make clearer what has already transpired previously. In
carrying out my study I do not follow the positivist tradition, but I embrace
constructivism as the paradigm of reference.1 This carries a number of
implications at an ontological, epistemological and methodological level (Guba,
1 Paradigm here is considered in its generic sense, as stated by Guba (1990: 17): a basic set of beliefs that guides actions.
95
1990). Ontologically, it does not matter if reality is one or multiple, since even if
there was a single one, it would be too articulated and complex to be fully and
objectively understood. Reality is constructed through exchanging and sharing
knowledge and experiences among individuals. The implications that follow are
that there is not a single, objective and verifiable true reality, but a multiplicity of
realities, all equally valid in the eyes of their “builders”. Truth, then, can no
longer be regarded as an absolute concept.
The implications at an epistemological level are that the separation
between the researcher and the object of the study is no longer desirable or
possible, as the two are part of a single reality. To investigate and interpret reality,
the researcher adopts subjectivism as the perspective of reference, or better inter-
subjectivism to signify the mediation of different subjective perspectives among
the various actors. Interpretation of reality becomes a key issue, since as Wilkins
noted (1994: 2): “intersubjective meanings constitute shared realities produced
and maintained within social communities.” Methodologically, constructivism
relies heavily, but not exclusively, on qualitative methods and the main task of the
researcher is to identify and interpret the various constructions of reality through a
number of methods usually based on a dialectic mode (Guba, 1990).
Finally, I would like to clarify that even if I side with the approach and the
research methods close to Participatory Action Research, due to the nature and
purpose of this study, my role would be that of an explorer and describer rather
than of somebody openly advocating change. However, in the conclusions of the
study, I highlight possible directions indicating how to push the development
96
boundaries further away from the traditional paradigm towards social change
shaped by a more participatory decision-making process. The proposition for a
normative model based on the findings of this study could be my next endeavor.
3.1.2 Methodological Issues
The objective of this study is to investigate the theory and the practice of
participatory communication through a case study of a development project
specifically designed to promote the adoption of such an approach. The
theoretical connotations of the concept and the practical implications of the
process make this research study particularly well suited to qualitative design.
Taking also into consideration the fact that the study is carried out within the
context of a wider framework (i.e. FAO structure, its mission and its approach to
development), case study research appears to be the best strategy to investigate
the issue for a number of reasons.
First of all, investigating how participatory communication has been
conceived and applied in a current development project meets one of the basic
criteria for selecting such a strategy; i.e. when “a how or when question is being
asked about a contemporary sets of events over which the investigator has little or
no control” (Yin, 1994: 9). Yin argues that case study has been proven to be
particularly valid when investigating contemporary phenomena within their
contextual situation. As for most other research strategies, case study can be used
for one of three purposes: exploratory, descriptive or explanatory, or a
combination among any of them. The main purpose of my study is exploratory
and descriptive at the same time.
97
In investigating how participatory communication has been conceived and
applied in a major development project I will not attempt to pre-define or
operationalize these terms, as usua lly done along the lines of the positivist
tradition. Instead, I follow a constructivist approach and, after having discussed
them in the literature review, I let the informants define and conceptualize these
terms, and then I look for patterns that provide a common basic definition or a
number of definitions. Finally, in the last chapter, I compare the findings with the
available literature and highlight differences and similarities which might provide
a minimum common denominator according to which participatory
communication could be considered to occur. Moreover, as Ascroft and Masilela
(1994) pointed out, the few who attempted to operationalize this concept usually
did not have direct experiences of development projects in real life situations.
A consistent interpretation of participatory communication is needed to
understand in a clearer way to what degree it is applied throughout the process.
That is why, at the end of each phase I synthesize and discuss the findings and
place them into one of four different types of participation levels, which are by no
means exhaustive but are suitable for this case study. I have derived these
categories through my field experiences and the literature on the subject, relying
especially on the well-known typology deve loped by Pretty (1995: 61), briefly
illustrated in the previous chapter. The four categories are:
Passive Participation: primary stakeholders participate by being informed
about what is going to happen or has already happened. People’s feedback is
98
minimal or non-existent and participation is assessed mainly through head-
counting and occasionally through participation in the discussion.
Participation by Consultation: primary stakeholders participate by
providing answers, in an extractive way, to questions posed by outside researchers
or experts. Their input is not limited to the meetings but can be provided at
different point in time. In the final analysis, however, this consultative process
keeps all the decision-making power in the hands of the external professionals
who are under no obligations incorporate stakeholders’ input.
Functional Participation: primary stakeholders forming groups to
participate in the discussion and analysis of predetermined objectives set by the
project. This kind of participation, while not being usually resulting in dramatic
changes on “what” should be accomplished, which is often already determined,
requires an active involvement in the decision-making process about “how” to
achieve it. This kind of participation carries a component of horizontal
communication and capacity building among all stakeholders. Even if initially
dependent by outside facilitators and experts, with time it has the potential to
evolve into an independent form of participation.
Empowered Participation: primary stakeholders are capable and willing to
initiate the process and participate in joint analysis, which leads to joint decision-
making about what should be achieved and how. While the role of outsiders is
that of equal partners in the development effort, the primary stakeholders have a
role of primus inter pares, i.e. they are equal partners with a decisive say in
decisions concerning their lives. Dialogue is the basis for identifying and
99
analyzing critical issues, seeking solutions through an exchange and sharing of
knowledge and experiences, while ownership and control of the process rest in the
hands of the primary stakeholders.
Within each of these categories, communication is implicitly considered to
be consistent with the degree of participation being experienced, i.e. the higher
the level of participation the stronger the horizontal nature of the communication
flow. It should be stressed that this categorization it is not an attempt to define
participation inductively. Rather, it intends to provide a basic benchmark against
which provide an indication against which the level of participation within each of
the phases can be assessed, to facilitate comprehension despite the complexity and
ambiguity hidden by the categorization of such an approach. It is clear that the
first type can hardly be considered participatory and the second only partially so.
When analyzing the findings of my study I will compare and contrast if
and how this categorization would still hold and eventually propose a revised one.
In investigating how participatory communication has been conceived and applied
in the FAO project I consider the project itself as the unit of analysis. This is
further subdivided into six phases of the project cycle. Participation and
participatory communication will be investigated and analyzed within each phase,
with a noticeable exception: the evaluation phase.
This is due to the fact that including this phase in the investigation would
require time and resources well beyond the ones available and would also add
complexity to the methodological research design due to the nature of the project.
Even if it is advocating the adoption of participatory communication, the project’s
100
primary stakeholders are not people of the local communities, but rather personnel
from other national and international development agencies and organizations,
who in turn work with local communities. Specifically, the “target beneficiaries”1
of the FAO project Communication for Development in Southern Africa are:
project’s managers, government decision-makers, intermediate- level professionals
and field workers. They are the ones who would ultimately have the responsibility
to support the adoption of participatory communication meant to introduce and
strengthen people’s active involvement in the decision-making process of
development initiatives affecting their own lives.
Thus, evaluating the impact of the project would require an articulated
“two-step” design, evaluating first the impact on the development workers and
staff of other projects, who have been trained or directly assisted by the ComDev
project. Next, the evaluation would look into the way the workers and officers
trained or assisted by the ComDev Project have impacted the rural communities
involved in development efforts. Due to this “multiplicity” of focus’ levels, when
discussing and analyzing the various phases, a specific attention is going to be
given to identify the main stakeholders, as their relevance and presence might
vary throughout the project cycle.
Leaving out the evaluation phase does not significantly affect the results
and significance of the study, which is focused on the process of adopting
participatory communication rather than on its ultimate impact. Nevertheless, the
conclusions will include some feedback about the application of participatory
1 This is the term being used in the official document.
101
communication in the field. This feedback is derived mostly by the proceedings of
a workshop,1 which has recently taken place in Harare, Zimbabwe, and which has
revealed the impressions of a number of people who participated in projects that
adopted participatory communication approaches.
To be more effective in providing a better understanding of the process
under investigation, where appropriate, I have at times adopted tools borrowed
from other disciplines. For instance, I consider FAO as a sort of community
composed by many specialized components sharing a common mission. This has
led me to look at it with an ethnographic eye. A number of methods adopted in
this study are compatible with the ethnographic approach, i.e. the use of
qualitative methods, the purpose of giving an account of the phenomenon
investigated and, partially, conducting the research within the context of that
“community.” However, the most important aspect is probably the fact tha t a
good ethnographer must be able to investigate and account for any possible
interpretation that the community might come up with (Agar, 1996). Therefore, I
am aware of the need not only for an extra dose of empathy but also for trying to
minimize my assumptions while attempting to explore and unwrap how
participatory communication has been conceived and applied in the project cycle.
I am also aware that having been part of the process investigated I need to self-
reflect on my role, which is not that of an additional informant but rather a source
of triangulation, as I discuss later.
1 The workshop “Stakeholder Evaluation of the SADC Centre of Communication for Development” took place in September, 2002. It was organized jointly by SADC and FAO as part of the evaluation of the activities of the SADC-Centre for Communication for Development.
102
The following phases of the project cycle have been derived by combining
FAO documentation with the literature on the subject: identification of the area or
sector of intervention; research/needs assessment; formulation; planning/strategy
design; implementation; and (monitoring and) evaluation. Table 3.1 illustrates the
various phases, as well as their main functions, and where the core of the
activities of each phase is usually expected to take place. The last phase, i.e.
evaluation, while being referred to, is not being directly addressed by the study.
Table 3.1: Phases of the Project Cycle
PHASES FUNCTIONS LOCATION 1 – Identification of area or sector of intervention
The conception of the idea upon which the project will be conceived and designed
It could originate in any location (government, intl. agency, NGO, community)
2 – Research/Needs assessment
After a need, problem or sector for intervention has been identified a research is carried out to carefully assess the situation
Data collected in the field, but analysis carried out both in the field and/or HQs
3 – Project Formulation
This is where the objectives are set and the structure of the project is designed in all of its operational components
HQs (by implementing agency with input by donor)
4 - Planning/ Strategy design
Planning of the activities needed to achieve the set objectives with the available resources within the duration of the project
Field location (by project management with input by other stakeholders)
5 – Implementation
Carrying out the planned activities
Field location (by project staff, local stakeholders)
6 – Evaluation (and monitoring)
Evaluating the on-going activities (i.e. the process) and the final results
Field location (by local govt., implementing and/or donor agency)
103
3.2 APPROACH TO DATA COLLECTION
Even if the unit of analysis of this study is the FAO project, some other
components are partially involved in this case study. Since the Italian Government
has funded this project from the very beginning, I was interested in learning more
about the reasons behind this decision. Therefore, in the first set of phases,
(identification of the sector of intervention, research, and formulation) interviews
also include officers from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs who were
involved with this project. Even more significant, in phases four and five, i.e.
planning1 and implementation, there were a couple of interviews2 with personnel
of the SADC Centre of Communication for Development - CCD -, which was
established in 1996 with the technical support of FAO and the financial assistance
of the Italian Government. From then until the end of 1998, when the FAO
international experts left, the mission and the tasks of the FAO project have been
practically “melted in” with the CCD, making a distinction between the two
practically impossible. The management and monitoring of the workplan and the
implementation of the activities have also been carried out jointly by the two
parties.
Out of the total eighteen interviews, the bulk has been mainly with FAO
staff members (eight currently employed, three retired or having left the
Organization) and FAO consultants (three). Other interviews included
representatives of the Italian Cooperation (two) and of SADC (two). In order to
1 Planning here refers to the design of a strategy by the project in the field, rather than the administrative planning activities carried out at HQ. 2 Differently from most others, these interviews have been conducted through email, still guaranteeing full confidentiality.
104
identify relevant informants I followed a snowball selection procedure based on a
first set of interviews with people identified as having played key roles in the
establishment of the project. Of the people identified I was able to interview
almost everyone, except three. Two had left the organization they were working
for and could not be traced and one who was living far away and, even though
accepted in principle to answer the questionnaire via email, never sent me back
the answers. The data have been collected mostly within FAO headquarters. The
review and analysis of the project’s documentation have not been as easy to carry
out as originally envisioned. This was mainly due to the departure of most of the
key-actors involved in this project and to the fact that many of the documents
related to this project were discarded in time. Luckily, I had stored a number of
documents myself.
While reviewing FAO documentation I paid particular attention to two
main issues: how participatory communication has been conceived; and in which
specific phases the principles and practices of participatory communication have
been included, and in what way, or neglected. Having worked in this project for
almost four years, my direct experience constitutes an additional source of
knowledge useful for verification purposes, following along the lines of case
study research (Yin, 1994).
Fourteen interviews have been conducted in the office setting of choice of
the informants and in four cases the interviews have occurred through email. In a
few instances there have been follow up encounters and phone calls to further
probe specific issues. The interviews have been conducted following an
105
ethnographic approach, not by merely asking a pre-determined list of questions,
but rather utilizing a number of “question-asking strategies from which to draw as
the moment seems appropriate” (Agar, 1996: 140). In Appendix B there is the
guiding list of questions utilized with informants, which changed according to the
circumstances and informant background. Even if different question-asking
strategies were utilized according to the role and functions of the informants, all
informants have been probed how they conceived and value participation and
communication. The subsequent questions were designed to probe the informants’
role in the project and relate theirs task and functions more specifically with the
adoption of participatory communication within each phase of the project cycle.
All informants have been guaranteed full confidentiality (see Appendix
A). Even though I might indicate their main functions within the organization, I
do not state their official titles, making sure that this information does not
jeopardize the confidentiality of the sources. Knowing the tasks and functions of
the informant would allow the reader to have a better understanding of their
relevance, and biases, in relation to the project cycle. Given the fact that most
informants have been international civil servants usually having a full schedule of
activities, I kept my interviews within the hour and have conducted some follow-
up interviews with some of the informants. Almost all interviews have been
carried out in English, except the ones in the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
which have been in Italian and relevant passages translated and transcribed in
English. Where feasible and agreeable to the respondent, interviews have been
audio recorded and then transcribed.
106
Open-ended interviews constituted a major source of data collection. The
other source of data was the review of FAO documents regarding the project,
which include project reports, correspondence and project reviews. The
documents I reviewed are part of the official documentation produced in any
project. Finally, I reviewed a number of personal records and documents that I
kept while being part of the Project. All of these documents have been reviewed
and analyzed to explore how participatory communication has been conceived
and applied throughout the Project, paying particular attention at critical issues
and bottlenecks related to this issue.
Internal memos and project records can be valuable for triangulating the
findings of the interviews and for identifying critical areas concerned with
participation and communication as perceived and applied in the field. I also
agreed not to use FAO and other personal documents considered to be
confidential. Overall, the document review has brought new interesting insights,
since project documentation of international organizations is difficult to access
and not easily made available to outside researchers. The content of the project
documentation has been used exclusively when relevant for the specific topic of
the study.
At this point, I present issues related to the research location. My
investigation took place mostly where the decision-making process of the project
has occurred, that is FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy. To explore all different
parts of the process in-depth, I should have embarked on a journey starting in an
unknown location, probably in Rome, and there-after pass through some offices
107
of FAO and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to then proceed into the
project’s physical location in Harare, Zimbabwe. Finally, from there I should have
ended up in a number of project sites and rural areas of various countries in
Southern Africa, which have been involved, directly or indirectly, with the
projects’ activities. As this would be hardly possible, I have selected to focus on
the process underlying the formulation, planning and implementation of the FAO
Project. This process occurred mostly in Rome, at FAO Headquarters. Even
during the implementation phase in the field, the FAO DSC Branch, later
ComDev Group, kept monitoring closely the field activities from Rome and that
is where my study has been conducted for the most part.
Through FAO I had access to the official documentation regarding the
project, as well as to many individuals who have been involved in the project. I
have also tried to reach all other relevant personnel who are not working at FAO
anymore, but are still reachable. Moreover, I had access to the offices of the
Italian Foreign Ministry, which are also located in Rome and its agency for
international cooperation. This has facilitated the logistical aspects of my
research, since the method through which I explore the process is based on a
review of available documents and interviews with relevant individuals. The time
I spent working on this project in Zimbabwe and other countries of Southern
Africa have constituted an additional source of information, especially useful to
triangulate the research findings.
108
3.3 Approach to Data Analysis and Interpretation
This is not an explanatory case study, but a descriptive and exploratory
one. Therefore, my analytical strategy follows a double path. In the descriptive
part, the analysis involves a case description following the sequence of the project
cycle. The exploratory part investigates the basic theoretical proposition, i.e. the
adoption of participatory communication, originally presented. Data concerning
how this approach has been defined, conceived and applied are discussed,
compared and contrasted in the final section. My knowledge of the project could
be also regarded as an additional source of information. However, as stated
previously, I use my first hand experience of the project only to triangulate and
confirm, or further probe, the findings. In this way, I intend to minimize the biases
inherent in having been directly involved in the project, while strengthening the
results by using my knowledge to validate the study.
The analytical description of the project cycle is meant to shed light on the
various stages of the whole process, thus highlighting crucial steps and
bottlenecks. The descriptive strategy also provides the organizing framework for
the analysis by providing the logical and chronological framework for the case
study. In addition, adopting a descriptive strategy does not necessarily rule out the
possibility of identifying causal links leading to the explanation of certain
phenomena (Yin, 1994). The exploration of participatory communication in the
FAO project uses the project cycle sequence as its organizer but the analysis relies
also on theoretical considerations, interpretations given by informants and textual
analysis.
109
Finally, the findings of my study also provide some indications on how to
proceed along this road, providing what could be considered the basis for an
alternative model of participatory communication. According to the data analysis
results, I discuss this issue and present the basis for such a model. I believe that
including a normative connotation about participatory communication in the
conclusions of the study can provide useful insights. In attempting to break new
ground, I feel that the flexibility of case study and ethnographic methods can be
combined effectively with the principles of participatory action research. Fals-
Borda (1991: 148) states that: “In our new ventures we look unconsciously for
ways of building connections between different scientific traditions while doing
research with and for the people, not on them.” It is an ethical imperative
attempting to provide inputs for the adoption of a participatory communication
model to foster social change. If nothing else, this could serve as a starting point
for future research, either to be pushed further or to be rejected.
110
Chapter 4
FAO AND THE PROJECT “COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHERN AFRICA”
Before discussing the project itself, it would be useful to provide an
overview of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
paying specific attention to the history of the communication unit. This helps to
understand better the context within which the project originated as well as its
enabling and limiting factors. The first sections of this chapter illustrate the
mission and overall structure of FAO, gradually focusing on the department and
unit under which the project has operated. Next, the history, objectives and main
activities of the FAO Project “Communication for Development in Southern
Africa” are going to be presented. I should remind the reader that throughout my
study I often refer to the project in its abbreviated form, i.e. ComDev Project.
4.1 FAO OVERVIEW
Here I intend to trace briefly the origin of FAO, defining its original
mandate and illustrating its most significant developments. Being familiar with
FAO’s mission and scope helps to clarify the framework of reference within
which communication has been conceived and implemented. FAO underwent a
number of changes during its existence. For the purpose of this study, it might be
useful to highlight the main points concerning the latest restructuration, which
happened a few years ago. These changes were meant to equip FAO with refined
strategic guidelines needed to meet the challenges of the new millennium.
Therefore, after presenting a short FAO’s historical overview, I discuss the
111
organizational restructuring and the consequences of the Organization’s reform,
paying particular attention to the division where the Communication for
Development Group is currently located.
4.1.1 The Origin and the Scope
In the period between the two World Wars, issues related to food and
nutrition gained increasing attention on the international agenda. In the 1930s’,
research indicated how malnutrition was widespread also in the most advanced
countries (FAO, 1985). In Great Britain, for instance, at least one third of the
population was malnourished. This gave a strong impetus to the idea of having an
international agency specifically devoted to address this problem. Participants of
the conference held in 1943 in Hot Springs, Virginia, agreed to establish a
permanent organization in the field of food and agriculture. An Interim
Commission was set up for this purpose.
The FAO was founded in 1945 through the Conference of Member States,
which is formed by representatives of all nations belonging to FAO. In the first
year of its existence, forty-eight countries joined the organization, whose original
mandate was “to raise levels of nutrition and standards of living, to improve
agricultural productivity, and to better the conditions of rural populations.”1 Since
the very beginning FAO has been involved in devising and shaping policies that
would ensure a global flow of food resources large enough to eliminate or
drastically reduce malnutrition. Establishing and storing food surpluses, to be
used in emergency situations, has also been ranked highly on the FAO agenda.
1 FAO site: www.fao.org/UNFAO/WHATITIS.HTM
112
Nevertheless, since research had shown that the main cause for food crises and
famines had to be largely ascribed to poverty (FAO, 1985a), its policies and
operations activities could not ignore this aspect, linking technical factors related
to food production with social considerations. In dealing with world food issues,
FAO has paid strong attention to agriculture, but it has not neglected other areas
related to food and well-being in general such as fishery, livestock and forestry.
The first individual to be appointed to the position of Director-General
was Sir, John Boyd Orr, a scientist well-known for his studies on human and
animal nutrition. He has also been a very active advocate for the need to put
malnutrition at the top of the political agenda at national and international levels.
His appointment signaled the growing concern for one of humanity’s biggest
problems: widespread malnutrition. Boyd Orr’s approach was based on the belief
that food could not be simply considered as a trade commodity, but as a basic
human need. In 1946, this became evident when FAO convened a Special
Meeting on Urgent Food Problems that resulted in a proposal drafted by Sir Boyd
Orr. To address the gravity of the problem, he proposed the establishment of a
World Food Board, with some specific functions, among them setting maximum
and minimum prices for the most important commodities in this field and
establishing a world food reserve capable to deal with sudden crop failures in any
part of the world. This indicated that famine was a major international concern at
that time, as it is today.
Boyd Orr’s proposal was discussed but not adopted by member states,
even if his ideas were echoed in many of the subsequent policies and activities,
113
including the establishment of the FAO Council, originally referred to as the
“World Food Council.” When it was established by the Conference of member
states in 1947, the Council of FAO was composed by eighteen member states,
replacing the previous Executive Committee composed by prominent individuals.
With time this number grew due to the expansion of the organization and, in
1977, the FAO Council grew to its current size of forty-nine representatives of
member nations. One of the main purposes of the Council is that of keeping under
constant review the state of food and agriculture both at an international level and
within member countries (FAO, 1985a).
During its existence, the FAO has dealt with a number of crises due to
famines and food shortages. In trying to address successfully these problems, the
FAO has operated within the boundaries shaped by the political and economic
global system. During the 1969 FAO Conference, the Director-General of the
time, A.H. Boerma, introduced the concept of international agriculture
adjustment, which was a direct reflection of structural adjustment programs being
adopted in the area of trade and in the area of economic reforms pushing for
liberalizing markets. The FAO stated objective at the time was “to provide
member countries with a global framework which would facilitate their efforts to
harmonize national policies and actions in the light of a consensus as to the
desirable changes in world agriculture” (FAO, 1985a: 21).
One of the major world food crises happened in the 1970s, when grain
production fell simultaneously in many countries of the world. This crisis was
tackled by FAO and other major international agencies primarily through a
114
financial aid scheme, ensuring that all countries affected had the capability of
purchasing grain from countries that had some surplus capacity. That crisis forced
many countries to pay more attention to domestic food production of basic items.
It also emphasized even more, along the lines originally indicated by Boyd Orr,
the need for a “World Food Security,” which would offer timely advice about the
possibility of such a crisis. The ultimate objective of world food security would be
to ensure that “all people at all times would have both physical and economic
access to the basic food they need” (FAO, 1985: 24).
4.1.2 FAO Organizational Structure
Keeping in line with the principles of world food security and in line with
its motto “Food for All,” the FAO has undergone a major restructuration,
probably the biggest since its creation. It has been carried out to respond to the
external changes occurring in these last decades and to address more effectively
the major challenges of the future, as stated in its official publication “Reforming
FAO into the New Millennium” (FAO, 2000). An historical review of FAO
activities, successes and failures revealed that along many strengths there were
also a number of weaknesses that needed to be addressed.
Among the identified strengths the following appeared to be the most
significant ones: the confidence that Member Nations have in FAO’s technical
expertise; its capability of addressing problems and seeking solutions
independently from ideological or national biases; and the high professional level
of its staff, committed to the ideals of the Organization. On the other hand, some
weaknesses were also highlighted. The main ones were the excessive
115
fragmentation of the organizational structure that made it difficult to focus on key
areas within the needed timeframe and the high percentage of staff based in FAO
Headquarters in Rome, who were thus often detached from the reality of the field.
In 1994, to address those weaknesses and to improve its effectiveness and
its efficiency, the FAO Council approved major internal reforms based on the
proposals put forward by the Director-General. The three main lines along which
those changes took place are: 1) changes in the organizational structure; 2) new
policies, including a progressive decentralization of its activities; and 3) shifts in
program priorities (FAO, 2000). These guidelines are currently guiding FAO
strategies and modus operandi, both at headquarters and at field levels, trying to
establish closer ties with the reality experienced by the ultimate “beneficiaries” or
primary stakeholders in rural areas.
This major reorganization, while maintaining part of the overall structure,
has resulted into some significant changes both at the Headquarters and in the
field. At the top of the pyramid there is still the Director-General, supported by
the Deputy Director-General. Under them there are eight Assistants Director-
General, each of them in charge of one of the eight departments, some of whom
have undergone major changes, constituting FAO’s main structure. They are: AG
- Agriculture Department, ES - Economic and Social Department, FI - Fisheries
Department, FO - Forestry Department, SD - Sustainable Development
Department, TC - Technical Cooperation Department, AFD - Administration and
Finance Department, GI - General Affairs and Informational Department.
116
In addition to these eight departments, there is the Office for Coordination
of Normative Operational and Decentralized Activities, in accordance with the
guidelines indicated by the decentralization principles of the agreed reforms.
Under this organizational unit, called Office for Coordination of Normative,
Operational and Decentralized Activities, the FAO established five Regional
Offices, (RAF - Regional Office for Africa, based in Accra; RAP - Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific, based in Bangkok; RLC - Regional Office for
Latin American and the Caribbean Region, based in Bangkok; RNE - Regional
Office for the Near East, based in Cairo; REU - Regional Office for Europe) with
a high degree of autonomy. Each of the Regional Offices has also a Sub-regional
Office.
4.2 THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION IN FAO
The wave of reforms that characterized the FAO at the end of the 20th
century was indicating a deeper reflection about its role and its mode of operating.
This also affected communication, which was rethought in terms of its functions
and structure. This section focuses on the unit under which the Comdev Project
has been established and has been operating. When it was first established, in
1969, it was named the Development Support Communication (DSC) Branch
under the General Information Division. As presented above, the DSC Branch has
been restructured in the Communication for Development Group of the
Extension, Education and Communication Service (SDRE) operating under the
Research, Extension and Training Division, which is part of the Sustainable
Development Department of FAO.
117
The Development Support Communication Branch has been one of the
first of its kind in the family of the United Nations Agencies. The changes it went
through give an indication of the context within which the Branch operated.
Analyzing these changes also provides further insights into how the relevance and
role of Communication for Development has been conceived and evolved within
FAO and, consequently, how it has been conceived and applied in the field and
more specifically in the project investigated in this study. In tracing back its
origin, it is important to refer to the individuals who played a major role in this
effort, since this field gained ground mainly thanks to those individual efforts
rather than through a recognized institutional need.
4.2.1 The Establishment of the Development Support Communication Unit
In 1969 FAO become a pioneer in the field of communication among
United Nations agencies, when it established the Development Support
Communication Branch. This was largely due to the effective promotion made by
one of the first specialists in this field, Erskine Childers. His individual effort has
largely accelerated, in the international agenda, the introduction of
communication as an essential component of development efforts (Fraser and
Restrepo-Estrada, 1998). Based on his many experiences, Childers realized the
importance of communication and he became soon aware of how this element was
overwhelmingly neglected by most development agencies, managers and field
workers. He then decided that this had to change.
In the 1950s and 1960s Childers was already known as a researcher and as
an author-broadcaster. He was also occasionally advising UN agencies, especially
118
in New York (Fraser and Restrepo-Estrada, 1998). From this vantage point he
started to lobby, with a number of high-ranking UN officials, about the
importance of communication as a means to involve people in the development
process from the very start. The head of the UNDP (United Nations Development
Program), Paul Hoffman, seemed particularly attracted by Childers’ ideas.
Hoffman’s support gave Childers a major boost also with other agencies. When
he went to promote his vision at FAO in Rome, Childers’s ideas positively
impacted the former Head of the Public Information Division. This led to the
establishment of the Development Support Communication Branch within this
Division.
As mentioned previously, I believe it is important to provide some
historical anecdotes because from the interviews conducted and the
documentation reviewed, especially the book by Fraser and Restrepo-Estrada, it
has largely emerged that the adoption of this discipline, or area of interest, within
the family of UN agencies and other international organization, was largely due to
the efforts of a few individuals, rather than being the result of deeper theoretical
or practical reflections or of a clear institutional mandate. This probably also
helps to understand why until today communication for development, despite the
formal wide acknowledgment, has not fully entered “the mainstream” of
development approaches of international organizations.
At the FAO, it should be noted how placing the Development Support
Communication within the Public Information Division was rather contradictory,
since this division was mainly concerned with: (a) the strengthening of
119
agricultural information services through the use of mass media to convey
information on improved methods to farming and rural populations….; (b) putting
into effect the Director’s General’s proposal for publication of the FAO
Magazine; and (c) securing a further increase in the production of audio-visual
information materials for developing countries (FAO, 1967: p. 47). This supports
the idea that communication was restricted to the transmission of information
through publications and the use of audiovisuals, especially mass media, to reach
selected audiences. This was not what Childers had in mind, since his argument
was that communication had to be used primarily to involve the so-called
“beneficiaries” in being an active part in the development initiatives and only then
audio-visual means could be used for information and training purposes.
As a result of this situation, during the first years of its operations the DSC
Branch was seen mostly as an audiovisual service, assisting projects through the
use of appropriate media technologies to support the set objectives of
development projects and programs (Fraser and Restrepo-Estrada, 1998). This
confirms the notion that the DSC Branch at the time relied heavily on the
diffusion model (Servaes, 2003). It should be remembered that until the 1970s,
extensionists and other rural development experts conceived communication
almost exclusively within the traditional vertical model, mainly as a means to
improve and promote the diffusion of innovations, based on decisions taken in
distant offices. It took a long time and a lot of effort for the DSC Branch to
introduce in the institutional milieu its innovative vision of communication as “a
social process designed to seek a common understanding among all participants
120
of a development initiative, creating a base for concerted action” as described by
the former chief of the DSC Branch (Balit, 1999: 9).
Being one of the first of its kind did not facilitate the work of the
Development Support Communication Branch. Its role was that of a service, but
the nature of this service was not clear to many, both within and outside the FAO.
So, the communication specialists had a double task: to attend the demand for
technical requests, usually for assistance on the use of media for information
dissemination, while at the same time they had to educate their “clients” about the
genuine nature of communication, i.e. to open up dialogue among all
stakeholders, and promote its adoption.
It should be noted that this duplicity of roles is in many ways still present
today. From the interviews carried out in my study, it has clearly emerged that
one of the main challenges of the FAO communication experts continues to be the
achievement of the recognition of the role and relevance of communication for
development in planning, implementing and evaluating projects and programs.
Thus, Childers’ conception, while formally embraced by virtually many
development agenc ies, does not seem to have yet become reality.
In the field, the main activities of the Development Support
Communication Branch can be divided into two areas (Coldevin, 2000): (a)
information dissemination and motivation; and (b) training for field workers and
rural producers. Participation was implicitly contained in those activities and
often conceived in a limited way (e.g. audience feedback in the message design).
Information dissemination and motivation, as the name indicates, is concerned
121
with passing information and knowledge about innovations and practices that
could improve rural people’s quality of life. It is clear that under these
circumstances the use of media becomes predominant, especially radio, which is
the medium with a relatively higher penetration in rural areas, as stated by a
number of informants. Even if some limitations and constraints of using mass
media for extension purposes became quickly evident, educational broadcasting
was considered a highly effective approach for reaching large audiences by many
development managers (Coldevin, 2001), following the line of thoughts of media
as “magic multiplier.”
Training for field workers and rural producers, in the early period, was one
of the main activities to be performed by the DSC Branch. It was mainly aimed at
providing interpersonal communication skills to extension agents and technical
know-how to radio producers in rural areas. The latter aspects involved mainly
training on when and how to use media, especially aimed at smaller groups of
people often illiterate. These included slides, film-strips, audiocassettes,
flipcharts, popular theatre, radio and video. Despite their vertical nature, even
when dealing with audiovisuals media the FAO communication specialists were
highlighting as much as possible the participatory aspect present in any
communication activity. In Latin America, for instance, FAO had started using
video to support participatory farmers’ capacity building from the mid 1970s
(Coldevin, 2001).
Gradually the DSC Branch was able to break out of this sort of “media
dependency,” i.e. a service to be used to support projects’ objectives through
122
transmitting information, facilitating the introduction of innovations and
providing training. Clearly, this shift of communication focus did not happen
overnight, but it was part of a process directed towards giving an increasing
emphasis to people’s participation especially through communication. The
embryo of this idea was probably already present from the birth of the DSC
Branch, but it reached full maturity and recognition with the recent reforms at
FAO.
4.2.2 The Shift to Communication for Development
In 1994 the Development Support Communication Branch was transferred
to the newly established Research, Extension and Training Division of the
Sustainable Development Department. According to an informant, this was done
to reflect more accurately the activities of the Branch in the field and within the
Organization. At that time, the name was also formally changed, from
Development Support Communication Branch to Communication for
Development (ComDev) Branch, to reflect a change that informally had already
started from some time, as indicated by the Project documentation reviewed.
In a communication roundtable the proposal to use communication for
development, as a unifying term for all the approaches of the UN agencies, had
been already put forward. At first, the proposed change was not adopted because
some of the communication international experts thought that it would be a
mistake to change the well-known term Development Support Communication.
Nevertheless, at FAO the uneasiness with the use of DSC kept growing until in
1996 it was finally decided to adopt the term Communication for Development.
123
One FAO informant indicated that the change was largely due to the fact that
Development Support Communication not only had been associated with the old
diffusion model (Servaes, 2003), but it also implied a secondary, subordinate role
for communication. The adoption of the term “Communication for Development,”
instead, signified an active and horizontal mode of action for communication, one
which would assist people in taking an active part of any development effort from
the very beginning.
This change of terminology, on one hand, was a further ind ication of the
coming paradigm switch in communication, a switch still not completed. On the
other hand, however, there were also some signals indicating that a genuine
paradigm shift was not yet in sight. One of these signals could be seen in the
positioning of the Communication for Development Branch, which now, in the
FAO jargon, was a sub-program of the Technology Development and Transfer
Programme. Regardless of its modus operandi, the name under which the
ComDev Branch was placed indicated a conception of communication closer to
the old dominant paradigm than to the new participatory models (Servaes, 2003).
This might be an indication of the internal challenge faced by the ComDev
Branch personnel trying to promote their role and functions away from tha t of the
traditional media-related ones.
Hence, it could be inferred that if, on one hand, the change of name to
Communication for Development was an attempt to gain recognition of the new
role envisioned for communication, on the other hand, this could be seen as
adversely matched by the Branch positioning under the Technology Development
124
and Transfer Programme. This in turn appeared to be not in line with the major
repositioning of communication from the division of information to that of rural
sustainable development, which could have made it easier for communication to
break away formally from its more traditional role of transmitter of messages for
large audiences and become an instrument of dialogue and empowerment for
smaller groups of people at grassroots level. These contradictions further
highlight the vague and ambiguous way communication is perceived at an
institutional level within FAO.
In March 1996 the ComDev Branch was merged with the Agricultural
Extension and Education component of SDR into the Extension, Education and
Communication Service, which is composed of three groups; the Agriculture
Extension and Training Group; the Agricultural Education Group; and the
Communication for Development Group. Once more, the change of name, from
Branch to Group had some implications and a number of FAO officers
interviewed considered this renaming as a sign of reduction of influence for
Communication for Development.
From my interviews it also appeared that there was a not so subtle rivalry
between extension and communication within FAO, with both wanting to take a
lead on training, education and communication aspects. However, as one
informant explained, while the extension specialists supported exclusively
agricultural programs, the communication group supported a wider cross-sectoral
range of projects (e.g. fisheries, forestry, population communication, animal
health, etc.). That is why the resized from Branch to Group, within a service that
125
appeared to have a predominant agricultural focus was taken by some as a
diminished role of communication for development.
The difference in the methodological and practical perspectives were
already visible in a report (FAO, 1987a) openly stating that agricultural
information was going hand in hand with a vertical mode of communication, i.e.
top-down. This maintained the notion that the experts are the owners of
knowledge and their task is that of disseminating that knowledge to rural
communities, perceived mainly as passive recipients. It also assumed a motivated
audience ready to listen to that knowledge and to act upon it. In this scenario, the
role of the expert is that of properly packaging the information so that it will be
disseminated effectively.
On the other hand, the DSC specialists considered media could be used for
facilitating bottom-up processes. Communication for them had a wider scope than
simply disseminating knowledge. Discussing the relocation of the DSC Branch a
FAO communication officer stated: “Extension, even if it has a wider institutional
appeal, should be an approach within the communication family, and as such
there was the hope that extension would be placed under communication, but
what happened was basically the opposite, communication for development was
placed within extension.”
So while people’s participation was gaining an increasing acceptance and
recognition by virtually all development agencies, including FAO, one of its
pioneer units in this field was being resized in a way that some claimed signified a
reduction of its influence and role within the FAO and in the field. Despite all
126
this, the communication unit remained deeply committed to a participatory mode
of operation, which was considered to underline all communication activities. One
of the FAO informants stated that: “there is no difference between the terms
Communication for Development and Participatory Communication: at FAO they
are the same thing.” However, this statement appears more normative than based
in the reality of things.
Despite the fact that communication appeared to have suffered a few
drawbacks, the Communication for Development group has continued to promote
the adoption of participatory communication approaches both within the relevant
departments and units at FAO Headquarters and in the field. The project
investigated in this study is largely the result of the resolve and determination of a
few individuals at FAO who have pushed for this approach within the
organization and with outside clients/donors. As pointed out in chapter three, this
project closely resembles the ideals originally envisioned by Childers, as well as
his pioneering project in Bangkok in 1967. In this way, Childers’ original and
innovative idea of having a communication project to serve exclusively as a
service to other development initiatives was revived in Africa after almost thirty
years from its first appearance.
According to an FAO publication (Coldevin, 2001: 6) the mandate of the
Communication for Development Group includes both normative aspects and
fieldwork. “Normative work includes development of policies, strategies,
methodologies, guidelines, best practices and information tools and materials.
Field work is focused on project appraisal, design, implementation, monitoring
127
and evaluation, technical backstopping and training, establishing partnerships and
networks, and providing communication technology advice.” Therefore, the
Communication for Development Group, on one hand, is supposed to assist the
establishment and strengthening of national development policies incorporating
communication as a basic component and, on the other hand, is expected to
support operational activities by assisting with technical advice and by providing
training of local resources to establish or strengthen national capacities.
Despite the shift towards the conception of communication as a process,
signifying a heavier and more integrated emphasis on participatory
communication, the traditional belief in media and information technology as a
primary development component capable of addressing and solving a wide range
of problems is still strong. Along those lines, the FAO has recently explored the
potential of combining rural radio with internet-based information and
communication technologies (ICTs). However, as an informant pointed out, there
is a risk of giving a technological, pre-determined, answer to a multitude of local
problems that are rooted in different social and cultural frameworks and have not
yet been specifically defined or investigated.
The FAO is part of the current effort trying to close the digital divide
globally. Its intention of using ICTs to bridge the gap between the urban wealthy
population and the rural poor appears to be worthwhile. However, there are many
aspects that need to be still investigated to avoid the disappointments of the past,
when the high expectations raised by the introduction of mass media for national
development were not matched by reality. As discussed by one FAO informant,
128
the use of ICTs should not be conceived as a ready-made product given to rural
communities around the world, but should result from a process where all
stakeholders can make informed decisions. There might be communities with a
number of higher-ranking problems, who do not consider ICTs to be a priority on
their list at this point in time.
The work of the DSC Branch, later ComDev Group, has evolved along a
number of directions and while still supporting the traditional use of media for
information dissemination and social campaigns, the group has been working hard
along the frontiers of participatory communication. Their goal is to have it
incorporated as a necessary component of any development project, regardless of
its nature. The interviews conducted have highlighted how such an approach
should be explored further, clarified and promoted not just to “client countries”
and donors but also internally, to the higher hierarchies of FAO and other
international agencies.
4.3 THE PROJECT “COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHERN AFRICA”
This section will trace a brief history of the project Communication for
Development in Southern Africa. This will help to contextualize in a more precise
way the activities of the project and how participatory communication has
evolved in its conception and applications. I have divided this presentation in
three phases. The first deals with the so-called Preparatory Phase, which led to the
establishment of the Project. The second provides an overview of the Main Phase
of the project, which lasted until August 1998 when FAO international staff
terminated the ir assignments. Finally, the third phase, which is not of direct
129
relevance for this study is a brief description of the activities carried out by the
SADC Center of Communication for Development, which has been established
with the support of the FAO project and its current status after the ending of the
Italian government funding.
4.3.1 The Preparatory Phase: The Origin (1992-94)
It has been rather difficult to ascertain in a precise way the origin of the
project. There is almost no document that refers directly to this issue, so I have
reconstructed its history through interviews with some of the actors involved from
the very early days. Despite some inevitable gaps, by researching how the project
originated I have gained some interesting insights into how participatory
communication has been conceived, adopted, funded and promoted within FAO.
This phase includes activities planned and directly coordinated from FAO
Headquarters.
Apparently, the roots of the FAO Project can be traced back to a meeting
of communication experts organized by FAO in June 1987. Here, some of the
most renowned specialists in the world met to exchange experiences and reflect
on the status of communication for development. The meeting resulted also in a
list of recommendations about the course of action that should be followed by
international agencies and policy-makers at a country level. The experts at the
meeting also made a general call to recognize that development is based on
voluntary change by individual participants and that change can be assisted by
communication as an instrument facilitating people’s participation in the process.
In the conclusions of their report, the experts called upon all governments to
130
establish communication units capable of addressing rural development needs
(FAO, 1987a).
The 1987 communication experts’ meeting was one of the factors that
contributed to push communication for development higher up on the FAO
agenda, and this was also reflected by an FAO decision to host the Roundtable on
Development Communication in September of 1991, as requested in the previous
Roundtable held in Ottawa in 1989. The debates in the roundtable were followed
closely by a number of governments, among them Italy. The Italian diplomat
responsible for FAO was favorably impressed by the potential of Development
Support Communication and by its idea of actively involving people in the
decision making process. The interest expressed by Italy for this innovative
approach was probably also due to the unsatisfactory results of some of the Italian
funded projects. This interest eventually resulted in the Italian Government
committing part of their funding to communication activities under the
arrangement of the FAO/Italy Trust Fund. Since the establishment of the
Directorate General for Development Cooperation (DGCS) within the Italian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trust Funds had become one of the major
mechanisms within which the Italian Cooperation funded development projects
(FAO, 1994b).
In my research, even if I have not been able to determine the precise
moment in which the idea for this project arose, I was able to draw a fairly
accurate picture of how it came about. In this initial phase, there are three main
entities whose interactions led to the establishment of this project: a community of
131
international communication experts; FAO, and in particular its DSC Branch; and,
finally, the donor country, in this case Italy. The recipient countries at this stage
were considered only as the ones in need of this approach, rather than those
demanding it. The 1991 Roundtable specialists (which included Childers) clearly
exposed the problems and the constraints that development activities were facing
in the field. To address and solve them, it was suggested that the best strategy was
that of adopting communication for development. In particular, during the 1991
Roundtable, Africa was addressed as a continent in particular need for this
strategy.
The international experts’ plea for the systematic adoption of
communication put forward at the Roundtable was received with interest by many
donors, among them Italy, which were looking for new ways to revive
development efforts after years of failures or limited success. To understand better
how the project came about, it should be noted that the Italian Cooperation, i.e.
the agency for international development of the Italian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, is not structured in thematic sectors (e.g. agriculture, health, etc.) but in
geographic areas. Southern Africa is an area of high interest for the Italian
Cooperation, and some countries within that region have a priority interest as far
as development is concerned (i.e. Angola and Mozambique). At that time Italy
had allotted some funds to finance a number of development initiatives with FAO.
Communication appeared to be a good area to invest in and the relevance of such
an approach for Africa made it even more appealing for Italy.
132
The most significant agency in the establishment of this project was the
DSC Branch of FAO. The head of this Branch was able to establish a constructive
dialogue with the Italian Donor and illustrate the significance and the importance
of communication for development, advocating the need for establishing projects
to support such an approach. A high-ranking Italian diplomat, having a key role in
the decision-making process, became very supportive of this idea and sponsored
this concept.
In formulating such a project, the interests and demands of the
communication experts were well-addressed through the institutional channels of
FAO, which in turn were successful in “selling the idea” to the Italian donor. The
Italian Cooperation, even if interested in the field of Development Support
Communication, as stated by one of the informants, did not have the technical
knowledge to implement or even conceive such a project.1 FAO, through its DSC
Branch, appears to be the entity capable of bridging technical expertise with
getting access to the financial resources to carry out such project, through its
institutional scope.
Since within the structure of the Italian Cooperation there was no sector or
unit dedicated to development communication, it can be safely assumed that the
DSC Branch was able to “induce” the demand for such a project, facilitated by the
fact that the Chief of the DSC Branch was an Italian national. Nevertheless, the
Italian Government interest for this approach was sincere and it was considered an
interesting alternative for addressing some of the shortcomings of the Italian
1 In this respect, it should be noted how in Italy, the discipline of communication was formally acknowledged through its own university diploma program only in the late 1990s.
133
Cooperation. It should also be mentioned that even though the preparatory phase
had been planned to have a ten-month duration, its activities lasted for a longer
period, since it started in 1992 and ended in 1994, costing more than 500,000 US
dollars.
The reason for this lengthy preparatory phase are not totally clear but can
be probably found in a document jointly produced by FAO and the Government
of Italy (FAO, 1994b: 15), which for those familiar with the jargon of
international development language denoted a rather serious concern: “The design
of early FAO/Italy projects demonstrated considerable room for improvement.
Their chief shortcomings were an inadequate appreciation of the environment in
which the projects were to operate, unclear or unrealistic objectives and an
absence of satisfactory work plans. In fact, project documents for most of these
early projects were prepared after short - as little as two weeks - field missions.”
Probably the necessity to correct the past mistakes and the above-mentioned
shortcomings were major factors in suggesting an in-depth preparatory phase to
lay sound foundations for the project main phase.
The preliminary phase was intended to be more than a simple feasibility
study. It was intended to explore the potential for such an innovative project. It
had to determine the how and where participatory communication could be
adopted most appropriately. In a way the preparatory phase became a sort of mini-
project in itself, as is also indicated by the different technical titles of the two.1 Its
ultimate result was the formulation of a project that should be not only successful
1 The Preparatory Phase is referred as Project GCP/RAF/282/297, while the Main Phase is referred to as Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
134
but also sustainable. The first draft of the project document was mainly the result
of a workshop held in 1993 in Harare as part of the preparatory phase. In this
workshop it was agreed that the project, expected to serve a number of countries
of the Southern African region, would be based in Harare, at the Adult Education
Department of the University of Zimbabwe.
From the documents reviewed, it can be inferred that Communication for
Development, or participatory communication, was not being viewed in a
unanimous way by all actors, as it will be discussed in the next chapters. In any
case, at the end of the Preparatory Phase the objectives of the project were
envisioned to be the following (FAO, 1994b: 141):
Objective I: to design country level and inter- level Plan of Actions for
Project Activities in support to the integration of low cost popular/traditional
media and/or rural radio in on-going development programmes.
Objective II: to take country and inter-country policy level decisions with
regards to In-service Training of Trainers in DSC skills, backstopping/networking
procedures for the trainees and training facilities.
Objective III: to prepare the grounds for the introduction of DSC
curriculum in the academic programmes of an identified University of the region,
and make recommendations for expansion into other academic centers and
diploma/certificate level of institutions.
Objective IV: to support Angola and Mozambique plans for economic
recovery by a Plan of Action and project proposal to be submitted to the Donor
for the integration of DSC in the countries’ development plans.
135
By analyzing these objectives, it is possible to identify the strategic lines
of the project at this stage. It should be noted how the elaboration of these
objectives does not seem to reflect properly the participatory communication
nature which the project was expected to have nor reflected the way participatory
communication has been treated in the literature (see Chapter 2). What is clear in
these objectives is that the project intended to assist in the production of
traditional media and rural radio programs, to inform and support national
decision-makers, to strengthen the national capacity building in communication
through training activities, to assist in the effort of establishing a curriculum for
DSC to be adopted by academic institutions of the Southern Africa region, and to
support Angola and Mozambique, as countries of priority interests for the Italian
Government.
Some of the above objectives were in part significantly modified in the
next phase. The value of this phase has been in the legwork made by a number of
consultants across the region of Southern Africa. This legwork has facilitated the
fine-tuning of the strategic design of the project. It has been particularly useful in
involving major stakeholders at a national level (e.g. Government representatives,
Extension Institutions, NGOs, etc.) to be part of the process leading to the
establishment of the main phase, and, as the consequence of the previous point, it
has helped in ensuring that the approach and the objectives of the project would
be relevant to the needs of the region.
Let me conclude this section by emphasizing how, under the two different
labels discussed here (Development Support Communication, which was the
136
original name for this approach, Communication for Development, which
substituted the previous term), the approach is basically the same: use
communication in a horizontal way to involve stakeholders in the decision-
making process of development activities. However, this should not lead to the
belief that the conception and understanding of this approach has been
homogeneous or even mostly consistent among different actors or at different
times. Rather, the opposite is true. The way participatory communication has been
conceived and applied presents some significant differences throughout the
project cycle, as will be illustrated in the next chapter.
4.3.2 The Main Phase: Field Activities (1994-98)
The main phase of implementation started in September of 1994 when the
Chief Technical Advisor arrived at the project site in Harare, Zimbabwe. By
January 1995 the whole FAO team, composed of four international experts, was
operational. The Main Phase of the Project was due to end in December 1997, but
it was subsequently extended until August 1998 to account for some delays
experienced in the beginning with the national counterpart originally selected; i.e.
the Department of Adult Education of the University of Zimbabwe.
Let me now illustrate the most significant points of the agreement that
constituted the basis of the project document. The original title was Development
Support Communication for Southern Africa, later changed into Communication
for Development in Southern Africa, and the estimated funding was of 3,700,000
US dollars, over a three-year period. The countries included in the original project
137
agreement were Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia and
Zimbabwe.1
The recognized major problem afflicting Southern Africa, also confirmed
by the missions done during the preparatory phase, was the vulnerability of the
region to a number of structural and environmental issues, such as the drought
that hit the region just before the project started. These, however, were not the
only problems. The FAO project document (1993c: 5) indicated how the Southern
African Development Community – SADC – had identified one of the main
causes of their problems in the lack of people’s participation, acknowledging also
the difficulty in promoting such an approach, as they wrote: “In most countries
there have been minimal levels of popular participation in economic development
and political processes, which in turn bred poor accountability, corruption, low
productivity and inefficiency.” This emphasis on people’s participation reflects
the paradigmatic shift discussed by a number of scholars and practitioners, such
as Huesca (2003).
The SADC countries further recognized that people are the greatest asset
and the main source of wealth for the region; hence they had to be involved in the
decision-making process.2 These considerations were fully in line with those of
other UN agencies, especially UNDP, which have been emphasizing for some
1 Note how Angola, which was one of the two countries specifically mentioned in the preparatory phase has disappeared, apparently due to the situation which made it unsafe to operate in such an environment at the time. 2 It is interesting to note how some of the language used in SADC Documents quoted by the FAO Project document made it clear that many of the demands by developing countries for a new world information and communication order have been dropped, as indicated by the following statement (1993: 5): “among the conditions required to actively promote development, is the free flow of ideas, technical know-how and capital.”
138
time the importance of people’s participation for any development activity. Once
the need for people’s participation had been acknowledged and approved by all
relevant stakeholders, the next step was to look at the potential role of
Development Support Communication for this scope. The preparatory phase had
highlighted a number of challenges and opportunities, clearly supporting the idea
that DSC could help to address important needs of the region. It should be
remembered once more that the concept of DSC (and later ComDev) used in this
project is practically synonymous with participatory communication.
The Project Document (FAO, 1993c) identifies four different levels of
intervention for DSC: 1. Policy and Planning Level: policy makers, planners and
government decision-makers need national DSC specialists to advise on
communication approaches and methodologies to incorporate in national
development policies and to design appropriate strategies for planning,
implementing and evaluating development initiatives; 2. Rural Programme
Management and Intermediate Level: many middle- level managers and trainers of
trainers need to improve their interpersonal skills and be acquainted with DSC
methods and approaches in order to better research an understand audiences and
design more people’s based messages; 3. Field Staff Level: field staff, especially
extensionists, appear to be in great need to build their communication skills and
learn how to use effectively communication methods and materials to improve the
outcome of their work with rural communities; 4. Professional Level:
professionals and other development workers with a sincere wish to become well
acquainted in this field should attend a DSC post graduate level course to be
139
established in the region, thus strengthening the national and regional capacity in
this crucial sector.
To achieve these objectives it was decided that the best institutional
settings would be the University of Zimbabwe in Harare and the direct
counterpart of the project would be the Adult Education Department. The
selection of the University of Zimbabwe as the project’s headquarters can be seen
as an indication of the emphasis originally ascribed to the academic/educational
dimension in the activities of the project. Key academic institutions were
considered to be key players in the effort to strengthen national communication
capacities. Being the initial designated counterpart, the Department of Adult
Education was required to appoint some personnel to work closely with the
project’s team, since at its termination, the established activities would have been
incorporated and carried out by the Department of Adult Education.
Unfortunately this never happened and the selected institutional framework turned
out to be not a very good choice, as I will discuss later.
Let me now illustrate the project’s objectives, which in the original Project
Document (FAO, 1993c: 23) are divided into a broad development objective and
four more specific immediate ones:
Development Objective :
To assist economic and social progress in Southern African region through
building the capacity of governments, NGOs, rural development
programmes and international organizations to communicate more
effectively with rural communities in order to plan development projects
140
between with these communities, and to raise their awareness of
development approaches, gain their participation, and improve their skills.
Immediate Objectives:
1. Strengthen a regional training capacity to improve the DSC skills of
intermediate- level professionals so that they may improve the
effectiveness of the rural development programmes in which they work.
2. Initiate an example of a sustainable national Development Support
Communication (DSC) service to support rural development programmes
and projects.
3. Advance towards the creation of a group of DSC professionals in the
region, by means of preparing a regional Post-graduate DSC Professional
Diploma Course.
4. Advise governments and other development-related organizations about
the requirements for effective DSC in Southern Africa, for future action.
It can be easily noted how the above objectives directed the project
activities along two main lines of action, namely: providing advice to decision-
makers and managers of other development projects and programs; and building
national capacities through the training and establishment of a post-graduate
diploma course in the region. By the time the project started its operations in the
field, the term Development Support Communication was substituted with
Communication for Development, indicating a further shift of the main
communication paradigm towards an increase attention to people’s participation
in development processes and initiatives. Hence, to avoid possible sources of
141
confusion, from this point on, when refe rring to the project as well as to other
methodological issues, I will use the term Communication for Development
(ComDev), rather than the term Development Support Communication (DSC),
unless referring to something specifically mentioned in the official
documentation.
One of the first activities executed by the project staff upon arrival was a
communication needs-assessment carried out in the participating countries of the
region. This served to shape many of the project activities and has been a valuable
input into the successful training program called the Action Programme for
Communication Skills Development or AP. The Action Programme, providing
training and capacity building to development professionals with years of
experiences, was based on an experiential learning approach, i.e. the designated
FAO experts acted as methodological guides and facilitators trying to draw from
the AP participants’ experiences and knowledge. It was designed with a number
of innovative features, compared to other training programs available at FAO.
One of these features consisted in the way the AP would recruit the participants
for its courses. Each trainee was selected not on an individual basis but as part of
a coherent “national team” expected to strengthen the national capacities by
working on a specific development project.
To be clearer, the main clients of the AP were development projects. To
be enrolled a project had to meet three criteria: it had to demonstrate a clear
interest in communication; it had to commit at least three of their staff (typically a
desk officer, a communication specialist and a field worker/extensionist) for the
142
whole duration of the course (i.e. ten weeks) and the subsequent related
communication activities; and, finally, it had to allocate a budget to carry out the
communication strategy designed during the AP. Once a project was enrolled the
AP would try to enroll two or three other communication related officers, usually
from the public sector. This mix of different backgrounds and types of experience
not only constituted a valuable asset when working on the design of an effective
and sustainable strategy for the specific project, but it was also valuable in
strengthening the national capacity building component, another main focus of the
FAO Project. The AP task did not end at the completion of the course. It
continued provid ing technical support as long as needed, through periodic
missions of its experts, in order to follow-up and advice on the progress being
made by the national teams as a result of the communication strategy drawn
during the course.
Another innovative feature of the AP courses was its combination of the
learning environment, which took place both in class and in the field. The ten-
week courses were divided into three parts. The first part lasted three weeks and it
was based in Harare. It was aimed at improving skills in the assessment and
analysis of communication needs through an innovative methodology known as
Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal or PRCA. The PRCA was not
taught only in a classroom setting or using hypothetical simulated situations, but
rather through field situations that applied to the specific projects of the
participants (which were required to make a situation analysis of their projects
143
before coming to the AP and presented to the whole group on the first day of the
course).
The second part of the AP lasted four weeks and was conducted at the
projects’ sites of the respective national teams, where the participants of each
team, accompanied and supported by one of the FAO Project’s communication
experts, conducted their research applying the knowledge and the skills refined in
the course. Finally, the last part of the course took the remaining three weeks and
was conducted back in Harare. During this last period the participants analyzed
the result s of their PRCA and, assisted by the FAO experts, designed a
communication strategy addressing the problems and needs identified in the field.
The practical outcome of the course, i.e. the communication strategy, was then
presented to the management of their projects in order to have the formal approval
for applying the devised communication strategy.
One of the main achievements of the AP was the development of the
innovative strategy known as Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal or
PRCA. This was not an objective or an activity stated in the Project Document.
The idea grew out of the experiences and needs encountered in the field. Knowing
why PRCA came about helps to better understand the project philosophy on
participatory communication, or at least how this has been envisioned and applied
in the implementation phase. The need for a new methodology originated from
the needs assessment initially carried out in the participating SADC countries,
including a survey to identify the approaches currently used in the region in order
144
to involve the stakeholders (especially in the rural communities) in the decision-
making processes of development efforts.
The FAO team, while reviewing the findings of the needs’ assessment
realized the need for a methodology that would combine participatory approaches
with a clear, systematic communication focus. Until then communication
approaches were being used mostly to diffuse information along the unidirectional
traditional model used in media campaigns and extension approaches and paid
little attention to participatory aspects. There did not appear to be a consistent
communication methodology with a strong participatory emphasis that addressed
the identified needs in the region. On the other hand, the participatory methods
and approaches that were used to involve people in the development activities did
not appear to have a clear communication vision. Some of the most popular
participatory approaches such as Participatory Action Research (PAR) or
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), while using a horizontal mode of
communication as the basis of their approaches, did not have a specific and
consistent communication focus and they did not contemplate a communication
strategy as an outcome of their activities.
That was why, after having unsatisfactorily tried to adapt a number of
methods and approaches for the purpose of the AP, the communication training
specialists of FAO decided to devise a new methodology: Participatory Rural
Communication Appraisal or PRCA. It can be defined as a communication
methodology that combines elements from different disciplines (i.e. ethnography,
sociology, marketing in addition to communication) and utilizes visualization
145
techniques and participatory exercises to open dialogue and generate information
for the design of effective communication materials, media, methods and
programs for development purposes. Such an approach, by being devised with the
stakeholders’ active participation, ensures the relevance of the priorities selected
and established in all the participants of the development activities a stronger
sense of ownership. Originally conceived mainly as a research tool, PRCA
gradually developed into an integrated system relevant to the whole project cycle.
The underlying principle of PRCA is dialogue, which is meant not only to
facilitate the sharing of knowledge and expertise, but also to compare and contrast
the different perceptions since these have been demonstrated as the root causes of
many development problems (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998).
PRCA involves stakeholders in joint investigations not only of the
Problems and the Needs, but also of the Opportunities and possible Solutions
(NOPS), drawing from the wealth of knowledge available to individuals at
grassroots level. Even more significantly, PRCA investigates the different
perceptions about the NOPS, facilitating the required common understanding
needed to address both structural as well as communication issues. It should be
mentioned that PRCA has been used in a number of different settings and
situations proving its value in rural as well as in urban areas. Because of this, they
have considered removing from the title the term Rural, originally adopted to
emphasize the mix between the well known participatory rural appraisal and the
communication strategic mode of operations, to better reflect its flexible nature.1 1 In this respect, I have already done so in a handbook published in Spanish by the European Union and the Colombian Government (Mefalopulos, 2002) where the equivalent of PRCA has been renominated PCA, i.e. Participatory Communication Appraisal.
146
The PRCA philosophy and guiding principles can be summarized in the Johari’s
Windows, already presented in Chapter 1. This has been used to visualize and
facilitate the process of horizontal communication among all parties by
illustrating each side’s ignorance as well as each side’s unique contribution and
the benefits of combining efforts to face the development challenges.
The open knowledge window is the starting point, and the blind spot is the
challenge that needs to be addressed by combining the knowledge of different
stakeholders in the other windows. The two groups “They” and “We” here refer
broadly to the insiders and outsiders, but they can be subdivided into more groups
as a community is seldom a homogeneous entity. The Johari’s Window provides a
powerful image of the overall philosophy behind PRCA. The following are basic
principles that form the core of adopting PRCA in the field.
• Dialogue: constitutes the basis of this methodology, needed both to
establish mutual trust and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and
experiences.
• Reversal of Learning: implies a change of attitude by the researchers and
other field workers, which have to learn to take the roles of “active
listeners” before to start giving advice and present their information.
• Sharing/Empathy: refers to communication in terms of its Latin roots
which signified communion or sharing, thus automatically entering into a
participatory mode. Sharing life experiences, knowledge and cultural
meanings facilitates the empathy required to reach a common view and a
better understanding of the issues of interest.
147
• Segmentation (Gender-sensitive): focuses on paying attention to groups
which are usually marginalized within the community, the most significant
usually being women. PRCA facilitators must bear in mind that the
community is seldom, if ever, a homogeneous group. Within each
community there are a number of groups often having different and
contrasting interests and motivations and there are groups whose voices
are not easily heard. Women are usually the clearest example of this but
are not the only ones. Other groups typically include those who are
extremely poor, young, and those not easily reachable by roads. PRCA
requires that facilitators identify and consider all the relevant groups
through a process of segmentation of the community, in order to make
sure that all the sub-groups present in an area are considered and play an
active role in the process.
• Optimal Ignorance: refers to the fact that PRCA can generate a vast
amount of information and facilitators should not try to learn everything
about the community. Instead, after the first phase of the appraisal, in
order to establish trust and a mutual understanding the facilitators should
focus on the information relevant to the topics of interest. In PRCA
relevance of information is more crucial than the quantity of data
collected. Optimal ignorance is trying to compromise the ideally relaxed
approach needed to reach mutual trust among stakeholders and a
significant understanding of the issues of interest with the practical
constraints of time and resources available.
148
• Flexibility and Adaptability: implies that PRCA does not provide a rigid
formula to address all situations in the field, rather it is a flexible
methodology providing general guidelines within which the different tools
and techniques can be adapted according to the circumstances.
• Capacity Building: indicates that by participating in the PRCA, all
stakeholders become acquainted with the methods and techniques being
used. By familiarizing with the overall process and acquiring new “tools”
that can be applied in other instances PRCA strengthen the capacity of the
participants.
• Triangulation/Cross-checking: notes the need for double-checking the
findings of the investigation. PRCA does not embrace a positivist
perspective as a way of analyzing and assessing situations and it relies
heavily on qualitative research methods. Nevertheless, the nature and the
complexity of most social issues usually suggest to verify, or triangulate,
the findings with other sources of information. This can be done through
qualitative methods such as interviews and focus group discussions, but it
does not disregard necessarily using more traditional methods such as
sampling and adopting techniques to provide indicators capable of
assessing the extension of the situation under investigation.
All the above principles were balanced to reflect the importance of
combining participation and communication. In this respect, PRCA is not a fully
original methodology. Rather, it is an attempt to fill the gap between these two
components, which should go hand in hand. Communication, when it does not
149
facilitate people’s participation, fulfills only a limited amount of its capacity. In a
similar way, participation, if not focused on a clear communication strategy, loses
much of its effectiveness.
The documentation discussed in the next chapter indicates that PRCA
become gradually acknowledged to be a valuable methodology for assisting
development efforts in the region. Finding “clients” for the Action Programme in
this early stage was not a problem, particularly since the first courses were offered
at no cost. There were, however, some other problems. The national counterpart,
i.e. the Department of Adult of Education at the University of Zimbabwe, offered
only limited cooperation and despite repeated requests both by the Project
management and FAO Headquarters did not appoint any of its staff to work with
the project staff. This not only made project operations more difficult, but it also
negatively affected the capacity building of national resources, which was one of
the main objectives to ensure the sustainability of this effort. According to an
FAO officer, these problems were largely due to the fact that “the University of
Zimbabwe is a national institution having its own agenda rather than a regional
institution serving the deve lopment efforts of the region.”
The problem was rectified in 1996, when based on the recommendations
of a Project Tri-Partite Review (TPR) mission (i.e. with representatives of FAO,
Italy, and Zimbabwe), the Project was moved away from the University and re-
established under SADC, in their offices of the Food and Security Sector in
Harare. This led to the establishment of the SADC - Centre of Communication for
Development (CCD), which became the operational counterpart of the FAO
150
project. Given the regional mandate of SADC, this venue was considered to be a
more appropriate one for the Projects activities. Until the moment of the departure
of the FAO international experts (1998) the CCD had eight experts (four FAO and
four SADC) and a number of general service employees.
By that time, the Centre was already operating at a cost recovery basis,
meaning that participants to the AP courses and other agencies in need of advice
had to pay for the services of the Centre. This was in line with the
recommendations of the last TPR missions, which suggested the Centre devised a
marketing strategy allowing the generation of income to ensure its sustainability
in the future. However, even if it was generating some income, the Centre was
never able to reach a breakeven point and cover its operational costs fully.
4.3.3 The Extension Phase: Towards Self-Reliance (1998-2002)
In August 1998, the main phase of the project ended and the contracts of
the international personnel were terminated. However, the Centre activities did
not end as they were now carried out fully by the SADC-CCD (Centre of
Communication for Development) team, under the guidance of its Director, Prof.
Chris Kamlongera, the former counterpart of the FAO Chief Technical Advisor.
The Italian Government granted an extension of its funding, gradually fading out
the funding over a three-year period, which was expected to allow the Centre to
be fully self-sustainable within SADC.
The departure of the international staff, by cutting in half the available
human resources, clearly had an impact on the bulk of the Centre’s activities. The
last review mission before the departure of the FAO experts, conducted by FAO,
151
the Italian Government and SADC representatives, had suggested that the Centre
should have drawn a marketing plan to better position and sell its “products” in
the development context. During the following period the SADC-CCD has tried
to follow up on that recommendation, even if in a smaller capacity due to the
reduction in its personnel and in the available funding. It has continued to carry
out the Action Programme provid ing consultancies and ad-hoc advice to public
institutions, international agencies, Non-Governmental Organizations and a
number of development projects and programs. All of these services were
provided on a cost-recovery basis.
In the extension phase the CCD focused on promoting the sustainable and
systematic use of participatory communication in development efforts, while
providing its usual range of ad hoc services, i.e. advice, training, communication
material production, documentation, etc. Its biggest challenge was that of
establishing a permanent presence providing communication services in the
SADC region. Its clients were stakeholders at all levels, even if, by operating on a
cost-recovery basis, the CCD had to rely mainly on national and international
agencies as their primary client, keeping in mind that the primary focus of their
work remained the rural poor.
Unfortunately the CCD goal of reaching a permanent institutional
presence seems in jeopardy since the gradual reduction of funding from the Italian
Government did not correspond with an increase in the funding by SADC, as
originally envisioned. Even though its activities generated considerable income,1
1 Between October 1996 and December 1998, the SADC Centre, supported by the FAO Project, generated 300.000 US dollars (FAO, 2002b).
152
this was not enough to cover its costs and the Centre went through some financial
hardships, which made difficult the regular planning and implementation of its
operations. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the communication development
project, subsequently replaced fully by the CCD, by being able to generate
income to finance its operations partially could already be considered a rather
encouraging and innovative achievement, as acknowledged by the final Tri-Partite
Review Mission. Unfortunately, this alone was not sufficient to guarantee the
Centre full sustainability in the long run.
Currently, the SADC-CCD continues struggling due to financial problems
and the continuation of its activities is not ensured. Despite the fact that relevant
actors agreed on the validity and usefulness of such a service, there seems to be
no one able or willing to provide the funding necessary for its operations. The
Italian Government, who has already invested a relatively large amount of money,
even if satisfied with the achievements of the Project is not willing to further
finance the Centre as it appears frustrated with the lack of “commitment” by
SADC to take over the CCD and guarantee its sustainability. 1 SADC officials
have formally and repeatedly praised the Centre’s activities and their important
role for development, but they appear not to have the resources to support it
financially. FAO appears to be fully aware of the relevance of this project but it
can only provide its technical assistance if funds are available, and this is not the
case. Given the fact that the revenues generated do not fully cover the costs of the
1 On a personal note, during my interviews I have formed the impression that the lack of “hard products” of such service Project/Centre, i.e. visible products to be exhibited such as a school, a bridge, an increase in the percentage of children vaccinated, etc., has also concurred in diluting the interest of the donor for the Centre’s activities.
153
Centre, its future seems uncertain and if the CCD should cease its operations it
would be a severe blow to the region’s capacity to adopt participatory
communication in its development strategies.
Ending this chapter on such note, while casting a dark cloud on the
progress in this field, provides a valuable indication of the overall situation. The
problems encountered by the SADC CCD appear to reflect the overall situation.
Widely praised in international meetings, conferences and discussions,
communication for development is seldom supported with clear policies and
financial resources specifically dedicated to its adoption. The reasons for this are
discussed in the next chapters.
This chapter has provided a general overview of the institutional
framework related to the establishment of the FAO Project, the scope was that of
allowing the reader to gain a better understanding of the context within which this
occurred. In illustrating the main broad phases of the project, my intention has
been that of tracing its historical development, while at the same time highlighting
its crucial, and at times controversial, points, such as the way participation was
conceived. The institutional changes illustrated above, the interviews conducted
and the documentation reviewed indicate participatory communication is often
praised but seldom uniformly viewed or applied. The fact that the preliminary
phase was carried out by experts different than those appointed in the main
project is another factor to keep in mind when analyzing how this concept was
developed and applied. The next chapter explores in detail this issue, investigating
it more in detail through the specific phases of the project cycle.
154
Chapter 5
PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN THE PROJECT CYCLE
At this point, my investigation explores how participatory communication
was conceived and applied throughout the Project, starting from its very
beginning. The documentation available has provided valuable information about
this issue, supplemented by interviews of key informants, which provided
additional insights not always reflected in the documentation. I also triangulated
these findings, probing them further when necessary, given my own personal
knowledge and experience as a former member of the FAO Project. Differently
from much of the discussion in the previous chapters, where participatory
communication was discussed mainly at a theoretical or normative level, this
chapter investigates the practical aspects related to such an approach, following
the phases of the project cycle as discussed in Chapter 3.
Before starting analyzing the various phases of the FAO Project, I would
like to recap the most relevant points about participatory communication at FAO
presented so far. First of all, the institutional origins of participatory
communication in FAO can be traced back to 1969, when the Support
Development Communication Branch was established. At that time participation
was very limited and the Branch had to engage in endless efforts trying to readjust
its main role, breaking out of a traditional media-centered approach (Coldevin,
2001).
155
It is also interesting to note how, probably due to the novelty of the
subject, at the time of its establishment and for the subsequent thirty years the
Branch was headed by individuals without a specific communication background.
The first chief of the Branch was Colin Fraser, whose background was in
agricultural extension. When he left, he was replaced by Silvia Balit, who had a
university degree in law. However, both of these individuals, being very
committed to the idea of using communication to involve people in the
development process, effectively promoted this approach, through what I would
consider to be a process of “learning by doing.” I consider relevant to mention
some of the individuals involved in this process, since the establishment of this
field in those early years was the result of the commitment of a few individuals
rather than deriving from an institutional mandate.
Two issues need to be pointed out at the beginning of this chapter. First,
unless otherwise stated, the terms Development Communication, Development
Support Communication and Communication for Development, are all used to
reflect accurately the terminology in specific documentation. Even if there are a
few differences among them, both at FAO and in the literature, for the purpose of
this study their meaning is basically considered as synonymous with participatory
communication. The main reason for “homogenizing” these terms resides in the
attempt to avoid dispersing the reader’s attention on issues of secondary
importance.
The second issue to be kept in mind is that the FAO communication
personnel have been “fighting a battle” on two fronts. On the main front, they had
156
to promote the effectiveness and appropriateness of participatory communication
to their external “clients” in order to strengthen, if not to create, the demand for
this approach. On the other front, they had to face the misconceptions, and at
times the skepticism, of other FAO departments and project managers. Some of
whom could not see clearly what benefits participatory communication would add
to the development process, while others were suspicious of the implications of
involving people in a process that has been traditionally and safely managed in a
top-down manner.
The change of terminology from Development Support Communication to
Communication for Development is a reflection of a wider paradigmatic shift,
signifying another step towards a more participatory approach to communication.
FAO communication specialists have been trying for years to have this approach
incorporated in development projects, in whatever partial or limited form was
possible, often having to negotiate and compromise with the reality of the field
and the suspicions of many development managers. To understand accurately how
participatory communication has been conceived and applied, I will discuss it
within each of the main phases of the project cycle illustrated in Chapter 3,
namely: identification of the area or sector of intervention; research/needs
assessment; project formulation; planning/strategy design; implementation; and
monitoring and evaluation. The last phase, i.e. monitoring and evaluation, will be
only briefly addressed, since it is not included within the purpose of the study.
157
5.1 PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE AREA/SECTOR OF INTERVENTION PHASE
In the previous chapter, I have presented how the project came about. It
was a combination of factors, among them a sincere commitment for the adoption
of participatory communication by the DSC Branch. This commitment was fueled
by the on-going debate about this approach, specifically presented and discussed
at the 1991 Communication Roundtable in Rome, which was instrumental in
arousing the Italian interest in funding this project, as reported by an informant.
The decision-making process that occurred in this phase has been the result of the
interactions among a number of actors, namely the experts of the FAO DSC
Branch, a number of international communication experts who lobbied for the
adoption of such a project and the representatives of the Italian Government.
According to the information collected, the representatives of the countries where
the project would eventually operate were only marginally involved in this phase.
It could be argued that if a truly participatory approach requires people’s
input from the very beginning, this was not the case in this project. The idea for
this project seems to have originated from outside the area of operations, i.e. a
Roundtable with top development communication specialists. However, this can
not be considered as a typical top-down designed project either, since the DSC
Project did not exactly begin from the head of decision-makers sitting in their
offices. Rather, it was mainly the result of a meeting where a number of
international experts raised and discussed the issue, its implications and its
strengths based on inputs from peoples with whom they had been involved.
158
Most of those experts had been working in the field for years and were
familiar with the reality of problems and needs encountered at local levels, so they
could be considered to be mediators of local needs. It should also be considered
that due to the relative novelty of the approach, it would be very difficult to have
local communities or even national institutions envisioning such a project, let
alone requesting assistance on this issue. In a way, this could be considered a sort
of “filtered” participation, as the needs and priorities of rural Africa were given a
voice through the plea of international experts.
The preparatory phase was thought primarily to involve participating
countries into the decision-making process leading to the establishment of the
DSC Project, along with what can be considered a participatory approach at a
national level, rather than at a local level. It could then be argued that the project
had somehow originated through a “mediated” participatory approach, almost by
necessity. Still not a full people-based participatory mode, but in many ways, a
step forward compared with what usually occurs in many other development
projects (Anyeagbunam et al., 1998), where goals and objectives are set by a few
individuals with a minimal input by other sources. It should also be noted that the
project design kept into account challenges posed by the lack of awareness about
DSC. In order to induce a growing demand for this approach, the FAO Project set
among its top objectives the strengthening of national and regional capacities in
this area.
It has not been possible to find significant documentation specifically
related to the exact genesis of the project and to the methodological and practical
159
underpinnings of its approach. Therefore, the best way to have insights in the way
participatory communication was originally conceived, and the importance given
to its role, could be achieved by looking at the Report of the Roundtable on
Development Communication (FAO, 1992a), hosted by FAO in 1991. I intend to
discuss some relevant points of this report because they provided some of the
ideas upon which the project has originated and it has been shaped.
The Roundtable was a response to the need expressed by development
communication practitioners to exchange experiences and knowledge in this field.
The main objectives expressed by the participants of the Roundtable were:
• To share information and concrete experiences and lessons learned from
them, and to improve our knowledge of the state of the art, as a basis for
inter-agency collaboration;
• To develop some common strategies;
• To identify the mechanisms to continue and consolidate this informal
network (FAO, 1992a: 1).
Furthermore, the Roundtable, attended by 26 participants representing a
number of academic institutions, NGOs, national and international agencies, was
also expected to draw some recommendations to promote the adoption of this
approach at a practical level. Two representatives of the Italian Government were
also present at the Roundtable. The report did not give a clear-cut definition of
what Development Communication1 was, but two key points emerged quite
clearly. The first indicated that development communication was conceived and
1 This is the term used in the document at this point.
160
understood in different ways by participants, ranging from participation within the
old diffusion model to that of a fully horizontal process (Servaes, 2003). There
were also different perceptions about whether communication should be
recognized and funded as a sector or remain a service within already established
departments.
The second key point concerned the fact that, despite the various
perspectives on the issue, development communication was seen by all as linked
with a participatory mode, thus preparing the ground for a wider acceptance for
the term participatory communication, as previously discussed by the
Communication Experts’ Meeting organized by FAO in 1987. In that meeting
communication was addressed as a participatory social process, confirming the
progress being made towards opening a way for an alternative approach to
development.
One of the main concerns expressed at the Roundtable was the failure of
communication specialists to address the policy-makers effectively. The Report
recognized the need to address decision-makers in a more effective way:
In response to a widespread feeling among development communication
practitioners that decision- and policy-makers remain unconvinced of the
importance of communication in the development process, at least in so far as
concrete action from them is concerned. There could be several reasons for this.
For example do decision-makers only pay lip service to participatory development
and the use of communication to achieve it? Have communicators been too
161
project-oriented, as opposed to work towards national development
communication strategies? (FAO, 1992b: 3)
I have quoted the above extract because the questions raised are still very
crucial today as they were at the time. In the report there is a self-critique by the
communication practitioners acknowledging their negligence in applying to
decision-makers the same type of audience analysis they usually carried out when
working with farmers or other specific groups of people. This led to a vague and
insufficient comprehension of the decision-makers’ needs and interests. One of
the reasons for this was ascribed to the long time spent in the field by the
communication specialists, which might have caused them to neglect the primary
actors who could facilitate the institutionalization, and the spreading, of this
approach; i.e. politicians and other higher up decision-makers.
The Report also acknowledged the need for development communication
to provide more facts about its validity and effectiveness. There was not enough
evidence on its achievements and even less of that evidence had been promoted to
decision-makers. The fact that politicians and other decision-makers usually have
to act and show results on a limited time frame, added further difficulties to the
adoption of a process-oriented approach, which takes a longer period of time to
show results. Another major obstacle in the path of adopting participatory
communication was constituted by the threat perceived by many development
managers that this approach would make projects less manageable and could lead
to the claim that the original project design was faulty. 1 1 This is another indication of how participation at this time was considered by many as a component that had to come in after the project had been formulated.
162
To deal with the identified concerns, the communicators agreed that they
needed to develop better strategies specifically designed to address decision-
makers. The strategy would be based on the findings of a survey to be conducted
by the various communicators, who during their work would come in contact with
relevant stakeholders at the decision-making level. In this way, they would be in a
position to investigate the decision- and policy-makers’ attitudes, experiences,
perceived constraints and expectations, while carrying out their usual activities.
Once enough data would have been collected, the communicators intended to call
another meeting to discuss the findings and draw a strategy to market DSC
effectively to policy makers, which was a major concern when the Project was
formulated.
Another important issue discussed at the Roundtable was the importance
of finding ways to promote communication as a specific discipline. The need to
train individuals, especially in developing countries, in this discipline was
identified as crucial to promote and strengthen its adoption. The call for the
development of a DSC curriculum to encourage the establishment of related
academic programs, at a graduate and post-graduate level should be seen along
the same lines. The need to have DSC established academically was not only
expressed for developing countries, but for the industrialized ones as well, since
very few of them had programs in communication for development (FAO,
1987a).
Most of the Roundtable’s participants agreed on the suggestion regarding
the production of a training package specifically designed to illustrate methods
163
and approaches in communication used in development. The package was
expected to bring some order among the different conceptions and practices of the
various UN agencies. By assessing each agency’s concerns, particular
applications in projects and theoretical and methodological underpinnings, the
package was expected to identify a common conception in development
communication.
All of the above issues are somehow reflected in the Project objectives
discussed in the previous chapter, but the most relevant for the origin of the FAO
Project is probably the Report’s section under the heading “DSC for Africa.” In
this section, not only the communicators agreed that Africa was a region of the
world in particular need of this kind of approach, but they also discussed a UNDP
proposed project for “Regional Development Communication Services in Africa.”
This proposed project was based on the model of the original project developed in
Asia at the end of the 1960s (Fraser and Restrepo-Estrada, 1998). A consultant
was asked to write a Project Formulation Framework to assess the feasibility of
such a project. That consultant was Colin Fraser, former Chief of the FAO DSC
Branch. He submitted his report to UNDP in 1989, stressing the need to support
and strengthen existing communication facilities already existing in Africa rather
than establishing a stand-alone facility. He estimated the approximate cost of the
project at 2.3 million US dollars.
UNDP found the cost too high and even when the project was reduced to
around 1.5 million US dollars it was still found to be too expensive. Furthermore,
Fraser’s recommendation to have a diversified focus for the Francophone and
164
Anglophone regions of Africa was not received with enthusiasm by UNDP, which
preferred a single entity addressing all needs (FAO, 1992b). Despite the fact that
UNDP did not commit to implement such a project, it did consider it very
important and confirmed its interest to realize it under the umbrella of a number
of UN agencies, which could share the cost of such an enterprise. UNDP also
expressed its willingness to engage in a small-scale demonstration project to
further promote the establishment of a project of this nature.1
It is not difficult to see how many, if not all, of the issues addressed by
UNDP and other agencies and specialists are reflected in the FAO Project
Document for “DSC in Southern Africa.” In my investigation I was not able to
have direct confirmation that the UNDP proposed project was taken as a model
for the Italian funded project, but the presence of two representatives of the Italian
Government, that of the FAO communication specialists and the methodological
and operational similarities between the two tend to point in that direction. More
than communication intended as information diffusion, Italy has probably been
attracted by the DSC potential to improve the formulation of development
projects, which has traditionally been a sore issue. As discussed earlier, many
projects funded by Italy had failed to reach sustainability over time. This was
ascribed mainly to the flaws in the formulation phase, which were seldom based
on the ultimate stakeholders, i.e. “beneficiaries,” perceptions and priorities (FAO
2002a).
1 In that period Italy funded also another regional DSC project in Latin America, which had a heavier focus on the use of audiovisuals.
165
To summarize, it can be stated that the area or sector of intervention of
this project originated from a lengthy analysis and a passionate debate about the
need and usefulness of this approach, carried out among officers of development
agencies and communication practitioners with years of experience in the field.
By strengthening stakeholders’ involvement, participatory communication
increased the chances of projects’ sustainability. This was, and still is, an
appealing prospect for all donors.
A project such as the one studied in this research was also needed to
demonstrate and promote the validity of communication approaches in
development. Therefore, even if not participatory in its most genuine sense, i.e.
the request did not originated from the people themselves, the process can be
considered as a “two-step” participation, since it did not directly involve
stakeholders in the field, but took in account people’s needs as experienced in the
field by practitioners and involved representatives of participating countries in the
preparatory phase, as will be discussed next. In this respect, it can be positioned
somewhat in between the second and third level of the participatory categories
illustrated in Chapter 3.
The approach in this phase could be considered as a form of Participation
by Consultation, since information needed to identify the validity of this project
was extracted from the stakeholders, rural people and professionals in the public
sectors, without allowing them to participate directly in the initial decision-
making process. However, the particular and innovative nature of the project,
meant primarily to act as a service promoting and supporting the adoption of
166
people’s participation in other development projects, should also be taken into
account, thus placing it more accurately within the category of Functional
Participation.
5.2 PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN THE RESEARCH/NEEDS’ ASSESSMENT PHASE
This phase covers the Preparatory Phase, which was formally considered
an autonomous project (title code: GCP/RAF/282/ITA), though strictly linked
with the main phase (title code: GCP/RAF/297/ITA). I have already discussed
how the idea for the Project came about and I have also mentioned the Italian
Government’s concerns about past failures, which were mostly ascribed to the
limited attention, time and resources spent in the initial assessment of people’s
needs in the field. To account for these problems and to ensure a higher degree of
sustainability, the Italian Government funded a ten-month preparatory phase,
aimed to investigate all relevant issues and provide the basis for an effective
strategy design. Again, here the close links between the Roundtable and the FAO
Project can be noted. Not only because FAO, which was the host, and the Italian
Government, which became particularly interested in the communication issues
being discussed at the Roundtable, were two agencies involved in this initiative,
but also because among the consultants involved in the preparatory phase there
were two African communication experts who have been involved with the
activities of the Communication Roundtable.
If the previous phase can be seen as originating from a plea by the
communication experts, this phase has been much more participatory in its
operations. A number of missions aimed at opening up channels for dialogue (i.e.
167
FAO consultants and governmental agencies or other national institutions) to
better understand the needs and interests of the main stakeholders in the region
were carried out under FAO supervision. In this way, it could be stated that even
if the project originated from outsiders, the fine-tuning has been done in a
participatory way involving local/national representatives.
The preparatory phase was an investigative exercise, which was carried
out mainly through bilateral talks, i.e. between the FAO consultants and the
representatives of the governments and other national institutions. There were
also a few occasions were all major actors would meet, i.e. regional workshops,
which allowed all participating countries to interact and make their position
known as a single entity. Italy viewed favorably these encounters among
participating countries as a mechanism to ensure their involvement from the
planning phase of the activities (FAO, 1993a), thus increasing the overall chances
of success.
From the documents reviewed, it appears that the FAO consultants
involved in the preparatory phase did not have a homogeneous conception about
participatory communication. However, most of them were well-aware of the on-
going debate on this issue and they were also aware of the discussions and
outcome of the 1991 Development Communication Roundtable. Even if no clear
statement had been laid out at the Roundtable, it is possible to figure out how this
concept was generally understood through a number of applications discussed at
the conference.
168
Some more indications can be deduced reviewing the Communication
Experts’ Meeting organized in 1987 by FAO, which was attended by a number of
representatives of the same organizations present at the 1991 Roundtable.
Analyzing both reports, it is also possible to see how participatory communication
had not fully broken away from the old paradigm, since participation was seen
instrumental to smooth projects’ activities, rather than be adopted to have primary
stakeholders set the priorities for development activities. In other words,
participation as a means, i.e. to achieve development objectives, was considered
equally valid as participation as an end, i.e. to set development objectives.
The purpose and objectives of the FAO Project had been already identified
before starting the discussions with participating countries and the international
consultants appeared to go to the selected SADC countries, primarily to “sell the
idea” and secondarily to collect inputs to refine the project design and identify the
most suitable location for its operations. All this legwork had been important and
it involved various stakeholders such as FAO communication consultants,
representatives of participating countries, training and academic institutions
interested in hosting the Project. In one of the interviews, an informant confirmed
that the basic idea of having a DSC Centre in the region to support rural
development programs had already been discussed before this phase. The fact that
basic decisions about what the project should be about were being shaped even
before starting the research in the field indicates how participation was, and
probably still is, seen as fully acceptable even if applied after certain decisions
had been already taken.
169
In this phase, representatives of participating countries endorsed the
adoption of a project promoting participatory communication. However, the lack
of documents about the content of discussions held between the FAO consultants
and their national counterparts makes it difficult to verify how much of the
discussion going on was along genuine participatory principles and how much
was trying to promote the adoption of this approach to the “client.” Whatever the
case, it can be argued that, if considering this as an autonomous phase, the basic
principles of participatory communication had been maintained since some
dialogue was established between the outsiders (i.e. FAO consultants) and the
insiders (i.e. national representatives), even if that dialogue was happening within
pre-established boundaries.
The results of the discussions and assessments carried out by the various
consultants hired for this phase were discussed at a workshop in Windhoek,
Namibia, which provided the bases of the Action Plan elaborated at the next
workshop, held in Harare, Zimbabwe. The aim was the same: develop DSC
regional and national capacities able to support the adoption of communication in
development projects in the region. The recommendations elaborated at the end of
the preparatory phase were along the same lines and they proposed “the
establishment of a training facility in communication skills for rural development
personnel in the region; the creation, in one country, of a DSC service; and the
setting up of a DSC curriculum in one of the universities of the region.” (FAO,
1993a: 26).
170
The initial emphasis on the academic factor was also confirmed by an
informant stating “In fact, the FAO Project preparatory phase was carried out by a
group of academics at a time when the project strategy design was geared toward
a more academic approach.” In the implementation phase, this emphasis was then
shifted towards training and capacity building. It was also suggested that the
Project would have to support the establishment of a network of DSC specialists
and institutions, academic and not, facilitating the sharing of information and
experiences, facilitating partnerships and encouraging the creation of DSC
income-generating services.
From the available data and the interviews conducted, the level of
participation expressed in this phase is consistent with that in the previous phase.
Hence it could be stated that there was Functional Participation, keeping in mind
the unresolved question of whether participation can be properly and
autonomously assessed within a phase, or it should be assessed only within the
overall process. Even though there is a consensus among most of the informants
interviewed, as well as in the related literature, that this later case should be
regarded as the most appropriate one, the former, i.e. participation assessed within
a phase, provides a better tool for the understanding of how participatory
communication has been conceived and applied in each phase.
5.3 PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN THE FORMULATION PHASE
The initial project idea was already entrenched from the beginning and the
formulation was mostly based upon the findings and recommendations of the
preparatory phase. The FAO consultants were given a broad mandate to
171
investigate all issues related to DSC and involve the recipient countries in this
effort. The previous phase, by actively involving the representatives of
governments and other relevant institutions (e.g. academic and training
institutions) of the participating countries, was supposed to confirm the recipient
countries’ interest and provide all the tools and information needed to formulate
an appropriate project document, not only relevant to the region’s needs but also
capable of sustaining the project’s activities after its completion.
Italy followed closely this phase, since it was considered crucial in the
process, as confirmed by the following statement found in a document reviewing
FAO projects funded by the Italian donor (FAO, 2002a: 7): “in order to enhance
the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of projects funded by Italy, attention
has been focused on three major areas of project management: formulation,
monitoring and evaluation.”
A major source of information in exploring and discussing the most
relevant issues of this phase are provided by the original Project Document of the
FAO/Government of Italy Cooperative Programme the entitled “Development
Support Communication for Southern Africa, later renamed “Communication for
Development in Southern Africa” (GCP/RAF/297/ITA). In this part of the study,
in order to provide a clear and accurate representation of the main issues involved,
I cite a number of extracts taken from the original Project Document (FAO,
1993c). It should be noted that the final outcome of this phase was the result of a
number of months of work at country level and consultations that involved a
172
number of parties (i.e. Italy, FAO and representatives of the participating
countries) and took place in Italy and in the Southern Africa countries.
The original Project Document was finalized in October 1993 and it was
only marginally revised at a later stage to account for some minor adjustments. Its
operations would extend to six countries of the SADC region, namely Botswana,
Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe, where the project was
finally located. The seeds of the Project’s planning were planted during this phase
at a central level (i.e. FAO Headquarters) with some feedback from six the
representatives of participating countries, as discussed previously. This should not
be confused with the next “Planning Phase,” concerned with the planning of
activities to be conducted in the field by the Project management and team in
order to achieve the objectives set out in the Project Document. In sum, the
formulation phase set the objectives and the boundaries for the project, at
headquarters level, while the planning phase occurred at project level and was
devoted to the actual planning and devising of strategies to achieve the Project
objectives.
The general strategy of the Project was designed with two principal aims
in mind: (a) to carry out interventions assisting specific rural on-going
development programs and projects in the region in order to demonstrate practical
results in using DSC (i.e. participatory communication) approaches; and (b) to
generate experience, examples and advice relevant to all participating countries,
in order to promote the establishment, on a long term basis, of DSC strategies and
approaches throughout the region. This strategy was further subdivided into two
173
temporal factors. In the short term the Project aimed to achieve a number of
practical results to give an immediate boost to its activities and achieve the
needed recognition and credibility in the eyes of the regional institutions. In the
longer term, the goal was that of having DSC services established in the region.
Among the practical results to be achieved within a relatively shorter
period of time there were the development of communication training packages,
training of trainers capable of using such packages, training of national personnel
who could apply DSC approaches and methods in selected rural development
projects, the establishment of the region’s first National DSC service and the
preparation of Africa’s first Post-graduate DSC Professional Diploma Course
(FAO, 1993c). These results would be the direct outcome of the Immediate
Project objectives presented in Chapter 4. Meanwhile, on a longer term basis the
main result would be the institutionalization of DSC services by some entities in
the region and the systematic adoption of DSC practices in development efforts.
As briefly mentioned in chapter four, it should also be remembered that
this strategy was operating at different levels addressing four different typologies
of development actors. The first was the intermediate level personnel who
coordinate and supervise field activities and the production of media for rural
development programs. The second was the field personnel, involved directly in
the rural sites. The third level was represented by those communication
professionals in the region, who were somewhat familiar with at least some of the
DSC themes. Finally, the fourth, and in many ways the most crucial, was
constituted by decision-makers in governments, NGOs and other international
174
organizations. From the documents reviewed there is a clear indication that this
was considered to be the level that would ultimately determine the success of the
project in the long run, since it could put DSC on the priority list of the
development agenda.
To address this last point specifically, let me highlight an ambitious
mechanism that was devised to support both the understanding of DSC issues by
decision-makers and to promote its adoption by field projects and regional
institutions. The Project was expected to facilitate the establishment of a
“Regional DSC Coordination Board for Southern Africa,” consisting of
appropriate national academicians, communication practitioners and government
officials. The functions of this Board would be that of advising and legitimizing
DSC initiatives in the region, serving also to catalyze the initiatives and inputs by
the various development actors. The idea of a regional DSC Board appears to be
in line with the participatory focus of the Project, at least at a national level, even
though I have not been able to ascertain with certainty how it originated.
The preparatory phase identified some basic needs and significant
weaknesses in the application of DSC strategies and approaches in the region.
Among them I would highlight the recognition that some decision-makers were
not conversant on what DSC could offer, thus making it difficult to gain their
support in promoting these approaches; the lack of DSC professionals in the
region; the lack of a coherent DSC academic program in the region; the
dependence of national ministries, development institutions and professionals
from foreign models, rather than seeking locally appropriate viable alternatives;
175
and, finally, the lack of knowledge of DSC themes and approaches by rural local
media producers. All of these factors had been carefully taken into account when
formulating the objectives and the overall strategy.
The objectives and activities of the Project, while trying to follow a
participatory approach, had been organized according to what in the development
jargon is known as the Logical Framework Approach (NORAD, 1992), a method
originally devised in the 1960s to cope with the problem of inadequate and
ineffective planning in the development context. This method is not usually
considered particularly participatory, but the experts of the FAO Project have
simplified and adapted it in such a way that stakeholders can successfully use it in
a participatory way (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998). This approach has been renamed
“Situation Analysis Framework” and, similarly to the Logical Framework
Approach, is a way to organize the main elements of a project so that the whole
structure, starting from the objectives, would be inter- linked following a cause-
effect logic.
The Project Document also followed a similar approach. Each immediate
objective to be achieved foresaw certain outputs, which in turn required the
implementation of certain activities (which would need certain resources to be
carried out). Such a structure is of particular value also in monitoring and
evaluating in an accurate way the Project, since each activity can be linked to
outputs and objectives that need to be achieved within a specified timeframe. In
the analysis of this phase I concentrate mainly on the first two levels; i.e.
176
objectives and outputs, referring only occasionally to some of the activities
envisioned.
5.3.1 Immediate Objective 1
The first objective was to “Strengthen a regional training capacity to
improve the DSC skills of intermediate-level professionals so that they may
improve the effectiveness of the rural development programmes in which they
work (location: Zimbawe, region)” (FAO, 1993c: 24). It was concerned with the
establishment, and possibly the institutionalization, of a Centre capable of
providing training and advice in DSC matters. Originally this was foreseen to be
located at the University of Zimbabwe, but it became a reality only when the
project was moved within the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC)
Food Security Administrative Unit. This was not only a more appropriate location
for the Project regional focus, but it was also closer to the FAO’s overall mission.
The establishment of a communication regional program that would
provide training to relevant actors in the region was considered the best course of
action to achieve this objective. The challenge here was to combine the need for
training with the need for obtaining visible results to promote this approach. The
solution devised led to the establishment of the Action Programme for
Communication Skills Development that, as illustrated previously, combined
skills development with ad-hoc advice on field projects. Results achieved through
this approach were expected to be collected, analyzed, compiled and made
available to policy- decision-makers as a way to promote further the
establishment of DSC activities in the region.
177
5.3.2 Immediate Objective 2
This objective was supposed to provide an instance of such services by
“Initiate an example of a sustainable national Development Support
Communication service to support rural development programmes and projects
(location, Namibia)” (FAO, 1993c: 28). The activities for such an objective were
never carried out since this objective was first sidelined and later dropped by the
objectives to be achieved. I have not been able to find the exact reason for this,
but it seems that the creation of the National DSC Service, which was supposed to
take place in the Centre for Media Studies of the University of Namibia,
encountered some administrative problems and some financial constraints made it
even harder to be set up. One informant mentioned how after the FAO Project
was placed in Harare, the Namibian academic authorities progressively lost of
interest in establishing the DSC Centre. There were no official reasons given, but
it seems that there were insufficient guarantees about the financial resources
needed to be provided by the Namibian counterpart. In addition of offering
various DSC services, this Centre was also supposed to be a facility for the
production of audiovisuals.
5.3.3 Immediate Objective 3
This objective was academically oriented and it was conceived to
“Advance towards the creation of a Group of DSC professionals in the region, by
means of preparing a regional Post-graduate DSC Professional Diploma Course”
(FAO, 1993c: 31). As discussed previously, the preparatory phase highlighted, or
confirmed, the lack of DSC programs in the African continent and all parties
178
considered this to be a key concern. This had to be addressed in line with the
participatory principles, strengthening national and regional capacity and it had to
be accomplished locally, rather than relying on scholarships and grants to study
overseas, thus reducing the influence and dependency from foreign experts and
foreign models.
The Project was expected to assist selected universities in the region to
develop a one-year Regional Post-Graduate DSC Professional Diploma Course.
This task had to be achieved not by preparing a pre-determined curriculum
“borrowed” or adapted from the ones already established in other parts of the
world, but by drawing from the local realities and experiences and taking into
account the DSC courses and programs existing in the region, both in the
academia as well as in other training institutions.
The FAO Project was not expected to get involved with the
implementation of the Diploma Course. Its main task was that of activating the
process, by preparing a one-year curriculum, in a participatory mode, to be
subsequently offered as a contribution to interested institutions in the region. It
had also to carry out an exhaustive needs’ assessment for identifying the technical
requirements needed by the host institutions, the aspects to be emphasized to
serve better the interest of the region and the existing knowledge and experiences
in this sector. Once all this was done, the Project, six months prior to the end of its
activities, was expected to present the result of this work at the Regional DSC
Advisory Workshop.
179
5.3.4 Immediate Objective 4
This was probably the most strategically relevant objective and it was
designed to “Advise governments and other development-related organizations
about the requirements for effective DSC in Southern Africa, for future action”
(FAO, 1993c: 33). Its outputs included (a) the formation of the Regional DSC
Board of Southern Africa; (b) the establishment of a database including all DSC
professionals and existing facilities of the region, which could also be used to
create a DSC network; (c) giving advice on strategies and planning to selected
rural development projects; and (d) providing advice to Governments about DSC
strategies and related implications in order to sustain rural development in a more
appropriate and effective way.
The rationale for this objective synthesizes the scope of the whole project,
that is promoting and strengthening DSC services in the region through the
outputs and activities mentioned above. Achieving concrete results with the
selected rural projects supported by the FAO would be instrumental in ensuring
the policy- and decision-makers’ attention, and hopefully endorsement, in the
Regional DSC Advisory Workshop, which was supposed to take place six months
before the end of the Project’s activities. On this occasion, the results of the
project would be presented in front of the members of the Regional DSC
Coordination Board, communication specialists, representatives of institutions
from the region and decision-makers from development organizations and from
the various governments.
180
With this objective it is possible to see once more some of the
contradictions of what was considered a participatory approach. On one hand,
there is enough evidence for a sincere concern for rural people and, on the other
hand, the formulation would involve them only indirectly, through the feedback
obtained by the DSC consultants in their missions or through the national officer
involved in the talks with FAO consultants. Thus, here again, I would place
participation within the second and third level, or between participation by
consultation and functional participation, due to the fact that basic decisions about
the project appeared to have already been made, but representatives of the
participating countries had been involved in the discussions in order to refine and
propose changes where advisable.
The phases discussed so far, even if involved discussions with
representatives of the home countries part of the project, were basically managed
and supervised at FAO Headquarters. The implications of this is that participatory
communication was conceived as a way to involve all stakeholders, at least the
relevant ones at the national level and regional level, in the identification and
formulation of appropriate DSC activities. At the same time, most of these issues
were conceived and coordinated at a central level.
The innovativeness of the Project and its “regional service” connotation
should be kept in mind, as they imply some extra need for analysis when
considering participation. The fact that the role and functions of DSC were not
well-known even among decision-makers would have made it difficult to expect a
full participatory approach from the very beginning. Furthermore, the service
181
nature of the Project and the fact that it involved a number of countries at a
regional level made it difficult to act without a central coordinating unit. In these
conditions would be hard to envision the fourth level of participation, i.e.
interactive participation.
The design of the Project at FAO Headquarters was a compromise among
a number of different needs and interests, but this compromise was reached
through a participatory approach, which saw a considerable amount of dialogue
and negotiations at various levels. The details of the initial part of this process are
rather sketchy, since, as I already mentioned, there are few documents available
and some of the key-players in this phase were either not accessible or had fuzzy
memories, considering the amount of time passed. However, most of the
individuals interviewed recall the importance ascribed to communication and
participation when formulating the project.
5.4 PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN THE PLANNING PHASE
From this point, the analysis of participatory communication shifts from
the FAO Headquarters in Rome to the Project site in Southern Africa, where the
project team had to transform in reality the intentions expressed in the Project
Document and achieve the set objectives. In this sense, it might be more
appropriate to name this phase “strategy design,” rather than “planning,” but I
decided to maintain the latter, as it is the one usually adopted in these
circumstances by FAO and most other development institutions. Naturally, from
its inception to its completion, the project underwent a number of modifications
regarding outputs, activities and even objectives. These changes were made to
182
adjust to the situation encountered in the field and I refer to the most important
ones, i.e. those most relevant for my study.
To understand the project activities better it would be helpful to describe
briefly the composition of the FAO Project’s Team, which followed two main
strategic lines. The Chief Technical Adviser (CTA) was the overall responsible
for the administration, coordination and monitoring of the Project’s activities. The
more technical work related to the communication was initially carried out mainly
by two individuals, the Regional Communication Training Adviser and the
Regional Communication Training Assistant.1 Their work included the advice
and design of communication strategies to other development projects and the
design and implementation of training activities. The last member of the FAO
team was the Coordination Field Program Adviser. As the title suggests, he was in
charge of following up on the establishment of a regional network of DSC
national boards, whose role will be discussed below.
The FAO Project Document (1993) advised that a Regional DSC Board
should be established as a way to support DSC activities in each country and
identify development projects that could be part of the Action Programme. In the
field, the Project team decided that such a Board, due to logistical and financial
constraints, could meet only once every few months. Thus, it would not be a very
effective mechanism. It was then decided to establish a National DSC Board in
each of the participating countries, or better a National Communication for
Development Board, since at this point the new term was gradually replacing the
1 This was the position I held during the first three years. It was then upgraded to Regional Communication Training Adviser.
183
old one. These National Boards were expected to be composed by communication
experts of relevant institutions (e.g. universities, NGOs, etc.) and by government
representatives.
The National Boards were expected to fulfill a number of tasks. They were
expected to support the FAO Project and act as liaison between the Project and
relevant institutions at the national level facilitating the FAO Project search for
relevant projects. The National Boards had to assist in the identification of
possible DSC clients, which would then be submitted for consideration and
eventually be selected to participate in the Action Programme. National Boards
were also expected to promote DSC capacity building in the region, by involving
relevant institutions and key figures in their country, i.e. ministry of health,
agriculture, information, NGOs, academic and training institutions, other
development related- institutions. They had to be instrumental in promoting a
multi-sectorial approach at a national level, ensuring that communication would
become a key element in all development efforts. Finally, they had to promote
and strengthen the support of national authorities for the FAO Project and its
activities, by monitoring and documenting the activities carried out by the Project.
They were also expected to evaluate the results of each project involved in the
Action Programme. Furthermore, each National Board was expected to appoint a
member to represent its country in the meeting of the Regional DSC Board.
I have already introduced and briefly discussed the Project objectives and
the main strategy to achieve them. Even if all of these have been included in the
Project Document devised at FAO Headquarters, based on the many missions and
184
interactions among all relevant stakeholders, the FAO project team decided to
carry out a needs assessment in order to triangulate and probe, where needed, the
findings and indications elaborated during the preparatory phase. This exercise
was not a systematic survey, but rather included a number of “quick and dirty”
assessment meetings with relevant ministries, NGOs, academic and training
institutions, and other organizations that could be of interest in this field
(Anyaegbunam, 1995), identified through a review of available documentation
and interviews.
The survey carried out in Zimbabwe and the investigations conducted in
the other participating countries led to the identification of a number of issues that
needed to be addressed. Among the most relevant were two: “the need for staff
training in basic practical communication skills such as research for
communication programme planning and the other is the necessity for staff
orientation in the more theoretical and conceptual aspects of communication for
development” (Anyegbunam, 1995: 1). The need for practical skills was raised by
the majority of the respondents, who pointed out that the shortage was due not
only to a shortage in human resources in this area but also to a shortage of
institutions providing training on this subject. This was linked to another need
mentioned earlier: that of supporting the establishment of appropriate models and
curricula in Communication for Development.
During this phase the Action Programme for Communication Skills
Development (AP) was designed and refined, based on the many inputs coming
from national and local realities. It was designed taking into account that the most
185
urgent skills needed in the field of Communication for Development included
research for communication program planning (which would later become PRCA
- a key element of any development activity supported by the Project), planning
and evaluation of multimedia campaigns, rural radio programming, message
design and communication materials development, interpersonal communication
skills, strategies to address decision-makers, approaches and techniques to
improve communication between development field workers and farmers, as well
as other rural groups, and, finally, assist rural communities to identify and
prioritize their needs and facilitate their empowerment through the capacity
building of participatory communication principles, approaches and methods.
The findings of the needs assessment, which as mentioned earlier was
mainly carried out through interviews of key- individuals of institutions relevant to
the project’s objectives and by reviewing policies and other relevant
documentation, served to identify four specific area of interest: participation and
development; gender issues1 in communication for development; culture and
communication; principles and processes of communication for development.
These components, all having a specific emphasis on people’s participation, were
then included in the instructional design of the AP. The challenge was to find a
mix that would combine the required practical skills in communication for
development with a grasp of the conceptual issues needed to understand and
embrace a true participatory attitude in the various aspects of the development
process. 1 These were mainly dealt through segmentation of local communities, in order to have women participating in the process and have their voices heard. This would be hardly possible if combined with men, given the cultural context of most rural Africa.
186
The FAO team was aware that the needs assessment was not a
comprehensive exercise and concurred that further analysis would be carried out
while the project developed its activities and needed adjustments would be made.
As the practical and theoretical areas mentioned above became the basis of the
AP, there was also a need to find ways to ensure that the participants would be in
a position to apply in practice the concepts and skills learned in the AP. For this
reason the FAO experts developed a strategy aimed at strongly enhancing the
chances for the AP participants to adopt the skills and knowledge acquired in the
course, while at the same time keeping in mind how to provide and document
success stories needed by the FAO Project to promote further such an approach.
To achieve the Project objectives the FAO experts’ team decided that
rather than considering individual participants as their clients for the training
program, they should consider projects, and subsequently individuals within those
projects. That is they would enroll a project team, usually composed by middle-
level management, field workers and at least one communication officer. This
group from any given project would then be supported by another two or three
key communication-related individuals at a national level (identified and
proposed by the DSC National Boards) in order to form a national team.
Therefore, in his travel duties, the Field Programme Coordinator had to identify
suitable projects before starting to consider individuals. To be selected for
enrollment in the AP, the potential project-clients had to meet the three basic
criteria:
187
1. Clearly stated interest and commitment in the use of communication as
an essential component for project planning implementation and
evaluation;
2. Availability of mid- level project staff to participate in the
Communication Skills Development Programme;
3. Availability of project’s funds allowing trained staff to implement the
communication strategies devised in the AP (Anyegbunam, 1995:4).
After being identified and selected, each project would be strengthened by
enrolling a couple of additional key figures, usually communication related, at a
national level. These key figures would participate in the training as part of a
national team aimed to provide support for the projects. The requisite for the
enrolment in the AP of these individuals was that they were somehow involved in
communication either at field levels (i.e. extensionists, communication specialists,
etc.) or at decision-making levels (e.g. government officials, program managers,
academic representatives, etc.). In this way they not only strengthen the project
team with their presence, but they could constitute a critical mass of DSC, or
ComDev, expertise for their country. During the ten weeks of the AP, the
integration of these individuals was expected to result in the building of a
coherent entity, named National Team, which would work together on designing
an effective communication strategy to address the national project’s specific
problems and needs.
The first AP started in October of 1998 and took place at the University of
Zimbabwe with national communication teams from Namibia, Zambia and
188
Zimbabwe (two projects). The course was evaluated and carefully reviewed by
the AP participants, a number of national and international consultants who
participated in the course in different ways and by an FAO review mission, which
came from Rome. According to the documentation reviewed, including the Tri-
Partite Review Mission reports, there was a consensus that the course had been an
overall success. This was reflected also in some of the statements made by a
couple of informants: “Virtually all of the participants who attended the
workshops stated that they would view their work in future development projects
as changed forever.” and “The Project was positively evaluated by the agency [i.e.
FAO], the donor and the user [i.e. SADC].”
Nevertheless, there were some areas in need of improvements. During a
“post-mortem” conducted by the FAO team, those areas were identified,
thoroughly discussed and action was taken to correct it, as I will illustrate later. It
should be noted that the AP has been a continuous work in progress, as the FAO
team kept monitoring the process constantly and adjusted it according to the
systematic monitoring and evaluation carried out with the course participants and
according to the learning needs and bottlenecks appearing through the course.
It should also be said that the structure of the course, i.e. three weeks in
Harare for becoming familiar with PRCA, four weeks in the actual project site, to
investigate key issues in a participatory way, and three weeks back in Harare to
devise an appropriate communication strategy, was instrumental in forging strong
bonds among members of the national teams. The work in the field was probably
the most challenging one. All teams had to spend at least two weeks carrying out
189
the PRCA residing in the actual rural areas of interest of the project, accompanied
also by one of the FAO experts. I have carried out a number of these missions and
I realize how individuals, especially those city-based, became much closer and
more open in their collaboration after sharing a few days in harsh living
conditions, in places where usually there was no electricity, no health facilities, no
running water and very poor conditions of hygiene. During the period I had been
working with the Project there were two deaths of individuals who had
participated in the AP, due to sicknesses contracted while working in the field.1
There can be little doubt that once in the field communication took a more
direct turn towards participation. The National Boards, which were not originally
envisioned in the Project Document, were a result of such a participatory
approach. However, this idea did not prove to be sustainable in the medium and
long term, as the National Boards, after being established and operating for a
while, were dissolved for a number of reasons, none of them directly related to
participatory communication. An informant gave two main reasons for the
dissolution of the National Boards, “they were established under the initiative of
the FAO project and as such they did not bring any concrete benefit to the
individual members, who were mainly participating as an act of good will…. and
second, the project had been unable to document and demonstrate with hard
evidence the added value of its methodological approach quickly enough.”
One of the informants cited that the tasks to be performed by the DSC
National Boards were very diversified and ambitious and implied an extra amount 1 In another occasion, part of a National Team I was accompanying had a major car accident in the Namibian desert, which resulted in all of the components being unable to perform their duties and support the selected project for a number of months.
190
of work for its members. There were no incentives to compensate for this ext ra-
work, e.g. remuneration or reduction of their usual workload, except for the
occasional participation in some of the courses to be held in Harare by the FAO
Project. In addition to this, the Project did not manage to “institutionalize” these
Boards, meaning that their members did not receive formal recognition even by
their own institutions, thus making it hard to keep their commitment and interest
going in the long run.
As already stated, the development of a new methodology, i.e. PRCA, was
derived inductively from the needs identified in the field. This lead to
categorizing the conception and adoption of participatory communication
practices in this phase as functional participatory. As the Project had to devise the
basic guidelines upon which to build its overall strategy, still within the objective
stated in the Project Document, it would have been very difficult and complex to
achieve this through a full involvement of all stakeholders. Once more, one
should also be reminded of the peculiar nature of the FAO Project, which was not
designed to achieve specific development objectives through participatory
communication, but rather to promote it as an end in itself.
5.5 PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
This phase constituted the core of the whole project and evolved through
the efforts of the FAO experts involved in the previous stages, the personnel in
the field, and the many, many other persons who were involved in the Project’s
activities; i.e. government representatives, NGO’s officers, development workers,
communication specialists, farmers and other rural groups. As for the previous
191
section, participatory communication should be considered along two main lines
of action, both revolving around the Action Programme for Communication Skills
Development, which is the main product of the FAO Project/SADC Centre.
The first regarded the promotion of Communication for development,
especially through the establishment of the National Boards, the following up
their activities and the search for potential clients. The Communication Field
Programme Coordinator was responsible for the implementation and monitoring
of these activities. The second course of action was concerned with the technical
aspects regarding communication, i.e. training and advice, and was carried out
mainly by the two experts in communication and training. It was expected that
soon after the beginning of the Projects’ operations each FAO expert would be
supported by an equivalent national counterpart, to be appointed by the host
institution, as indicated in the Project Document.
Unfortunately, a number of problems with the University of Zimbabwe,
the original counterpart, delayed those appointments. The problems were not
limited to that issue and it soon became clear that the University was not a
suitable place for the Project activities. Its national dimension and its academic
oriented focus were not easily combined with the regional character and the rural
development inclination of the FAO Project. Even if based within the University
campus, the Project was basically operating independently from it and this was
threatening its potential sustainability.
With time, the limitations of being in the University without an
operational counterpart began to be perceived as greater than the previously
192
identified advantages of being associated with the Department of Adult Education
of the University of Zimbabwe, i.e. the status recognition and the
institutionalization of Communication for development in the academic settings.
In 1995 a Technical Mission, which included representatives of FAO and the
Italian Cooperation, visited the Project and suggested changing the location of the
Project to place it under a more suitable organization. SADC seemed one of the
most suitable ones, given its regional institutional mandate, and in 1986 the FAO
Project was transferred at the SADC Food and Security Administrative Unit in
Harare.
While maintaining participatory communication at the forefront of their
activities, the FAO experts had to face a number of practical challenges. For
instance, while promoting the establishment of the National Boards, which was a
substantially participatory mechanism, the FAO Project had to identify, propose
and push relevant players to participate in such entities. In this way, even if the
selection of client projects was done in a participatory mode through those
Boards, the Boards themselves cannot be considered to have emerged
spontaneously or endogenously, which is one of the common characteristics
associated with participation. Furthermore, as to be expected when there are no
significant benefits to be gained, a number of National Boards members gradually
lost interest and motivation in being part of such entity.
Despite the limitations experienced, for the first couple of years the
National Boards fulfill their basic purpose: to identify relevant development
projects and participate in the selection process, thus legitimizing the choices.
193
After that period, the identification and selection of potential client-projects was
increasingly done by the Communication Field Programme Coordinator and its
SADC counterpart, in coordination with the colleagues in charge of the Action
Programme and under the supervision of the Chief Technical Advisor. Since in
my study I am focusing upon the conception and application of participatory
communication it is necessary to have a closer look at the Action Programme.
The AP synthesizes the whole conception of participatory communication
as applied in practice by the Project. Its range of action covers all aspects of the
project cycle, from formulation to evaluation, however, it should be mentioned
that all AP client-projects have been on-going projects. Thus, the formulation has
been restricted to the communication component, limited by the boundaries set by
the established projects’ objectives. In my study, I have been able to rely on an
exhaustive documentation regarding the first six APs that took place from 1995 to
1998. I have kept most documents related to these courses, which would be
otherwise impossible to retrieve, as they are stored up to a maximum of five
years. In discussing this part, I will rely often on reports made by a number of
national, regional and international consultants, who have been collaborating
systematically with the AP.
The biggest challenge posed by the objectives in the Project Document
GCP/RAF/297/ITA was how to combine the systematic use of communication
with the participatory approaches needed to involve stakeholders in the
development process. The fact that, as mentioned above, the initial assessment
carried out in the field highlighted the lack of communication skills in the region
194
(Anyaegbunam, 1995), it was seen both as a problem as well as an opportunity.
Creating a learning environment where communication skills needed to be
imparted almost from scratch could be easier than trying to convince
organizations to change curricula and individuals to change attitudes and skills
rooted in the old paradigm.
Within this section, participatory communication is strongly identified
with the PRCA methodology and to be able to investigate it and analyze it in
clearer and more effective manner I am following the same pattern established in
the AP. First, I am going to discuss how participatory communication has been
conceived as a research tool, and subsequently how it has been applied in the
field. The next step will be to investigate how the findings obtained through this
exercise have been used to design communication strategies in a participatory
way. Finally, relying on some reports from the consultants providing technical
assistance on the projects’ sites and from the same National Teams taking part in
the AP, I am going to discuss issues regarding the implementation of such
strategies.
The main PRCA principles have been illustrated previously. What should
be emphasized here is the attempt by the FAO Project to push it at the forefront of
the participatory paradigm, or theoretical framework. In the first six APs carried
out most of the participants had some initial difficulties in understanding and
“digesting” the philosophy of such an approach, but most of them also
experienced a change of heart, i.e. shifting from the vertical approach to
communication to a more horizontal one. Referring to the results achieved with
195
field workers through the AP, one informant stated “Most of these were extension
workers who had previously adopted a “top down” approach toward village
development, and were now in favor of a 180 degree change in terms of starting
with villagers in prioritizing their needs, and facilitating their information and
training requirements, as prerequisites for mounting projects.” Many of the AP
trainees gradually embraced the attitude needed to treat farmers and other
marginalized groups as equal partners in development. This usually occurred
during the second part of the course; i.e. applying PRCA in the projects’ sites.
PRCA is currently becoming an approach adopted in a number of FAO
projects, as well as in a number of other development agencies. However, in the
beginning it was considered with caution, if not with suspicion, even by FAO
Headquarters in Rome. The Project’s rationale for establishing a new
methodology was not immediately clear, when apparently there were so many
approaches on communication and participation, even though none explicitly and
systematically appeared to systematically link the two. This caution resulted in a
sizeable pressure by FAO Headquarters to show evidence about the validity of
such a methodology. That is why the whole process has been monitored closely,
especially in its beginning.
In the first period of the project activities (i.e. before the first AP and
immediately after), there were a number of international consultants, who visited
the project to monitor the validity of the new methodology and assess its
feasibility. One of those consultants emphasized the importance of a methodology
such as the PRCA, imparting skills of participatory research while allowing both
196
project managers and other stakeholders to identify and analyze development and
communication issues from a people’s perspective (Johnston, 1996). This allowed
the dialogue needed to build a consensus to devise strategies addressing those
issues. During an interview, another consultant confirmed that the first mission
sent from FAO Headquarters was aimed at assessing if the start-up activities of
the FAO Project and the methodological preparations had a sufficient quality
standard to allow the Project to proceed with the first round of the Action
Programme.
Most of the consultants who came to monitor and assess the PRCA were
well-known international consultants, conversant with participatory approaches.
Nevertheless, it soon became apparent how the methodology devised by the FAO
experts was positioned further along the participatory framework than those of
most consultants, who while being familiar with participatory communication, did
not appear to have broken entirely from the legacy of years of dominant, usually
top-down, communication models, as was indicated by their emphasis on message
design and by their use of terms such as target audiences and beneficiaries. Those
terms had been eliminated by the PRCA vocabulary and substituted with more
participatory terms such as “interaction groups,” in the belief that words do not
only define the world but can also transform it (Freire, 1997).
The fact that the FAO experts had gone so far ahead along the
participatory path can be ascribed to the in-depth reflections and constant reality-
checks which the project staff had to go through while devising a learning
approach with an immediate practical application. This real-time triangulation
197
between theoretical and practical implications allowed, or forced, the FAO
experts to reflect upon and refine a number of aspects, which would have been
difficult to deal with otherwise.
Among the various issues that the FAO experts realized, there was the
importance of words. They realized the power of words as a way, if not to
transform reality, as stated by Freire (1997), at least to shape its perception
significantly. The importance of perceptions was one of the key findings that
resulted from the needs assessment and the AP applications in the field. This is
not to say that the relevance of perceptions was something new to communication
scholars and practitioners. For instance, Jacobson and Kolluri (1999: 273) have
already highlighted how “the emergence of participation as a new approach to
development communication has emphasized the importance of subjective
experiences of people for whom development is supposedly meant.”
The AP was the Project’s spearhead for promoting the adoption of
participatory communication approaches in the field throughout the Southern
African region. It is therefore vital to discuss how it was perceived and applied. I
have already presented the basic PRCA principles and features as devised by the
FAO, and later SADC, experts. At this point, I would like to discuss some of the
perceptions and perspectives derived from its practical applications. These are
mainly derived by a number of reports by the FAO Project and the SADC-CCD
experts, consultants and participants of the Action Programme. I should
emphasize two of the main characteristics of the PRCA. First, it is a methodology
constructed inductively, derived mainly from the investigation and experiences
198
from the field rather than from theoretical reflections. Second, it is a dynamic
methodology, since it has been constantly revised, enriched and adapted to meet
the dynamic and complex challenges of the field. This methodology had also a
number of implications, some of which are noted by this statement of an
informant, “Participatory communication favors decentralization and democracy,
people involvement and dialogue, interpretative and bottom-up perspectives.”
The “spilling out” caused by the participatory communication approach
adopted in PRCA can be clearly seen in one of the projects enrolled in the first
AP, following the procedures highlighted previously. The project was named the
Horticultural Training Programme, or HTP. It was funded by a third country and
it was implemented by an agency within the Zimbabwean Ministry of Agriculture.
Its main goal was to develop and support a more systematic approach to
horticultural production by small scale farmers. This was expected to lead to an
increase and diversification in the crops in order to have an increase in the
opportunities for income generation and enhance the daily nutrition diets in areas
that suffered from malnutrition (Gova et al., 1995b). To achieve its objective, the
HTP would work with rural communities to identify communal areas that could
become HTP gardens, which would allow all those interested to diversify and
increase horticultural production, promoting an increase in production for
domestic and commercial purposes.
The main problem experienced by the HTP was that of enrolling people in
taking part in their horticultural gardens and that is why it was enrolled in the AP.
When the Zimbabwe National Team went to the field, after the first part of the
199
course HTP team had a chance to put in practice right away the PRCA methods
and techniques learned in the first three weeks of the AP. The findings of the
PRCA reported that the site selection for the HTP gardens and the enrollment of
participants were not carried out in an open manner. Many of the rural people
who took part in the PRCA also stated that they were not very clear about the
HTP project objectives.
Other problems were also reported, including the lack of rotation among
villagers where participation had been higher. The HTP gardens were supposed to
act as demonstration sites, where farmers would be trained and assisted by
agricultural experts. It was expected that people would adopt the new crop and
agricultural techniques would then adopt it to their own fields, leaving the gardens
to other farmers. Instead, the ones participating in this scheme were keeping the
HTP sites as an extra garden and not adopting the innovations in their own fields.
PRCA proved to be a valuable tool to uncover rural stakeholders’ perceptions and
initiate a dialogue about their needs, worries and priorities. PRCA was useful to
uncover not only the technical factors but also the social issues, which may
determine the failure or success of any effort regardless of its nature (Gova et al.,
1995a).
The reports of the AP trainees highlighted that communication field
research was being carried out in a participatory mode, looking for problems,
needs, opportunities and solutions involving grassroots stakeholders, even if
within the pre-determined boundaries set by the HTP project. This led to a
situation that became quite common in a number of projects enrolled with the AP.
200
When carrying the PRCA in the field, national teams often found that the
problems resided in the way the project had been formulated originally, i.e.
without taking into consideration the perspective of the so-called beneficiaries.
The same question arises again: how participatory can an activity be if the
objectives and boundaries have been already predetermined, usually following a
non-participatory modality?
The Zimbabwe National Team wrote a report quite critical about how the
HTP had been implemented up to that point. Among its conclusions there are the
following statements: “Site selection for demonstrations was not a community
decision and hence in some cases the HTP catchment was a village in other a
ward” and “HTP enrollment was not representative of the community” (Gova et
al., 1995b: 22). Naturally, these findings were not received particularly well by
the management in charge of the program. However, due to the problems faced in
the field and due to the findings reported by the National Team, the HTP
management decided to go ahead with the communication strategy designed
during the AP. The strategy, by adopting participatory communication
approaches, intended to contrast and compare how rural people perceived the
HTP and, by using dialogue, aimed at ensuring the involvement of entire
communities in the program (Gova et al., 1995c).
The application of PRCA in the field helped AP participants to achieve
that attitude-switch (i.e. from talkers to listeners, from teachers to students)
indispensable in carrying out any participatory activity and gaining a better
understanding of the needed empathy to be able to understand other peoples’
201
point of view. This was a great achievement, but it was also the cause of a number
of problems with the projects’ management, which usually remained well- rooted
in a vertical mode of operations, even when paying lip services to participation.
Other projects had similar problems despite their different natures (e.g.
agricultural, health, population, etc.). For example, a baseline survey conducted in
Namibia for an agricultural project enrolled in the AP investiga ted the
effectiveness of using participatory approaches to communicate certain techniques
to improve the agricultural production, but it did not even consider if that issue
was a priority concern for the rural farmers (Murray, Oherein & Sycolt, 1995).
Almost any piece of information I have studied seems to point to this very issue:
how participatory can participatory communication really be when it is used a
posteriori, that is when the objectives of a project have been determined in a non-
participatory fashion?
A reflection on this issue emerges from the answers given by some
informants, who have indicated the initial phase of the project as the one most in
need of a participatory approach. In this respect, there is something quite
interesting in a report of a major international communication expert who came to
assess the project. In this report, after praising the quality of the AP, the
consultant posed a fundamental question (Johnston, 1996: 25): “Are we trying to
catch a bus which has already left? Or put another way, are there not priority and
foundational audiences for such training which are more significant than those
responsible for project implementation?”
202
The consultant, with many years of experience in this field, especially in
Africa, while agreeing that perceptions play a fundamental role in participatory
communication, also pointed out how most development initiatives carried the
perceptions of the proposal designers. In his opinion, this made the whole
approach something less than participatory. If this holds true, he claimed that also
the AP is “not only interventionalist, but also remedial” in its operations, since it
was only addressing problems that were arising in the implementation phase.
What would be the solution then? Well, the consultant, who was everything but a
naïve person, slipped its own innovative, if not revolutionary idea, in his report:
In all naivety one begins to wonder if it would not have been a better
strategy to initiate training for those within the above bodies who carry the
responsibility for project proposal development. We could have then got it
right from the very beginning. I am of the view that the course modules
being developed in Harare should be a foundational requirement for:
FAO regional and country representatives and project officers both at
headquarters and in the field carrying responsibility for project
development.
FAO and other members of country support teams where they exist as, for
example, under the aegis of UNFPA (one of which is located in Harare!).
Ministry of Agricultural officials and, as appropriate, those involved in
fishing and forestry as well as the environment who are responsible for
project initiation.
203
Officials from other ministries with similar responsibilities who have a
stake in rural development, e.g. water and irrigation, livestock and
horticultural development, etc.
While this is but a beginning list, it is an attempt to ensure that projects are
formulated with some knowledge and understanding of the significance of
improving people’s participation and thus enhancing prospects for
improved relevancy, self-sustainability, and people ownership. Were the
project developers to be involved only at the research stage of the present
training programme this in itself would be a clear benefit (Johnston, 1996:
25).
The consultant’s suggestion appears very well taken, but it was and still is
a very sensitive issue, addressing the dimension of power and authority which is
not addressed in this study. Clearly, the consultant’s recommendations were not
meant to be addressed at the project level, but at a higher level, as noted by an
informant “Constraints are political. Established authorities (at local level,
regional level or national level, as well as at donor level or technical agency level)
may have their own personal agenda and may only pay lip-service to participatory
communication and participatory decision-making.” I intend to return on this
issue in the concluding chapter. For the moment, let us note this concern and let
us also note, once more, how the documents reviewed indicated that participatory
communication philosophy, methods and techniques presented in the AP appeared
to be genuinely applied in the field. As mentioned earlier, the turning point for
AP’s participants occurred when they witnessed PRCA in action and people’s
204
responses. Their reaction can be seen as a part of the process that Freire (1997)
described as “conscientization.”
The FAO Project team was well-aware of the contradictions implicit in
applying participatory communication approaches based on projects conceived in
a non-participatory way and in designing participatory communication strategies
to support goals set in a non-participatory way. The dilemma they had to face was
whether to adapt to the de-facto situation and try to apply as much as possible
participatory communication within the allowed framework or advocate a more
radical adoption of the philosophy and principles of participatory communication.
They clearly opted for the former, as the latter one, even if considered more
appropriate, would require activities and objectives beyond the ones set out in the
original Project Document.
Nevertheless, in developing their methodology, the FAO and SADC-CCD
communication specialists had left open the door for the use of PRCA in an ideal
type situation, identifying two basic types: Exploratory PRCA and Topical PRCA
(Anyaegbunam et al., 1998). It was consistently stated that PRCA as a research
approach would be most useful from the very beginning of any development
effort. This allows involving stakeholders in the definition of the objectives of the
project, minimizing the risks of misperceptions of the NOPS, and their priorities,
and any wrong assessment of the situation. It also strengthens the sense of
ownership, thus rendering the outcome of the project more sustainable.
When used in this way it is known as “Exploratory PRCA”. This is where
participatory communication can express its full potential and provide the greatest
205
input towards a development guided, or at least greatly shaped, by local
stakeholders themselves. Exploratory PRCA should be part of a multi-disciplinary
approach aimed at investigating and assessing an area situation. Unfortunately
this case, in which PRCA is used to initiate the dialogue and to lay the foundation
of possible projects is still quite rare.
The other type of PRCA is called “Topical PRCA” and is used in on-going
projects. In this case it serves as a diagnostic tool, being a remedy of an already
compromised situation, before being a prescriptive instrument, as in Exploratory
PRCA. Conducting a PRCA when the project has already started is less effective
than when conducting it from the very beginning, since it is usually intended to
address problems that have already emerged while implementing the projects’
activities rather than preventing them beforehand. It is also less participatory since
the objectives and range of action of a project have been already determined,
usually in a non-participatory way. Despite these constraints, the documentation
reviewed indicated that Topical PRCA has proven to be an effective instrument to
improve a number of situations, even if stakeholders are taken on board after the
boat has already sailed.
To summarize, Exploratory PRCA had shown greater potentials, since it
should be undertaken from the very beginning of the process and allows
stakeholders at the grassroots level to influence agendas. Topical PRCA, instead,
has tighter boundaries since it uses communication techniques and methods to
investigate the problems as defined by the community but focuses the diagnosis
and corrective intervention within the boundaries set by the project (i.e. goals,
206
objectives). PRCA appears to have been one of the major achievements of the
FAO Project, as it continues to be promoted and adopted by development
initiatives around the world. Even if it is not a revolutionary tool, it seems to have
filled a gap at a theoretical, but especially practical level. The following table,
borrowed by the PRCA manual (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998: 49) helps to position
this approach in relation to participatory and traditional communication research:
Table 5.1: How PRCA is Unique and Different
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal (PRCA)
Traditional Communication Research
Not holistic – researches only community needs, opportunities, problems and solutions without attending to communication issues
Holistic - researches community needs opportunities, problems, solutions and communication issues, networks and systems
Not holistic – researches only communication issues
Participatory: The researcher is a facilitator who enables the people undertake and share their own investigation and analysis leading to sustainable local action
Participatory: The researcher is a facilitator who enables the people undertake and share their own investigation and analysis leading to sustainable local action and improved communication
Not Participatory: The researcher is an investigator who is interested in learning as much information as possible for her own use
Empowers and builds capacity of communities
Empowers and builds capacity of communities and improves communication between them and outsiders
Extractive and does not empower or build capacity of communities
Leads to joint planning of development action with community
Leads to joint planning of both development action and supporting communication programme with community
Professionals plan communication intervention without the community
Deals with community groups differentiated on the basis of sharing the identified problems. People are active participants in the process of generating and analysing information
Deals with interaction groups identified on the basis of sharing a common problem and segmented according to criteria normally used by the people themselves. People are active participants in the entire research process
Deals with audiences segmented according to criteria determined by investigator. People are seen as only passive recipients of messages and not as active sources
207
Results of appraisal are presented by community
Results of appraisal are presented by community
Results of research are not shared with community. Investigator analyses and presents results to outsiders.
Community owns and keeps the results
Community owns and keeps the results
Results are owned and kept by researchers.
Emphasis on the use of visual methods, interviews and group work for generating, analysing and presenting data
Emphasis on the use of visual methods, interviews and group work for generating, analysing and presenting data
Emphasis on verbal mode of questioning and gathering data, normally through questionnaire interviews or focus group discussions
Emphasis on change of attitude and behaviour among facilitators
Emphasis on change of attitude and behaviour among facilitators
Emphasis on finding out ways of changing of attitude and behaviour of audience
Emphasis on local people’s knowledge, skills and capabilities for problem solving
Seeks means of creating mutual understanding between local people and development workers in order to marry local capabilities with outsiders’ knowledge for more effective problem-solving.
Emphasis on how best to effect transfer of outside expertise to local people
From the documents concerning the project activities, there was a clear
sense of a growing consensus about the participatory communication approach
conceived and implemented by the Project through the Action Programme.
Despite some problems experienced by the Project, concerned mainly with
institutional issues about management and sustainability, the participatory
communication approach reflected in the PRCA was recognized as a valuable and
innovative asset by most development actors in the region and beyond. Even the
United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution (Agenda Item 96, UN
General Assembly, 11 November 1996) supporting the recommendation made by
the 6th Roundtable on Communication for Development had already indicated
(SADC, n.d.), namely:
208
The Roundtable recommends that SADC and governments of the region
continue to promote at the policy and operational levels the services of the
SADC Centre of Communication for Development on a cost-recovery
basis. International agencies, bilateral donors and development institutions
are urged to support the Centre… by providing expertise and resources,
and also by drawing upon the Centre’s expertise and training programmes
for their own communication for development projects.
This was a further acknowledgement of the quality and results of the
Project/Centre work. However, if such a statement could further legitimize the
role and importance of such a project, it did not address the real issue regarding
participation. It did not address the question posed by the communication
consultant mentioned above; i.e. are we trying to catch a bus that has already left?
Can participation be dealt with when projects have been already formulated? Can
communication be used to open up a sincere dialogue, when the boundaries of the
dialogue have been already set? I will discuss these and other critical questions in
the next and final chapter.
From the information presented so far I would argue that participatory
communication within this phase reached its peak. There has been a genuine and
strong effort by the FAO and SADC experts to promote and adopt not only the
practice of participatory communication but also its underlying philosophy. This
effort had been curtailed by the necessity of applying only Topical PRCA. That
meant applying participatory communication within a non-participatory
framework, or a process that has started in a non-participatory way. For this
209
reason, I can not position this phase within the highest category of Empowered
Participation, even though the capacity building component of PRCA can be
considered to have the features to facilitate empowerment in the communities
where it is being adopted. This aspect has been noted in a number of AP reports I
have consulted.
Keeping in mind the fictitious and artificial nature of any classification, I
would consider this phase within Functional Participation, since rural
stakeholders had been heavily involved in the process but only when the process
had already started. The level of participation in this phase appeared to have been
greater than the previous ones, but it has not been given the chance to break out
significantly from the centrally directed framework within which most
development projects and programs originate and take place.
5.6 ISSUES IN MONITORING AND EVALUATION
This section is not a central part of the study, for reasons mentioned
previously, and it is divided in two parts. The first refers to the monitoring of the
activities and it is discussed in some detail since it refers to activities of the
previous phases. The second is evaluation and this part intends to provide some
feedback on the mechanisms through which the Project was evaluated. The issues
discussed in this section should provide a better understanding of the overall
process, even if they refer to how monitoring and evaluation were carried out,
rather than on what were the results of these activities.
210
5.6.1 Monitoring
Monitoring of the Project activities occurred along two main lines. One
was related to the Project Document and the achievement of its objectives. It was
supervised, or monitored, by the responsible officers at FAO Headquarters in
Rome in two ways: the first was through the review of the periodic inception and
progress reports that the FAO Chief Technical Adviser, who was responsible for
the Project’s operations in the field, had to file on a regular basis and through the
missions carried out by international consultants assisting the Project, who had to
write reports about their missions and had their briefing and debriefing (i.e. before
and after their travel to Harare) at FAO HQs. The second way was through the
feedback provided by the Projects clients; i.e. institutions and individuals
participating in the AP or being assisted by the Project and rural communities
being involved in activities supported by the Project. This feedback was mainly
collected by the FAO experts themselves and then probed during the visits of the
Tri-Partite Review Missions.
From the documentation available it has been noted how despite some
problems which impeded achieving some of the intended results (e.g. achieving
full self-sustainability and institutionalizing the National Boards), the overall
approach adopted by the Project had proceeded on track. Adjustments to the
overall strategy were made frequently by the FAO experts, especially those using
the participatory communication methodology, which needed constant
supervision and modifications to respond to the challenges experienced in the
field. One of the major adjustments was the result of suggestions made by two
211
international consultants, who noted that PRCA had a major emphasis on
qualitative assessment in the communication participatory research phase but paid
almost no attention to quantitative research elements (Coldevin, 1995; Johnston,
1996).
Based on their comments, the second round of the AP incorporated a
baseline survey to be carried out at the beginning of the PRCA in order to verify
and assess at a quantitative level the findings found through qualitative methods
and techniques. The consultants also noted that a critical point of the AP occurred
when participants had collected, analyzed and discussed the field findings and had
to transform them into usable accounts to be used as a basis for the design of the
communication strategy. This proved to be a much complex issue to be addressed.
The main difficulty consisted in the vast amount of data that PRCA was able to
generate, which made it difficult to rank and single out the most relevant
information that could be considered the cause of the problem.
In other words, the very success of this approach in the field, opening up
dialogue and bringing out local knowledge and experiences, was also causing an
overflow of information not always easy to decode, assess and analyze when
designing a strategy in a participatory way. It should also be said that the
participation in the design of the communication strategy was restricted to AP
participants and consultants, even if it was based on field findings; i.e. inputs from
farmers and other rural interaction groups. The transformation of field findings,
i.e. those collected in the field through the PRCA exercise, into usable accounts
became a key section in the Action Programme. The problems and criticalities
212
encountered in this process were slowly, but gradually improved at any course.
While not being able to conclude with an “address-it-all” formula, the AP
provided participants with specific operational and strategic step-by-step
guidelines to address the issue of using field findings to design communication
strategies.
The validity of the methodological approach of the Project was reflected
in a number of documents. For example, in a progress report it was noted that
“The Action Programme is perhaps unique because it helps development
programmes make ‘people’s participation’ operational in practical terms” (Villet,
1996: 11). In the Technical Review Mission that visited the Project in December
1995 (Balit & Angeli, 1995) agreed that the FAO team had put in place an
effective strategy to support, promote and apply participatory communication
approaches in the region.
This was further confirmed in subsequent missions and reports by
individual consultants. The Tri-Partite Review Mission carried out in 1997 (FAO,
1997b) stated that the SADC Centre of Communication for Development had
already created significant interest in such an approach, and this was indicated not
only by the achievements in the projects being assisted but also by the fact that a
growing number of “project clients” from the region and beyond were becoming
interested in the Centre’s activities and were willing to pay for its services.
This last indication constituted one of the first and most significant
recognitions of the value and potential of participatory communication used in the
context of development. Of course, as one of the FAO informants mentioned,
213
participatory communication was still perceived and conceived as a sort of last
remedy when everything else appeared to fail. But the fact that its role and its
principles were being introduced at some point of the project cycle could be seen
as a sign of a shift in the development paradigm. The AP constituted a genuine
effort to push participation as far as possible, without stretching it over the
boundaries allowed by the projects’ objectives.
The FAO and SADC experts involved in the Action Programme were
well-aware of the contradictions of such an approach, but they were also inclined
to believe that an imperfectly applied participatory approach was better than a
fully vertically-based approach. Moreover, in a few cases the National Teams
themselves tried to induce significant changes in the overall project strategy to
account for demands and issues being raised by rural groups that had emerged in
the field during the PRCA. This, however, is not enough to regard the adoption of
participatory communication as being in the category of Empowerment
Participation.
The reports and documents examined in this study indicate, in a consistent
manner, general positive feedback about the approach devised by the FAO
Project. Furthermore, most of the issues that have been singled out for further
reflection and/or modification, by international consultants, Review Missions or
local partners, were promptly addressed improving the methodological approach
along participatory lines. The First Tri-Partite Review (FAO, 1996b) declared that
the Project had implemented most of the modifications suggested by the previous
Technical Review Mission. It also stated that (1996b: 13): “The training
214
methodologies applied by the project have been identified by the partners as being
participatory, innovative, practical and appropriate to their needs FAO.”
Unfortunately, in most of these documents the participatory communication
approach was considered within the framework of development efforts generated
with little or no participatory focus to start with. That is why I consider this phase
still within the Functional Participation category.
5.6.2 Evaluation
Even if not considered fully as part of this study, I believe that illustrating
the mechanisms through which the results and achievements of the Project were
evaluated can help provide a clearer overview of the whole picture. I intend to do
this by relying mainly on two documents,1 and in the process provide some of the
feedback expressed in those documents. The first is the FAO One-Year Extension
of Project (1998b), which while proposing the need for an extension of the Project
Main Phase, explains the rationale for such extension and reviews the main
achievements and constraints of the FAO Project after three years of its existence,
which is at the intended end of the main phase. The second document for
consideration is the Final Report of the Southern Africa Development Community
Centre of Communication for Development (SADC, 2002), which includes an
overall review of the challenges, achievements and constraints faced by FAO
Project throughout its existence. Even more significantly, it also includes a
Workshop report of the Stakeholder Evaluation of the SADC Centre of
1 As stated in a previous chapter, to carry out a comprehensive evaluation there would be the need to access not only more documents about the impact assessments and evaluation reports of projects enrolled in the Action Programme, which are not easily available, but also interview a number of rural stakeholders involved in such activities.
215
Communication for Development providing some insights on the perceptions of
some rural interaction groups being involved with the AP.
The One-Year Extension document concentrated on the constraints and
challenges faced by the Project until that moment, in order to provide a rationale
for further funding to extend its activities. In the results acknowledged by the
document there was the recognition of the validity of the innovative methodology
in participatory communication developed by the FAO Project and the SADC
Centre. The fact that the Centre was already generating income was considered as
a major success by the Italian donor and by FAO HQs, especially considering
how the Centre’s Vision and Mission Statements were in line with the original
Project intentions:
Vision Statement:
To promote the sustainable and systematic use of Communication in the
development process to help ensure people’s participation at all levels to
identify and implement appropriate technologies and policies for the
prevention of poverty.
Mission Statement:
To provide Communication for Development advice, training, linkages,
documentation and related services for stakeholders at all levels, including
the grass roots level, NGOs, and governments, on a demand-driven and
sustainable basis (FAO, 1998b: 18).
At this point in time, the evaluation of the Project was consistent with
issues already addressed above. The main achievements were the innovative
216
methodology and training program devised and that the Project/Centre was
already attracting clients willing to pay for their services. As far as constraints
were concerned, the report addressed the delays caused by the institutional
problems experienced by the project in the beginning and the lack of a clear
marketing strategy that would be able to position and sell the CCD’s services to a
wider audience, thus increasing its profits and making it possible to achieve full
sustainability.
While no one in the various TPR missions has raised major concerns over
the validity of the participatory communication approach adopted by the FAO
Project, neither have they acknowledged one of the core issues raised by a number
of consultants and communication experts. Is participatory communication being
adopted too late in the project cycle? And if so, can it still be considered of
significant value? To address this question briefly I am going to provide some
insights from the Final Report of the SADC-CCD (2002).
Even if the feedback provided by the stakeholders might not meet the
scientific criteria required by a positivist approach, they provide the pulse of some
of the people what have been involved in the process activities at the community,
professional and institutional levels. Twelve such persons, in representation of
institutions and projects that participated in the AP, were invited to join the final
workshop and to present their experiences when working and adopting the
participatory communication developed by the Centre. Next, I highlight some of
their thoughts on this issue.
217
A workshop participant, representing the Swedish Co-operative Centre,
which the SADC Centre assisted in the development of Self-Study Materials for
Small Holder Farmers under the Drought Mitigation project, stated that:
Whereas impact is usually of a long-term nature, it must be said that the
impact of the good work carried out jointly by the Swedish Co-operative
Centre and the SADC Centre of Communication for Development has
already started to show. This is despite the fact that the Swedish Co-
Operative Centre has not done much to market both the Study Circle
Program and the study material since 2001…” (SADC, 2002: 14).
This and other statements found in the Report confirmed how the
participatory communication adopted by the CCD was able to generate immediate
interest and results.
A Zimbabwean consultant of the SADC-CCD/FAO Project, whose
original background was in Participatory Rural Appraisal or PRA, declared that it
had been “refreshing to note that this project has lived up to its name and
approach of communication and participation, hence the stakeholder workshop,
which is meant to bring out different views and experiences, as a way of moving
forward” (SADC, 2002: 28). Furthermore the same consultant also noted that
“The approach used in this project [PRCA] has dispelled the thinking that PRA
techniques and tools cannot be used to interpret and analyze data” (SADC, 2002:
29). This testimony indicated how participation and communication had been
integrated into a single systematic approach that has not been experienced in the
region up to that moment.
218
One of the decision-makers at Agritex, an institution of the Zimbabwean
Ministry of Agriculture involved with the HTP project, discussed some of the
achievements and challenges facing the Centre. Its testimony is even more
interesting considering the fact that I clearly recall he was very hesitant, or
cautious, about this approach at the beginning of the activities. He mentioned that
Communication for Development’s major challenge was to facilitate the
development process allowing full participation by all stakeholders. In citing
some recent studies being made, he summed up farmers’ demands in the
following statement: “I have only one request; I do not ask for money or meat
although I have need of them, all I ask is that you facilitate the removal of the
Road Blocks from my path. The blocks are technological, socio-economic, and
environmental” (SADC, 2002: 43). The fact that farmers themselves were asked
to be supported rather be taken care of could be considered as a further sign for
the need of a dialogic mode of communication.
Another significant testimony was given by a Sister belonging to the
congregation of the “Inter-Regional Meeting of Bishops of Southern Africa,” also
known as IMBISA, composed by a number of “Bishops Conferences” from nine
Southern Africa countries. The SADC Centre collaborated with the Social
Communication Departments of IMBISA and AMECEA (association of “Member
Episcopal Conferences in Eastern Africa,” which includes eight countries). These
organizations adopted a communication approach focusing on Grassroots
Communication and Media and Liberation. Therefore a methodology such as
PRCA was quite in line with those approaches. The main priority in using media
219
for both IMBISA and AMECEA was to devise a “mode of communication which
is participatory, truly liberating and empowering people to take control of their
own life and realize their aspirations” (2002: 55).
That is why IMBISA and AMECEA thought that training some of their
staff in the participatory communication methodology developed by the
Centre/Project would be beneficial. The ultimate goal of the AP was to provide
the skills needed to facilitate individual empowerment and transformation in the
direction indicated by Freire (1997). The results appeared to have been
satisfactory and the Sister attending the stakeholders’ workshop in Harare
reported that “According to the feedback given by the AP Participants, the course
was very enriching and empowering” (SADC, 2002: 56).
There can be little doubt that the AP created a ripple effect, which
affected both persons and institutions, introducing the principles and the
techniques of PRCA at different levels and in different ways. A representative of
the Namibian Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development stated how
the AP participants’ capacity building has benefited the country’s agricultural
sector in general. This positive feedback helped spread the adoption of PRCA
principles and tools to other entities and communities in the development context.
Even though the collection of impressions and statements reported above
are by no means intended to provide a representative mechanism to assess the
SADC-Centre/FAO Project impact on people, they can be considered as a sort of
further validation of the arguments discussed so far in other sections of the study.
The overall feedback on participatory communication has been consistently
220
positive, but it usually focused at a micro level, ignoring the bigger picture, i.e.
the overall process. To have a more accurate picture of the impact of PRCA and
the project in general, an additional study, specifically focused on evaluation,
would be needed.
The above example is one among the many problems and flaws we often
encounter in the evaluation of development processes. Evaluating the
effectiveness of PRCA and its level of participation can result in even bigger
problems, starting with questioning the validity and implications of a concept
such as effectiveness and the operationalization of the term participation, if such a
term could be evaluated according to a common perspective. If, instead,
evaluation is truly part of a participatory process in which the power is held by the
primary stakeholders, then the whole approach should assume an entirely
different perspective and the primary stakeholders should be the one settings not
only the indicators but the whole methodological procedure. Furthermore, one of
the characteristics of participatory communication raises another sensitive issue,
as noted by an informant who declared “a process oriented approach needs
flexibility in the timing of planning and implementation but managers and donors
want concrete results within tight deadlines.”
The power of evaluation resides not only in the answers given but
especially in the questions being asked and the timing along which to assess the
impact. Participatory evaluation should give stakeholders the power to decide,
among other things, who should carry out the evaluation, what should be
evaluated, at what point in time and to whom the findings should be disseminated
221
to all stakeholders, thus ensuring that the findings will be likely to be useful and
made available for anybody interested. Guba and Lincoln (1989: 9) stated that:
“stakeholders can be empowered or disempowered through the selective
dissemination of evaluation findings. If information is power, then information
withheld is power reduced.” Evaluation of participatory communication
interventions is definitely a complex and challenging area, which needs to be
addressed in-depth to advance the adoption of such an approach further.
5.7 RESULTS
Concluding this chapter, I synthesize and recap the main issues for
reflection by reviewing how the conception and levels of participation identified
in my research have shifted in each phase. I look for patterns along which
participatory communication has been applied and has evolved. In the first phase,
i.e. identification of areas of intervention, the level of participation could be
considered to be participation by consultation, since the inputs about what the
project should be about has been proposed by international experts who derived
them from their experiences in the field. However, it should be reminded that the
innovative nature of this project would have made difficult to have it initiated
“endogenously.” Moreover, the Project focus was not at a local level, but at a
regional one, and its main interlocutors were representatives of national agencies.
The second phase is concerned with needs assessment and field research
and was formally named “The Preparatory Phase.” Relatively speaking, a lot of
time and resources were dedicated to this phase, which was practically considered
as an autonomous project. The data available for this phase indicate that relevant
222
issues have been investigated in great detail and there was an effort in trying to
involve all relevant stakeholders. One of the FAO informants involved in this
phase stated that, even if the proposal contemplated already the establishment of a
Regional Centre that could provide training and assistance in communication for
development to all SADC countries, “The concept was to be based upon a
participatory decision-making process between all concerned parties.”
An international team of consultants visited the countries and institutions
involved with the Project, trying to make sure that all meetings and discussions
held would serve to hear all relevant voices and consider all major concerns. From
the interviews and the available documentation it was not possible to assess
accurately the content of these consultations. One statement by an informant,
however, provides an isolated but significant indication about this: “I undertook a
first mission to Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Swaziland, Botswana to inform
governments about the concept and seek their request for participation in the
project design.” Whatever the case, as discussed previously, there was an effort to
involve most relevant stakeholders in the finalization of the projects’ nature and
objectives. Thus, the level of participation within this phase could be considered
to be between consultation and functional.
The formulation phase is closely linked with the previous one and presents
similar difficulties in assessing the level of participation. As presented previous ly,
the Project formulation was the result of complex and lengthy consultations,
which required a great amount of human and financial resources. Nevertheless,
the formulation per se was mostly made at FAO Headquarters in Rome. Without
223
access to the minutes of the negotiations that occurred at the time, it is difficult to
verify how much of the formulation has been based on needs and interests
expressed by representatives of the countries involved and how much it originated
from the experts’ perspectives of what such a project should be about and their
skills in marketing the idea. Nevertheless, the documentation reveals numerous
missions and meetings between FAO consultants and representatives of various
institutions of the participating countries. Hence, also this phase could be placed
in between the second and third level of participation that is between participation
by consultation and functional participation.
The next phase concerns the planning of the activities to achieve the
Project’s objectives and it occurred mostly in the field. It is logical that once the
objectives have been set the planning cannot include a wide degree of
“empowered participation,” since important decisions had been already taken.
However, the FAO team put a definite effort in devising mechanisms that would
take into account the various perspectives of institutions in participating countries
and involve them in the planning of Project activities. This led to some changes as
noted by an informant stating that “The project put a lot more emphasis on
experiential learning then originally envisioned, this was developed from the
practices in the field. The academic component, even if not as strong as originally
envisioned, was maintained, even if separate.” The establishment of National
Boards, as discussed in the previous chapter, is another mechanism put in place
during this phase. The greater emphasis placed on practical mechanisms, derived
224
from inputs from the field, indicates that this phase should be placed within the
category of functional participation.
The implementation phase is probably the one where participatory
communication approaches have been pushed the furthest. In a way the Action
Programme has been a project within the Project and it has allowed the
communication experts to exercise a higher degree of autonomy. Even if the
boundaries of participation were consistently defined by the objectives of the
projects enrolled, the AP provided training services and advice in line with an
advanced vision of participation, i.e. participation as a form of empowerment.
This was a point of strength from the participatory communication perspective,
but it was also a major challenge for the project as noted by an informant: “As an
alternative to the dominant paradigm of communication for development, it was
difficult at first to convince many organizations, including some in FAO, that the
approach was viable and valid.”
During this phase the Project experts and their SADC counterparts have
often debated the conception and practical applications of participatory
communication. The rationale for a new methodology related to this subject was
derived by the realization1 of the insufficient attention paid to participatory
principles and approaches by most communication interventions and by the lack
of clear communication strategies resulting from participatory techniques and
approaches. In time, this was further confirmed by projects and programs
1 This was based on a review done by FAO communication experts of available documentation and the needs assessment conducted in the region, as mentioned in Chapter 5.
225
contacted for enrollment in the AP. Very few of them appeared to have devised
clear communication strategies to address the issues of concern (Villet, 1998).
The establishment of the new methodology, that the experts of the FAO
Project, in collaboration with their SADC colleagues, devised and refined despite
the short period it has been in use, could be also seen as a major accomplishment,
as noted by an FAO informant: “It [the Project] provided a new tool - PRCA - to
communication practitioners, extension and development workers to promote
change in a more effective way.” PRCA combines the systematic application of
communication techniques and strategies with participatory tools and approaches
to be adopted in two kind of broad situations, i.e. the ideal one, exploratory
PRCA, and the one usually encountered, topical PRCA. This indicates how this
methodology was derived by the practical experiences in the field, but did not
neglect the theoretical conception for the ideal situation of “another
development.”
It is important to note how in this phase, at least one of the international
consultants and a number of AP participants, have emphasized the need for
training, or awareness building, not only for the field workers but also and
especially for the decision-makers. This was also confirmed by one informant
who mentioned that managers and decision-makers should be made more aware
of participatory communication approaches stating that “Participation should not
only be applied in the field but also within the Project to sensitize managers and
make them aware of the relevance of Communication for Development and how
this can be a valuable help for accomplish their objectives.”
226
Despite the fact that this phase has been the one that has probably
witnessed the highest degree of participation, it still cannot be included in the
category of empowerment participation. In fact, participation, for as much that
could have been applied, was always limited by the project’s pre-established
priorities. This does not mean that the AP participants and the rural stakeholders
did not try to push it far enough, rather it means that as far as practical results and
communication strategies were concerned, they had to adhere to the projects’
stated objectives. Participation in this phase can be considered to be fully in the
functional category.
Monitoring of the projects activities appeared to follow the same pattern
above, maybe with a lesser emphasis on a participatory mode, since monitoring
does also have direct implications on the project management and can become a
sensitive issue.1 The available documentation and the interviews indicated how
the standard FAO procedures for monitoring (e.g. written periodic reports and
external evaluation missions) were complemented by the monitoring of the
activities related to the field training component (e.g. AP consultants reports,
surveys conducted as part of the PRCA, AP evaluation surveys). This indicated an
attempt toward including, as much as possible, relevant inputs to ensure that the
Project was in line with the intended objectives. Hence, mostly due to its
institutional structure, in which recurrent checkpoints were required both
internally and externally of the Project, monitoring can be considered to have
1 As an additional note derived by the words of at least an informant and by my own personal experience, while trying to applying participatory principles and approaches in the field, the FAO Project itself was hardly managed in a participatory mode, and that was reflected in a number of elements, monitoring being one of them.
227
been between a form of participation by consultation, especially when concerned
with the monitoring of FAO Projects activities, and functional participation, when
concerned with the monitoring regarding the follow-up of activities regarding
other client-projects.
Based on the findings, there is a clear indication that, consistently with the
literature on the subject, the conception of participatory communication in this
project has been vague and multifaceted, as reflected in this statement by an
informant, “Participatory communication cannot be defined with one sentence.
Rather it should be characterized through certain aspects: Start by listening;
ensure a two-way flow, giving a voice to everybody; emphasis on the process not
on the media; social objectives, that is capacity building; and use of media
suitable to local cultures.” It is also been highlighted that the conception of
participatory communication has changed from the initial stage, derived by a
meeting with an elite group of scholars-consultants.
This change was not always clearly defined and it occurred slowly through
the application of participatory communication in the various phases. More
discussion on this will occur in the next chapter. For the moment let me point out
that the degree of participatory communication, as applied in the project and
referred to the typology devised in Chapter 3, appears to have slowly but steadily
increased through the various phases. It went from a low degree of participation
by consultation in the first phase to a high degree of functional participation in the
implementation phase.
228
The data reviewed also indicate the need for assessing carefully who were
the primary decision-makers and the primary stakeholders within each phase,
since the project was a rather articulated one. In the initial phases (i.e. from the
identification of the area of intervention to the project formulation) the main
decision-makers were the responsible officers at FAO Headquarters. Even if the
whole idea appeared to have been originated through the lobbying efforts of an
elite group of international consultants and had to be “mediated” with the donors,
FAO communication experts were the ones guiding the process.
There is also a secondary group of decision-makers, represented by the
representatives of the countries interested in participating in such a project. They
might not have initiated the action, but they could decide whether and how to
participate, thus influencing the process. In a way, these were also the primary
stakeholders in these first phases. That is, representatives of participating
countries and others representing national institutions, public, private and
academic, were the counterparts with whom the FAO Project was establishing a
dialogue to refine the objectives and the design of the project.
In the phases of planning and implementation the heavier responsibility in
decision-making shifted to the Project site in Harare. The main decision-makers
were now the FAO Chief Technical Advisor and the other FAO international
experts. The primary stakeholders can be divided in two levels. On a first level
there was the management of development projects and programs, needed to be
persuaded of the validity of participatory communication in order “to buy” its
services. On a second level, the primary stakeholders became the field workers of
229
those projects and programs, who were being trained in participatory
communication techniques and methods in the AP, and even the individuals of the
local communities themselves, who were part of the capacity building exercise by
being involved in the PRCA.
The documents reviewed and, especially, the informants interviewed also
indicated that there have not been many projects similar to this one as indicated
by the following statements: “It is unique for a number of reasons: because of its
being a regional project, because of its location and because of its subject matter.”
“Such projects are very rare. The main reason is that donors prefer to address
concrete immediate problems, such as the environment, rural development, etc.
and they neglect this kind of strategy.” “The aim of the project was unique.” “It is
very difficult to find development projects with a communication focus per se.
Communication is normally used to support other sectors.” These statements
confirm that a project such as this, intended to reflect upon and promote the
adoption of participatory communication theoretical models and practices, acting
as a service for other development projects and programs, was a rare occurrence
in the development world.
Overall this chapter has explored how, through a lobbying effort of a
restricted group of individuals, participatory communication has become the core
concept of a major regional project meant to address and improve some of the
main challenges faced today by development: people’s participation and
sustainability. I have illustrated how the concept was initially introduced and
“sold” to the donor and then how it was “presented” to the countries of Southern
230
Africa. I have also explored how the concept of participatory communication has
been operationalized within each phase, illustrating strengths and constraints. In
the next chapter I will do an in-depth reflection on the findings of my study and
draw the conclusions.
231
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS AND USABLE INSIGHTS
At this point, after having illustrated and discussed the process and the
various aspects related to participatory communication in the FAO Project
“Communication for Development in Southern Africa,” I intend to summarize the
central findings of the study and reflect on the relevant issues that have emerged.
Based on my work, I intend to raise a number of key questions and propose
recommendations for further research. I believe this study is particularly
significant since it tries to bridge the academic perspective of participatory
communication with the practical aspects encountered in the field. This is not
often done, as noted by Ascroft and Masilela (1994: 281) who stated:
Any self-respecting development communication scholar today will be
very careful to champion the cause of people’s participation in development more
or less in the same way that they would champion democracy or freedom of
speech as a basic human right. But few understand its implications because few,
very few, have ever been directly involved in projects in which theirs was the task
of operationalizing the concept and implement ing it in real life situations.
6.1 ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF STUDY FINDINGS
There are a number of interesting points that have emerged through the
study and in order to cover them in a comprehensive manner I intend to discuss
them as they appeared when illustrating the sequence of the project cycle. Among
most informants interviewed, as well as from the documentation reviewed, there
232
was a wide consensus that participation is most relevant at the beginning of the
project cycle (i.e. identification of sector/area of intervention), or even before,
when ideas are identified and discussed in order to be submitted for possible
assistance. To have full participation, development activities should be initiated
ideally by the primary stakeholders, but even when that is not possible, it should
at least involve them from the beginning. Involving them means not only
facilitating their taking part in the process, but also making sure they have the
power to affect decisions.
First, I intend to discuss issues related to my research questions. The main
one explores the way in which participatory communication had been conceived
and applied in the FAO project “Communication for Development in Southern
Africa.” This approach has been confirmed to have different and at times
divergent conceptions. However, there have been some basic features that have
remained constant throughout the project cycle. These features, namely dialogue,
endogenously driven and process-oriented, will be discussed in more detail
through the chapter. They can be considered to form the basis of participatory
communication, not only as conceived at a theoretical level but also as
operationalized at a practical one.
Another related sub-question was meant to investigate if and how the
initial conception of participatory communication changed through the different
phases and if so how. Overall, the data reviewed in this case study indicate that
participatory communication conception and its applications have varied
accordingly to the various phases and the actors involved. For instance, in the
233
formulation phase, the decisions were taken mainly at FAO Headquarters in
Rome, but in the implementation phase participatory communication approaches
were largely rooted in the required dialogue occurring during the field research.
The data have also indicated that the initial emphasis on the academic dimension,
probably due to personal biases of the main consultants, was replaced by one
more oriented towards the capacity building of field workers and grassroots
communities during the phases of planning and implementation.
By using a metaphorical image, we could envision the project as a very
steep mountain and participatory communication as a climber, who has moved
very cautiously, but it has managed to slowly climb higher. By the end of the
study the climber has not yet reached the peak, but there are clear indications that
the climber has moved forward, or better upwards. This appears to be a positive
step towards the construction of the alternative paradigm mentioned in the
literature review. Participatory communication, while it is not a revolutionary
approach, appears to contain elements that can help to empower stakeholders who
have been often marginalized or passively involved in the development process.
The metaphor while addressing the research question mentioned above
provides also an insight for another, closely related question, which concerns how
the conception of participatory communication has changed through the project
cycle. It is not easy to give a definite answer, but the evidence presented indicated
that the Project was initiated by some international experts, with a heavy
emphasis on the academic dimension, having a conception of participatory
communication in line with the current literature on the subject. The conception
234
then changed as the Project moved through the cycle, or higher up the mountain.
Talking about participatory communication as applied in the Project an informant
declared “All the phases of the approach underwent numerous changes during the
first part of the project. This is not surprising since the concept is highly mutative
in response to the objective conditions of the beneficiary communities.”
The biggest change apparently happened in the planning and
implementation of the activities at field level. The Project lost much of its
theoretical and academic connotations acquiring a new one, oriented more to the
realities of field projects and practical issues derived by the daily reality of
grassroots communities. At that point, the different “souls” of participatory
communication had to come to terms with the many implications occurring when
operationalizing its principles into actions.
Since to the slow climbing up the mountain corresponded a gradual shift
from a theoretical-academic perspective, to a practical one, less ambitious but
more in line with reality, it could be inferred that increasing the degree of
participation is inversely related to the current conception of participatory
communication. This has probably been one of the ma jor “surprises” emerging
from my research. I had not accounted for this from the beginning, hence I believe
I do not have enough evidence to draw definite conclusions. Nevertheless, I
strongly advise to probe this aspect and conduct research on how having an
“idealistic” notion of participatory communication could actually constitute an
impediment for the achievement of its practices.
235
Finally, my investigation was expected to highlight and discuss eventual
similarities and differences between participatory communication as conceived
and applied in the FAO project and the way it has been reviewed in the literature.
This has been the hardest question to address. Here I became aware of a
“disjunction” about much of the theory and the practical implications of applying
participatory communication. For instance, while no one appeared to object that it
should be based on dialogue, I found very few scholars providing in-depth
analytical and explanatory models of what dialogue entails (e.g. access, power
etc.) in the development context. Furthermore, those scholars usually did not
come from the field of communication for development (e.g. Freire, Bohm).
Others such disjunctures occur in dealing with the conception of
participatory communication as a process. While this issue has been discussed by
a number of scholars, I have not found much in term of discussing the effects and
implications of using participatory communication after the development process
has been initiated by others, (i.e. including participation in projects designed and
decided by others). Even if it was not a specific concern of this study, I have not
seen much about how to address this topic. Or better, I have come across
publications advocating for a paradigmatic change, but very few provided
indications or debated the specifics of how this change should occur. Probably the
lack of normative theoretical constructions is an issue that would need further
investigation.
Given the discussion presented in Chapter 5, it should be evident that
despite the fact that the FAO Project was devised to promote the adoption of
236
participatory communication, the level of participation within the project cycle
cannot be considered to have been at its optimum. And yet, most of the
informants, the national and international consultants who came in contact with
the Project’s work, the TPR mission reports and the documentation reviewed
considered the project to have been one of the most innovative and genuinely
participatory in this field.1 So much so, that it was presented, and the value of its
approach acknowledged, at the General Assembly of the United Nations, as
illustrated previously.
The contradictions emerging in the study do not necessarily invalidate the
relevance of such a project, which could only operate within the existing
framework of development practices. Rather, these contradictions indicate wider
structural problems in the world of development. As discussed in Chapter 2,
providing aid and technical assistance through “development projects” makes it
very difficult to account for people’s participation. Projects are usually proposed
by international agencies or are initiated by a formal demand from recipient
countries, either on their own initiatives or “advised” by international agencies or
donors’ countries. Whatever the case, it is extremely rare for a grassroots
community or any other local entity to ask for assistance on a specific issue and,
even if that should happen, it is even rarer that local entities might be involved in
the formulation of projects.
1 This is further confirmed by my own personal experiences in this field. For the last fifteen years I have become directly familiar with many projects and have attended many conferences exchanging information over various projects and initiatives having communication components in countries of Africa, Asia, Central and Latin America. None of those were close to the conception and modus operandi of the FAO Project.
237
The reasons for neglecting local groups in the initial phases are several.
Among the main ones is the prevailing institutional framing of development,
which still gives the power of guiding the process to top managers in international
organizations, which in turn are dependent from major countries for the funding.
These factors need tight accountability rules and it is certainly easier for donors to
hold accountable a few individuals in the Headquarters, usually located in major
cities, than far away communities with unclear hierarchies. Similarly, it is easier
for managers to take decisions reflecting donors’ needs and intentions, rather than
having the needs and the priorities of local communities guiding the process. This
latter instance is not only more complex and time consuming, but it can be also
threatening as it reduces the status and the power of managers.
Therefore, when discussing and assessing the FAO Project, we should
keep in mind the structural constraints within which participatory communication
is applied. The main point of contention here concerns the appropriateness of
analyzing and discussing participation, when the purpose and objectives of the
intervention have been already set. Related to this, there is also the issue of
relevance to consider in terms of the level of participation within each phase of
the project cycle ; that is independently from the other phases. This is a concern
that emerged only after I started my research, since so far neither my experiences
nor the literature led me to address this issue.
Through this case study I became fully aware of the problems deriving
from considering and assessing participatory communication within each phase of
the project cycle, thus “decontextualizing” it from the overall process.
238
Nevertheless, despite the limitations in following such an approach, after some
careful thinking and reviewing of the literature and the Project documentation, I
decided that for the sake of clarity, and also considering that an imperfect level of
participation is still better than no participation at all, I would proceed along the
lines mentioned above. That is, I assessed and discussed participatory
communication within each phase in order to provide a more valuable and
comprehensible insight about its conception and adoption.
This study indicates that participatory communication can be a significant
element in involving local stakeholders to take part in the development process,
even when applied only in a partial way. Interviews and reviewed documentation
confirmed that the FAO Project has indeed made a significant contribution in this
field. Having said this, I should also state that ideally I do not consider it
appropriate to conceive and apply participatory communication only in certain
phases, as this invalidates the whole purpose of the participatory paradigm. If I
accept its application on a partial scale, it is because I consider it the least
objectionable option in the current development reality.
At this point, I should also reflect upon the classification I devised in
Chapter 3 and consider its relevance. As a brief reminder, the four broad
categories devised were the following: passive participation, participation by
consultation, functional participation and empowered participation. In trying to fit
each phase within one of these categories, I faced again and again the concern
discussed above; i.e. how relevant it is to assess the level of participation
independently from the other phases. Once these premises are accepted, based on
239
earlier discussions, the typology devised appears to have served well the scope of
the study, even if this should not make us forget the limitations and flaws due to
the fact that individuals are participating in activities only after the process has
been initiated without them.
Two other issues need to be further discussed and clarified. The first is
strictly related to the nature of this project. Once the national and international
communication consultants identified the needs and the benefits for having a
center adopting and promoting participatory communication approaches, and once
these were further confirmed by relevant public and national organizations, in
order to adopt a participatory approach was it indeed necessary to involve all rural
stakeholders when proposing such a project? If it was, in all likelihood such a
project would have never occurred, as discussed in previous chapters. So maybe
participation in this case should be treated with some extra flexibility, recognizing
the importance for all parties to work together, making mutual decisions about
how the project should be implemented.
It is certainly important to consider who initiated the action, but it is also
important that once initiated all parties involved consider it relevant in order to
work together and have the possibility to decide whether such action is desirable
and eventually how it should be implemented. It is also worthwhile remembering
that this project was basically initiated by a restricted group of experts, or what
could be defined as an elite group. This would appear to be not very participatory,
to say the least. Yet this group was trying to promote an approach, which based
on their knowledge and experiences in the field, was ultimately intended to get
240
local stakeholders actively involved in the decision-making process of
development initiatives.
6.2 REFLECTIONS ON MODELS OF PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION
Reflecting on the above analysis and synthesis of the findings, which have
been characterized by an emphasis on the practical conception of participatory
communication, I am now going to discuss the theoretical underpinnings of
relevant issues. The first ones concern the most basic questions: What is
participatory communication? How it is addressed through the process of project
conception and implementation? By addressing these issues I will clarify further
the main research questions of the study.
I already stated that, based on the literature review, the investigation about
the FAO Project activities and the interviews conducted there is not a consensus
over a single comprehensive definition. Having such a coherent approach may not
even be such an asset for this discipline, as argued by Servaes (1996) and a few
others. The diversification of perspectives and applications vary greatly in the
literature of this field, where scholars have treated participatory communication in
a wide range of conceptions, from those still somehow rooted in the old sender-
message-receiver model (Mody, 1991) to the most alternative ones where the
communication flow among two or more parties implies also a sharing of power
in the decision making-process (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998; Wilkins, 2000).
However, even if there is not a unanimous conception of participatory
communication, there are a few basic characteristics which are common among
all the various conceptions.
241
In order to define a common platform for participatory communication, it
is useful to highlight a set of common features, as identified in the study. There is
a wide consensus among the informants and the documentation reviewed that
participatory communication should be based on dialogue, should be process-
oriented and should be endogenous ly driven, that is reflecting local values and
context. Endogenously driven, as illustrated by Servaes (1991) refers to the fact
that the kind of development supported by participatory communication should
not be based on a universal model, but rather it should be derived by the
adaptation of local socio-cultural settings. Scholars have not yet advocated the
establishment of an explanatory model that could be applied to all circumstances.
As noted by an informant, “Participatory communication is not always easy to
apply because there are no specific models of reference.” Nevertheless, I believe
that even if endogenously driven, it is possible to devise working models flexible
enough to comply with the basic principles of participatory communication
regardless of where they are applied.
Dialogue is another element considered by these informants to be central.
Dialogue implies a balanced relationship, which goes beyond the analysis of
communication flow directions. Participatory communication presupposes a
people-based communication, or one characterized by a horizontal flow. This
presupposes a readjustment not only of the communication flow, but also of the
power balance. The critical point here is overcoming years, if not centuries, of
domination and subjugation patterns that have instilled various forms of suspicion
and passive behavior towards outsiders in many local cultures of developing
242
countries. Ascroft (as cited in Anyaegbunam, Mefalopulos & Moetsabi, 1999), an
international consultant hired by the FAO Project, described this phenomenon as a
form of resistance and named it “the conspiracy of silence.” It is, therefore, clear
that meaningful dialogue cannot happen instantly. To adopt participatory
communication it is not enough to look each other in the eyes and talk. In order to
have genuine dialogue, suspicions must be overcome and mutual trust must be
established.
The fact that true dialogue and participatory communication presuppose a
balanced sharing of influence or power (Wilkins, 2000) leads to another major
concern, which has been posed in a clear way by Alamgir (1989: 9): “Is genuine
participation possible in the face of inequalities?” He wonders if, for instance,
poor rural women without any assets can sit next to smallholders, usually men,
owning some land and having a much greater degree of influence. This issue has
come up also in a couple of projects enrolled in the Action Programme, as
discussed in this study.
PRCA has tried to take into account such sensitive points, for instance, by
segmenting the community in interaction groups having similar backgrounds and
a similar relation to the issues being discussed. Nevertheless, the question still
remains relevant, since it cannot be negated that differences in wealth and access
to resources usually means a different weight of influence in the community i.e. a
difference in power. However, this holds true in most situations, including
Western democracies, and should not be considered an impediment for adopting a
243
participatory approach, rather it should be accounted for and when possible
minimized.
Another major feature, recognized by many scholars and practitioners,
concerns the fact that participatory communication is a process, and as such
should not be seen as a specific activity or as a static model. Instead, it should be
a dynamic element present in all the various phases of the project cycle. Being a
process presents challenges not always understood by everybody, including the
fact that any assessment of its impact should be process-oriented rather than
product-oriented. The former approach ensures a continuous sharing of
knowledge and experiences usually facilitating the capacity-building that could be
considered an advanced form of participation, close to the category of
participatory empowerment. Here communication is no longer considered
exclusively, or mainly, for the transmission of messages to selected audiences but
it becomes a process through which people can open up a dialogue, can learn
through the exchange of knowledge and experience, can assess situations and can
play an active part in the decision-making process leading to change.
In practical terms, this means that participatory communication goes
beyond most traditional communication models, since its purpose is not restricted
to communication in the traditional sense, but as one FAO informants stated
“communication techniques in PRCA are used also for problem-analysis and
problem-solving, not just for defining a proper communication strategy.” This
statement contains two interesting insights which are not dealt extensively in the
literature. The first concerns the fact that problem-analysis and problem-solving
244
are considered to be an integral part of communication, thus taking
communication out of the message transmission model. The second insight refers
to the mentioning of the communication strategy, an aspect often neglected in the
main body of academic work, at least in as far as the use of participatory research
to derive a communication strategy is concerned.
The literature review concerning participatory communication does not
appear to be too interested in understanding and expla ining the relevance and
complexity of linking and transforming the field findings in usable outputs upon
which to draw communication strategies. In other words, the Project’s documents
revealed that one of the major challenges of the approach promoted in the field
was that of devising communication strategies based directly on the field research.
There are only few examples of scholars who have dealt with this issue, as
illustrated by Huesca (2003).
Providing some models or theoretical guidelines explaining how to
transform data collected in a participatory way into usable accounts, upon which
to design a communication strategy, would be a very relevant contribution to this
field, especially for practitioners. The reason why this topic does not seem to have
been extensively treated in the literature might be found in the reflections of
Ascroft and Masilela (1994) and their claim that very few of the scholars who
write about participatory communication have had the occasion to operationalize
this approach for use in the field. Without the need for this operationalization, it is
very difficult to visualize how the process would work.
245
The way the FAO Project intended to bring change can be summed up in
the simple image of the Johari’s Windows presented in Chapter 1, meant to
illustrate the need for a dialectical process, in which all stakeholders are playing a
relevant part according to their knowledge and experiences. Along similar lines,
for Freire (1997), true participation can be considered an emancipatory
experience, leading to the individual’s transformation towards a human being
freed from the “structures of oppression” and capable of taking control of his/her
own life. Participatory communication takes a longer winding road, but its
ultimate objective is close to the one illustrated by Freire.
Freire’s conception of empowerment is close to another principle of
PRCA: capacity building. This basically means that while being part of the
process, individuals do not only address the issues at stake, but they are also
exposed to different perspectives and have the opportunity to share experiences
and knowledge with other individuals. If done through a balanced and equitable
mode, this can lead to social transformation, started or based on a joint decision-
making process, as illustrated in the PRCA communication model, which does not
entail a sender and a receiver, as in the traditional one. Instead, this model
envisions two, or more, decision makers, whoever they might be, each having the
power to influence the process. Figure 6.1 gives a visual representation of this
model. Both the figure and the quote below have been taken from the PRCA
Handbook developed by the FAO Project and the SADC CCD:
In this working model of Communication for Development, the traditional
designations of receiver and source have been changed to Decision-
246
makers A and 1. A is the first letter of the alphabet while 1 is the first
number of the Arabic Numeral. In this way, there is ideally no element of
dominance in the model as it has been the case with earlier communication
models. It is recognized that the two decision-makers do not share the
same communication skills with the result that C (communicator) in this
model is seen as a facilitator who interacts with each decision-maker
within his or her own frame of reference. The facilitator translates
utterances and actions of one decision-maker in order to create mutual
understanding that leads to successful joint decision-making
(Anyaegbunam et al., 1998: 9).
Figure 6.1: Working Model of Communication for Development
This model also helps to clarify one issue that has not always dealt
satisfactorily in the literature. It concerns the role of the communicator in
247
participatory communication, seen here as a facilitator rather than a “media man.”
Similar to what Ascroft and Masilela (1994) have described, communication in
the FAO Project has been used to facilitate dialogue, building mutual trust and
allowing the exchange of knowledge and experiences in order to analyze
problems and look for solutions. Only when these tasks are achieved can
communication be directed to more traditional communication activities such as
identifying relevant approaches, selecting media, designing messages to raise
awareness, increase knowledge or change practices where needed.
Finally, it should be mentioned that the findings of my study indicated that
PRCA, on one hand, envisioned a participatory process funded on a few
fundamental principles (i.e. dialogue, mutual trust, participation, sharing, etc.),
which can be considered universally valid in their essence, following the
reciprocity principle based on the respect for the multiplicity of perspectives and
viewpoints, as indicated by Servaes (1991). On the other hand, the PRCA model
took also into account the complexity and specificity of each situation and, in line
with the endogenous nature required by participatory approaches, did not provide
pre-cooked recipes to be applied in the various situations. Instead, it provided
some basic principles and guidelines upon which to build a methodological
approach capable of investigating the critical issues respecting the
epistemological and ontological assumptions of constructivism discussed in
Chapter 3.
248
6.3 VALUABLE INSIGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I would like to start this section with an observation that is not strictly
related to the main objectives of the study per se, but it seems to be a crucial one
for the future of this field. In the course of my interviews, one question has been
often raised and that is: What can be done to convince the decision-makers in
international institutions and national governments about the necessity of
adopting communication for development, or participatory communication, in
development practices? The answer is almost implicit in the question.
The validity and effectiveness of this approach must be established to
managers and policy-makers. This is a task not easy to achieve since they seem to
be more interested in approaches that can provide quantifiable results, usually in
the short run, rather than in people-based process oriented approaches that usually
require a longer period of time for results and that are often not tangible or
difficult to quantify. This was well reflected in the answer of one informant who
identified “the lack of concrete, or visible results” as one of the major obstacles to
a wider adoption of participatory communication approaches.
During the course of my interviews this issue came up a number of times
and to illustrate the point more effectively another informant narrated how in an
African country torn by war the Ambassador in situ of a Western country
approved the disbursement of the funds for the construction of a school in an area
of conflict, which was switching periodically between the government forces and
the rebel forces, with the result that no class could have taken place in it. But
during the period when the area was under the Government control he might have
249
the opportunity to get a picture of the school funded by its Government’s money
on a national newspaper. That kind of publicity would be more difficult to do with
a communication activity. A manager of a development initiative once told me
that he would have never endorsed the disbursement of three million dollars for a
communication project such as ours while the Southern African countries had so
many other priorities to deal with. After all, he stated, everybody can
communicate; so why allocate money for this issue!
The task of convincing planners and managers about the importance and
validity of this approach is no t easy. This would need careful reflection and might
be the source for further study in this direction. It is clear that to be widely
adopted participatory communication must move away from its current status,
where managers and decision-makers acknowledged its utility but very few are
willing or able to understand fully its relevance and adopt it. To achieve this,
communication efforts need to be directed to the current power-holders of
development before even addressing local stakeho lders’s perceptions and
priorities. The following is a summary of the main lessons and insights learned
from this study:
1. A project adopting and promoting participatory communication should
apply those principles from the very beginning, making sure that all
relevant stakeholders are not only taken on board, but involved in the
conception and design of all objectives and activities. In previous
discussions it has been highlighted how the use of participatory
250
communication only in selected phases of the project cycle significantly
diminishes its relevance.
2. It has been discussed how, in order to promote the adoption of this
approach, managers and decision-makers should be conversant with the
principles and applications of participatory communication approach. It
has been noted how raising the awareness and familiarity of participatory
approaches of middle managers and field workers can result in
dysfunctional responses by those higher up in the institutional structure,
i.e. field workers pushing for more participation, managers opposing it, or
not supporting it, with the result of having increased internal tension and
frustration. Participatory communication approaches should be conceived
and applied in a consistent manner at various levels, within the institutions
and in the field.
3. In light of the previous point, among the primary stakeholders to be
addressed by such a project, there should be attention given to
development managers, planners and policy-makers. One of these reports
by an AP consultant explicitly mentioned how the training workshop
would have been more effective if it had addressed to managers and
decision-makers (Johnston, 1996). Empowerment of grassroots
communities is very important, but so is raising the awareness and
familiarity about these issues with those on the top of the pyramid. If this
study would serve to raise the awareness among development managers
and decision-makers about the importance of their being familiar with the
251
scope and functions of participatory communication, in my opinion, it
could be the most valuable contribution to this field by this study.
4. A successful participatory communication approach must be considered as
a process, running parallel to any other development activity, facilitating
its operations. As it was put forward in one of the meetings held by the
FAO Project: “Communication is like the oil of the engine of a car. It is
not a hardware component of the engine, but without the oil the engine
will not run.” Despite the mentioned constraints, throughout the whole
process it has been assessed as a definite, even if not homogeneous,
participatory effort. The highest level was achieved in the implementation
phase. This could be ascribed to the fact that the communication experts in
the field had a bigger influence over the activities and thus could promote
more vigorously such an approach. The daily direct contact among
communication experts, the AP participants and rural stakeholders could
also be considered as a major factor in having stretched the participatory
boundaries of the Project conception on participatory communication.
5. Having to apply participatory communication approaches only in on-going
projects, with pre-determined objectives, has been one of the main
constraints of the FAO Project. This constraint has definitely affected the
scope and nature of participatory communication applications. In order to
be fully participatory a development intervention needs to be initiated,
designed, implemented and evaluated by the primary stakeholders, or at
least they would need to be involved in those activities in a significant
252
way. Probably at this point in time, this is a wish rather than a concrete
possibility. Nevertheless, similarly to what happened through the course of
this project from its beginning, participatory approaches appear to be
slowly gaining ground leaving the door open, in the near future, for the
involvement of primary stakeholders form the initial phases. This
approach is not likely to result in radical changes, but it can assist in
pushing for gradual improvements towards greater people-based
involvement and control.
6. The documents reviewed, the interviews carried out and my own personal
experiences tend to confirm that the FAO Project “Communication for
Development in Southern Africa” has been indeed an innovative project in
the international scenario, as far as the promotion and adoption of
participatory communication is concerned.
7. A final point, which is not strictly related with the theoretical or practical
conceptions of participatory communication, but has emerged in a number
of interviews, concerns the economic sustainability of such activities. In
order to succeed and be replicated, services such as those provided by the
SADC-CCD need to be performed on a cost recovery basis. As stated
previously, despite the formal acknowledgements, there is no strong
“political” support for the systematic adoption of participatory
communication approaches. This means that donors are unlikely to fund
projects specifically dedicated to this discipline. Hence, it becomes vital
that projects of this nature achieve a self-sustainability tapping in the vast
253
resources allocated to international development. To succeed in this, they
need to prove their added-value, documenting their achievements and
promoting their services following an effective marketing strategy. In this
respect, it is interesting to raise a point that came up in an interview, when
an informant noted that “In fact, the first systematic marketing study on
the demand for communication for development training and advisory
services within SADC member states was carried out, ironically, only at
the end of the project implementation (i.e. in 1998).”
After having worked for almost four years on the practical reality of the
above project and after having spent an even longer period studying issues related
to this topic in the academic world I would like to draw my personal vision, or my
ambition, for this discipline. I strongly believe that participatory communication,
while being neither a panacea for all past development flaws, nor a revolutionary
alternative to the current paradigm, carries the seeds of a meaningful change
towards a more equitable and people-based paradigm. By combining the
emancipatory power implicit in participation with the empowering characteristics
residing in horizontal communication, i.e. dialogue, participatory communication
can allow individuals not only to have their voices heard, but to learn gradually to
take control over decisions concerning their own lives. As Thomas (1994) and
many others have emphasized, participatory communication is a political act. To
be consistent with the current democratic framework being promoted globally,
before any other consideration of technical nature, people’s rights to be involved
in the decision-making process should be recognized.
254
The assumption I make in proposing an alternative model, is that
development guided by the “project approach” is here to stay for a while longer
(even if I believe this approach needs to be radically revisited, if not abandoned
altogether and substituted with more horizontal and less structured approaches).
In order to perform its most genuine functions (e.g. opening up dialogue, building
trust, empowerment, etc.), participatory communication cannot be adopted only at
certain points in time of the project- cycle. It should be considered a necessary
component of any project or program from the initial phases. In other words,
participatory communication needs to become an embedded component of any
development effort.
Participatory communication should not be used just for needs’
assessment, for communication campaigns, for design of messages or for
evaluation of projects’ impact, at least not as autonomous phases. Participatory
communication needs to be operationalized in a working model, much alike the
PRCA, supporting the whole process of any development intervention. Planners
and decision-makers need to become fully aware that before starting they should
consider participatory communication diagnostic, not only to discover the various
perceptions on an issue but also to build from local expertise and to facilitate the
involvement of local stakeholders in the decision-making process.
Drawing from the many readings and insights I came across during my
work, I could highlight the general elements for a model that I tentatively name
Communication Framework for Development Projects/Programs - CFDP, which
would serve as a basis to develop the built- in component I have discussed above.
255
By labeling it as a framework, my intention is to emphasize the flexibility
required by such component in order to be valid in most situations according to
the different social and cultural contexts of local stakeholders. The CFDP, which
would have to be adopted from the very beginning of the process, would be
broadly composed of three elements. The first would be the Participatory
Communication Diagnostic, the second Participatory Communication Strategic
Design and the third Participatory Communication for Evaluation.
In more detail, Participatory Communication Diagnostic is roughly
equivalent to what it has been referred to in this study as Exploratory PRCA and it
should be carried out at the beginning of any activity that could lead to the
formulation of a project or a program. Its intent would be that of opening up
communication channels with all potential stakeholders, hearing their voices and
perceptions and allowing mechanisms for a genuine sharing in the decision-
making process. During this phase, all stakeholders would have a chance to open
up a dialogue, exchange knowledge and experiences, identify development
priorities, compare perceptions, analyze needs, opportunities, problems and
solutions. Finally, this phase would establish the priorities needed for the
formulation of the objectives as identified by local stakeholders.
The next phase, Participatory Communication Strategic Design, is
concerned with the project implementation in all its activities, from the planning
to the implementation. Since it is highly unlikely to be able suddenly to null the
vertical structure of development projects, participatory communication can for
now help to facilitate the involvement of primary stakeholders in the formulation
256
and planning phases and can be used to allow them to monitor the process
throughout and eventually provide inputs for modifications in real time. Clearly,
this might cause some problems and sensitive situations; however, if participation
has to be adopted those problems are a necessary nuisance towards the intended
goal: guaranteeing to relevant stakeholders a higher control over initiatives
concerning their own lives.
Finally, Participatory Communication for Evaluation is intended to assess
and evaluate the activities both during the project’s activities and over time at the
end of its activities. Primary stakeholders here must have the power to say the last
word about the questions to be asked, the methods to be adopted, the individuals
who should carry out the exercise and the indicators to be used for the evaluation.
Clearly all of these activities can be carried out with the outside experts; however,
the primary stakeholders should be the ones ultimately responsible for evaluating
the impact, as they are the ones who will ultimately bear the consequences.
Naturally, this implies that not only the project managers, but also officers of the
local government and donor agencies must accept this kind of assessment. To be
genuinely participatory, evaluation needs to consider people’s satisfaction before
political or economic gains of third parties.
This study has also shown how difficult it is trying to apply in a consistent
way the principles of participatory communication when the overall social and
administrative structure is not fully compatible with this philosophy. As one
informant noted “In order to apply participatory communication in an appropriate
form, there must be a conducive environment.” That kind of environment cannot
257
be created in a day. It is going to take time and a hard struggle, in which the
proponents of this approach will have to fight not only against the ones to oppose
openly participatory communication, who are not that many, but especially
against the so-called “bouncing-walls.”
This is a colorful expression used by an informant to describe all those
managers and decision-makers who cannot afford to oppose openly participation,
but who are unable or unwilling to accept its systematic application in the
everyday practices of development. Hence, they adopt bouncing-walls tactics,
whereby there is no formal opposition, but rather a form of passive non-
cooperation. Unfortunately, these managers appear to constitute a considerable
portion of the officers in positions of power in many international agencies.
I would like to conclude this section with a hyperbole or a provocative
statement, meant to steer further thought rather than trying to provide an answer.
Overall, based on the available evidence and the status of participatory
communication at the time, the results of the FAO Project can be considered as a
step forward towards a wider adoption of this approach. However, as an extreme
point, it could also be argued that the Project was ill conceived, since it appears
that the ones who needed the most to be exposed to the benefits and advantages of
such an approach, i.e. the policy makers and development managers, have been
only marginally involved and familiarized with it.
Maybe the next time such a project is conceived, it should take place not
only in the poorest rural communities of developing countries but also in the
Headquarters of international organizations in Rome, Paris or New York and the
258
primary stakeholders should be both at administrative and professional levels. In
this way, the ones who decide the policies and priorities of development, and the
ones who have the responsibility of implementing them will share knowledge and
experiences in this field, getting a common understanding of what participatory
communication entails.
6.4 CONCLUSIONS
In concluding my work, I would like to refer back to the main research
question of the study. Exploring the way participatory communication has been
conceived and applied in the FAO project “Communication for Development in
Southern Africa” has been an insightful journey, which answered some of the
questions and raised some new ones, as illustrated previously. Even if its origin
could hardly be conceived as participatory, I have illustrated how the FAO Project
was marked by a genuine attempt to promote the adoption of participatory
communication. The constraints and limitations of participatory communication
highlighted in this study have been mostly due to the development framework
within which this approach has been adopted.
A definite step forward will happen when that framework will be changed.
In this respect, I would like to point out that while many scholars have debated the
needs for radical structural changes in the current development paradigm, very
few have proposed feasible solutions and even fewer have studied the effects and
implications of applying a fully participatory approach to development. What
would happen if participation should be considered a prerequisite to start any
development initiative? Would it be possible? And if so, how? Who would plan,
259
implement, monitor and evaluate development projects/programs? And how?
These questions are not of direct concern in this study, but are the logical next
step when dealing with this field. These are questions that would need to be
addressed if participation has to become fully embedded in the development
paradigm.
Scholars also need to address the issue of how to promote participatory
communication to policy and decision-makers. In many ways, it seems that this
field is still experiencing one of the problems highlighted by experts in their 1987
meeting at FAO (1987a): how to “persuade” decision-makers of the relevance of
participatory communication. There is the need to investigate and document how
it is not only politically correct but also an asset for development to adopt such an
approach. Of course, the fact that the ultimate goal of such an approach would be
that of putting the power of decision-making in the hands of local stakeholders
could be perceived as a threatening factor by those who are currently in the
position of deciding if and how promote the adoption of such an approach.
My study has also confirmed that not only has this project been on the
edge of the frontier of participatory communication as currently conceived, but it
has also highlighted that the application of its conception has been a hard and
complex task to accomplish. The data confirmed that the way participatory
communication has been applied in the first phases of the Project was different
from the way participatory communication has been applied in the field during the
implementation phase. It is difficult to operationalize in the daily routine of
development practices the theoretical principles of such a horizontal and
260
egalitarian approach, given the vertical structures of the development institutions,
both at an administrative and professiona l level. In addition to this, the vague and
multifaceted interpretation of what participation actually entails has made difficult
the consistent application of participatory communication throughout the whole
process.
If I should summarize what have been the main contributions of my study
I would like to start with the most obvious one. It intended to provide a
comprehensive description and a deeper understanding about participatory
communication, both in its theoretical conception, as well as in its practical
applications. The model applied by the FAO Project, with all its limitations and
constraints, has been particularly suitable for the scope of my research. It is not
easy to find an international development project that allows its team of experts to
reflect on the theoretical conception of a discipline and then operationalize this
conception into the practicalities of the field. This is even a rarer occurrence if
applied to a project exclusively dedicated to the promotion and adoption of
participatory communication practices. That is why the findings of this study can
be considered to provide, in a number of ways, a rather unique insight into the
theory and practice of participatory communication, as conceived and applied in a
major international project.
Of all the other issues raised and discussed in this study two are of
particular value for comparison with the literature, especially for those trying to
adopt participatory communication in the field operations. The first concerns the
issue of assessing and investigating participatory communication conception and
261
practices in specific points in time. This is an issue that I have previously not seen
adequately reflected in the literature, and yet I believe it is a very relevant one.
Even though most scholars tend to consider participatory communication as a
process, not many of them have reflected upon the implications of adopting it in a
“non-process” way.
I believe further studies are needed to investigate the implications of using
participatory communication for specific purposes at specific times. The findings
of my study indicate that assessing it within each phase of the project-cycle helps
to identify and compare the degree of participation within each phase. However,
they do not provide a definite answer about how relevant such an approach is,
when broken up in separate parts, considering its underlying philosophy and the
definition given for the highest form of participation, in which primary
stakeholders should be involved in the whole decision-making process.
A further contribution of my study to the body of work in this field can be
found in the identification of another critical area that is not significantly reflected
in the literature. We have previously discussed how there seems to be a missing
link between participatory research and the definition of a communication
strategy, as confirmed by an informant who stated that “designing effective
communication strategies from the field research was a difficult task to achieve.”
FAO experts struggled with this issue all throughout the duration of the AP. Since
they could not find many references in the available literature, they devised a
working framework through a process of learning by doing, drawing from the
experiences derived by working with client projects. This framework was meant
262
to organize the field findings in such a way that would be easier to use them for
defining objectives and designing a communication strategy.
The documentation reviewed indicated that the lack of a clear
communication strategy was a common feature of basically all the projects being
considered for the AP. An informant stated that “even those projects with
communication activities did not appear to be able to explain the rationale for
such activities. Often this was due to their lack of understanding about what a
communication strategy entailed.” In other words, it is not easy to find models or
guidelines that illustrate effectively how to link participatory-based findings in the
research phase with the design of a communication strategy. This means that
communication activities planned and implemented in a number of projects were
the result of isolated actions and tactics rather than part of an integrated strategy.
In conclusion, my study has shed some light on critical aspects regarding
participatory communication as a way not only of improving development
practices, but of gradually facilitating that process of liberation or
“conscientization” (Freire, 1997) by those individuals who so far have been at the
margins of development. Participatory communication it is not a discipline that
can, or should, indicate what kind of development would be more appropriate. It
is rather an approach that can facilitate the process of change in the direction
regarded as meaningful by those who for years have been regarded as passive
beneficiaries and now are starting to be perceived as “human beings,” with the
right and the knowledge for taking decisions for themselves.
263
The conception of development is gradually being transfo rmed, slowly
shifting from its previous exclusive economic perspective to one where the needs
and priorities of individuals are considered on a more holistic basis. GNPs and
other economic indicators are no longer the exclusive measure for people’s
quality of life. Participatory communication can surely facilitate the process
leading to the definition of valuable development indicators for this purpose. In
this respect, it should assist in any phase of the development effort since it is
intended at facilitating dialogue and collaboration for a purposeful change.
However, since it is a political act, this approach is much more controversial and
sensitive than others, such as the more classic media-oriented one, for instance,
where technologies have been often promoted as value-free and their effects can
be foreseen and planned at a central level.
Most of the above discussion is focused on operational aspects, related to
the practice of participatory communication. Reflecting on these aspects has
revealed a major limitation in the current theoretical body in this field. Reviewing
the literature discussed in Chapter 2, and comparing it with the findings of the
study, it is possible to see how the theory behind participatory communication is
in many ways idealistic, and in some ways also simplistic. It often refers to ideal
type situations without reflecting adequately on the practical implications and the
realities in which participatory communication has to be applied. Except for some
basic principles, it is difficult to relate the findings of my work directly to the
theoretical body presented in the literature. There seems to be a gap between what
264
is presented in the theory of participatory communication and the applications this
approach is expected to deal with in the field.
This gap is due to a number of factors, the most relevant being that, in
general, scholars did not have to confront their theoretical reflections with the
implications derived by their applications in the field. This is evident also from
the many methodological approaches used in this field, especially in the research
phase, which are still based on the traditional vision where the central focus of
communication is concerned with the design and transmission of messages.
Huesca (2003: 23) states that to overcome this limitation at the methodological
level “this requires thinking through the ontological and epistemological
assumptions that mandate the dissolution of subject-object relation and lay the
groundwork for participatory communication for development.” Preaching about
participation without considering in-depth its practical implications and the wider
framework within which this approach must operate is of little value.
I have already mentioned how this approach, to be consistent and true to
its principles, must be based on a constructivist perspective. This entails that
reality is defined according to the social construction of specific groups of people.
Participatory communication, then, must take into account the relevance of
perceptions, when investigating issues and exploring inputs for an appropriate
strategy. It is important that, as noted by Servaes (1991), this field would focus on
normative theory, as a further commitment to social change. Nevertheless, this
should not neglect to consider the current reality of the development context, nor
265
the implications that any normative theory could face when adopted within that
reality.
Strangely enough, one of the few normative theoretical approaches
relevant to this field appears to be the dialogic communication presented by Paulo
Freire (1997). His work focused exclusively on group dialogue, its dynamics and
potentials, neglecting other media such as print, radio and television (Servaes &
Malikhao, 2003). This does not constitute such a handicap for our purposes, but
the fact that one of the major theoretical bodies of work in this field, still relevant
today, comes from a non-communication specialist gives an indication not only
about the maturity of the field at that time but also of the amount of work still
needed before filling the gap mentioned above.
Concluding my study, I would like to acknowledge the many individuals
who are still looking for a way to achieve a more equitable and just reality around
the world. A number of them are trying to achieve it through participatory
communication, and while this does not constitute a radical break from the old
paradigm, it is going in that direction. The case study of the FAO Project has
indicated how, by simply trying to adopt the practices of participatory
communication in development projects, a number of sensitive nerves have been
touched, raising tensions and uncomfortable situations, especially in the projects’
management. Maybe this is a positive aspect, since change is seldom an automatic
process and “rocking the boat” may lead to a deeper rethinking of the overall
approach currently being adopted in development.
266
Achieving change is never easy, especially when this implies reshaping
the power currently allocated. The FAO Project “Communication for
Development in Southern Africa” appeared to have made a significant
contribution towards the adoption and promotion of participatory practices, while
at the same time supporting changes based, if not driven, by the primary
stakeholders at field level. I believe it is worthwhile reflecting upon such an effort
and further investigating the critical issues this study identified but could not
address in-depth. Among those, I would highlight the evaluation of the project
impact; the relevance of participation when not included in the very beginning of
the process; and investigating what would be the best ways to win the support of
the decision-makers in order to institutionalize the adoption participatory
communication in development practices.
Let me emphasize once more that the way this subject is dealt with in the
literature also needs to change in order to reflect better the complexity of the
reality in the field. Change should start from the theoretical assumptions
underpinning the current literature, e.g. focusing on the implications of what is
meant by people’s participation, and should concern a wider change including
much of the terminology, starting from the term participatory communication
itself, which I would propose to change to empowerment communication, to
emphasize the need for a process in which communication does not only facilitate
dialogue, but leads to people’s transformation, or “conscientization,” through the
redefinition of the power balance.
267
If theory is a way of explaining or accounting for reality, this study tends
to indicate that the current theories on participatory communication are not
capable to achieve this task in a satisfactory way. Participatory communication
needs to be provided with a theoretical framework capable of assisting in
interpreting situations in the field and in defining some basic principles, more
process-oriented rather than product-oriented, which could be virtually
universally accepted. At the same time it needs to maintain the flexibility required
to account for local realities and the relevance of endogenous elements, as
reflected in its epistemological and ontological stances.
To move forward this field requires that scholars start paying more
attention to the practical implications of applying participatory communication.
At the same time, decision-makers and development managers need to become
more aware of the necessity of incorporating this approach in development
practices. This argument is sustained both at the political level, i.e. the right of
individuals to participate in the decision-making process regarding their own
lives, and at the professional level, where to a more complex and time consuming
approach correspond the definitions of objectives more relevant to the priorities of
local stakeholders and highest chances for their long term sustainability. In other
words, the field of participatory communication needs to refine and combine the
theoretical elements underpinning its conception with the vast array of
implications occurring when it is operationalized for the everyday practices of the
development context.
268
Appendix A: Cover Letter for the Participant in the Research
The University of Texas at Austin
Title of Research Study : Theory and Practice of Participatory Communication: The Case of the FAO Project “Communication for Development in Southern Africa.” Principal Investigator: Paolo Mefalopulos (under the supervision of Professors J. D. Straubhaar and K.G. Wilkins) Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Radio-Television-Film The University of Austin, Texas Tel. (512) 2368720 Email: [email protected]
This is to inform you that you are being asked to participate in a research
study entitled: The Theory and Practice of Participatory Communication: The
Case of the FAO Project “Communication for Development in Southern Africa.”
The Principal Investigator (the person in charge of this research) will also
describe this study to you and answer all of your questions.
The purpose of this study is to conduct an in-depth review and comparison
on how participatory communication has been defined and conceived
theoretically, in the literature, and practically, in the field by FAO, one of the
major international organization using this approach. A specific attention will be
given to the case of the FAO Project “Communication for Development in
Southern Africa.” A number of officers involved with the formulation and
planning of the project in question, and with other projects having similar
269
characteristics, are going to be interviewed to explore in-depth the main issues
involved in the application of participatory communication approaches. I estimate
the number of respondents to be around twenty, even though the exact number
will be determined according to the needs of the study as it progresses.
In this study the respondent (i.e. you) will be asked to reflect about issues
concerned with participation and communication and provide some feedback on
the issue of participatory communication in general. You might also be asked (if
relevant to your position) to provide some feedback on how participatory
communication is conceived and how it relates to the formulation and
implementation of the activities of the FAO project.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary and there are no costs of
any kind involved. If you do not want to take part in this study, you are free to
refuse and the refusal will not influence current or future relationships with The
University of Texas at Austin. You are free not to complete the interview and if
you wish to stop your participation in this research study for any reason, you
should contact: Paolo Mefalopulos in Austin, Texas: tel. (512) 6937270, email:
[email protected], or Professor Joseph Straubhaar at (512) 4715304,
email: [email protected]. You are free to withdraw your consent and
stop participation in this research study at any time without penalty or loss of
benefits for which you may be entitled.
270
In addition, if you have questions about your rights as a research
participant, please contact Clarke A. Burnham, Ph.D., Chair, The University of
Texas at Austin Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects,
(512) 232-4383.
Your privacy and the confidentiality of your research records are going to
be safeguarded carefully. The University of Texas at Austin and the Institutional
Review Board have the legal right to review your research records and will
protect the confidentiality of those records to the extent permitted by law.
Finally, to obtain additional information about the study, you can contact
the researcher at any time during the process at the address provided above.
271
Appendix B: Interview Guide Sample
Section A Code: Name: Gender: Nationality:
For how long have you been working with the Organization and with which functions?
What is your background?
What specific experiences do you have in the field of communication and/or participation?
Have you been involved with the Project Communication for Development in Southern Africa? If NOT go to section B and stop at the end of it. If YES since when and in what capacity? Section B The next section will deal with three concepts closely interrelated: COMMUNICATION (in general), PARTICIPATION and COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT (or PART. COM). According to your experience, which ones are the main ways in which COMMUNICATION is being used in development? I.e. what are its most common uses in the development context? What do you consider to be the main advantages/strengths of using COMMUNICATION (as described above)? And its limitations/weaknesses?
According to your experience how would you define or conceive PARTICIPATION (separately from communication) as currently used in development?
272
What do you consider to be the main advantages/strengths of using some form of PARTICIPATION. And its limitations/weaknesses?
Are you familiar with the concept of COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT (or PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION)? If so how would you define it?
What are the major strengths, and weaknesses, of COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT (or PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION), especially when contrasted individually with each of the two concepts?
In your opinion, COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT (or PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION) should be used in every development project or only where appropriate? Why?
(If answered yes to the previous question) What do you think are the main reasons that make difficult the systematic adoption of COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT (or PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION) in development projects? What can be done to promote its value?
Section C (If answered yes to question 1 in section A): Have you been involved in any of the phases of the project cycle of the Communication for Development in Southern Africa? If so which one and in what capacity? I.e. 1. Identification of area/ sector of intervention; 2. Research/Needs Assessment; 3. Project formulation (at HQ); 4. Planning (strategy design and workplan by the project); 5. Implementation; 6 Evaluation.
Have you noticed any change in the conception and/or adoption of this approach in the different phases, especially as conceived in HQ and as applied in the field?
What do you consider to be the major points of strength of this project (especially in relation with its participatory communication approaches)?
273
And what are its main weaknesses/limitations?
Based on your knowledge/experiences, do you consider this particular project to be a frequent occurrence or a rare instance among the family of development projects?
Would you consider useful establishing more similar projects promoting the adoption of COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT (PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION) approaches? If NOT, why? If YES, why? (i.e. changes proposed to improve such projects? )
Are you aware of the reasons why FAO decided to conceive such an innovative project and Italy decided to fund it?
Finally, do you have any suggestion about documents I could review and persons who would be relevant to my research?
274
REFERENCES
Agar, M.H. (1996). The Professional Stranger (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Alamgir, M. (1989). Participatory Development: The IFAD Experience. In W. P. Lineberry (Ed.), Assessing Participatory Development: Rhetoric Versus Reality (pp. 3-18). Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Anyaegbunam, C. Mefalopulos, P. and Moetsabi T. (1998). Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal: Starting with the people. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO/SADC.
Anyaegbunam, C. Mefalopulos, P. and Moetsabi T. (1999). Facilitating Grassroots Participation in Development: New Training Models and Techniques. In S. A. White (Ed.), The Art of Facilitating Participation (pp. 207-228). New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications.
Ascroft, J. (1994). Participatory Decision Making: A Parable. In S. White with K. S. Nair and J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory Communication: Working for Change and Development (pp. 247-258). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Ascroft, J. and S. Masilela (1994). Participatory Decision Making in Thrid World Development. In S. White with K. S. Nair and J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory Communication: Working for Change and Development (pp. 259-294). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Axford, B. (1995). The Global System. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bagadion, B. U. and Korten, F. F. (1985). Developing Irrigators Organization: A Learning Process Approach. In M. M. Cernea. (Ed.), Putting People First (2nd ed., pp. 73-112). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barber, B. R. (1992) Jihad Vs. McWorld. The Atlantic Monthly. March, v. 269, n.3, 53-62.
Barnet, R. J. and Cavanagh, J. (1994) Global Imperial Corporations and the New World Order Dreams. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Beetham, D. (1994). Key Principles and Indices for A Democratic Audit. In D. Beetham (Ed.), Defining and Measuring Democracy (pp.23-43). SAGE Modern Politics Series, v. 36. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
275
Beigdeber, Y. (2001) New Challenges for UNICEF. Houndmill, Great Britain: PALGRAVE.
Black, J.K. (1999) Inequity in the Global Village. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. London, UK: Routledge.
Bordenave, J. D. (1994). Participative Communication as Part of Buidling the Participative Society. In S. White with K. S. Nair and J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory Communication: Working for Change and Development (pp. 35-48). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Boyd-Barrett, O. (1997). International Communication and Globalization: Contradictions and Directions. In A. Mohammadi (Ed.), International Communication and Globalization: A Critical Introduction (pp. 11-28). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Bradshaw, Y. W. and Wallace, M. (1996). Global Inequalities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Brown, R. (2001). From an Answer to a Question: Globalization in the Information Age. In S. Lax (Ed.), Access denied in the information age. (pp.218-233). New York, NY: Palgrave.
Burkey, S. (1993) People First: A Guide to Self-Reliant Participatory Rural Development. London, UK: Zed Books Ltd.
Carden, F. (2000). Giving Evaluation Away: Challenges in a Learning-based Approach to Institutional Assessment. In M. Estrella (Ed.), Learning from Change. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Carmen, R. (1996). Autonomous Development. New York, NY: Zed Books.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Cernea, M. M. (Ed.). (1985). Putting People First (2nd ed). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London, UK: Longman.
276
Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Chelimsky, E. and William R.S. (Eds.). (1997). Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny. London, UK: Zed Books.
Cornwall, A. (2000). Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: Perspectives on Participation for Poverty Reduction. Gothenburg, Sweden: Sida Studies n.2.
Cranknell, B. E. (2000). Evaluating Development Aid: issues, problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cusworth, J. W. and Franks, T. (Eds.). (1993). Managing Projects in Developing Countries. Essex, UK: Longman Scientific and Technical.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: the Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Esteva, G. (1992). Development. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary (pp. 7-17). London, UK: Zed Books.
Fals-Borda, O. and Rahman, M. A. (Eds.). (1991). Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research. New York, NY: Apex Press.
Ferguson, M. (1992). The Mythology about Globalization. The European Journal of Communication. Vol. 7, 69-93.
Fetterman, D.M. (1996). Empowerment Evaluation. In D.M. Fetterman, S.J Kaftarian and A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability (pp. 3-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fierlbeck, K. (1998). Globalizing Democracy: Power, Legitimacy and the Interpretation of Democratic Ideas. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
277
Frank, A. G. (1969). Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Fraser, C. and Restrepo-Estrada, S. (1998). Communicating for Development. London. UK: I.B. Tauris Publishers.
Fraser, C. and Villet, J. (1994). Communication: a key to human development. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Freedman, J. (1998). Simplicities and Complexities of Participatory Evaluation. In E.T. Jackson, and Y. Kassam (Eds.), Knowledge Shared: Participatory Evaluation in Development Cooperation (pp. 23-35). Ottawa, Canada: Kumarian Press, 1998.
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of Hope. New York, NY: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Continuum.
Friedman, T.L. (1999) The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Galbraith, J. K. (1983). The Anatomy of Power. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Ghai, D. and Vivian, J. M. (1992). Grassroots Environmental Action: people’s participation in sustainable development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Polity Press.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Prison Notebooks. New York, NY: International Publishers.
Guba, E.G. (Ed.). (1990). Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Guba, Egon.G. and Lincoln Y.S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Guijt, I. and Shah, M. K. (1998) Waking Up to Power, Conflict and Process. In I. Guijt and M. K. Shah. (Eds.), The Myth of Community: gender issues in
278
participatory development. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Gutiérrez, L.M., Parsons, R.J. and Cox, E.O. (Eds.). (1998). Empowerment in Social Work Practice: A Sourcebook. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Hall, S. (1997). The Local and the Global: Globalization and Ethnicity. In A. D. King (Ed.), Culture, Globalization and the World-System (pp. 19-39). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Hamelink, C. (1995). World Communication. Disempowerment and Self-Empowerment . London, UK: Zed Books.
Herman, E. and McChesney, R. (1997). The Global Media: the New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism. London, UK: Cassell.
Hettne, Bjorn. (1995). Development Theory and the Three Worlds (2nd ed.) Essex. UK: Longam Group Ltd.
Hodges, V. G., Burwell, Y. and Ortega, D. (1998). Empowering Families. In L. M. Gutierrez, R. J. Parsons and E. O. Cox. (Eds.), Empowerment in Social Work Practice: A Sourcebook (pp. 146-162). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing Co.
Holland, J. with Blackburn, J. (Eds.). (1998). Whose Voice: Participatory research and policy change.
Hopkins, T. K. and Wallerstein, I. (1982). World-Systems Analysis. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Hornik, R. C. (1998). Development Communication: Information, Agriculture, and Nutrition in the Third World. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Huesca, R. (2000). Communication for Social Change among Mexican Factory Workers on the Mexico-United States Border. In K.G. Wilkins (Ed.), Redeveloping Communication for Social Change: Theory, Practice, and Power (pp. 73-87). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Huesca, R. (2002). Participatory Approaches to Communication for Development. In W. B. Gudykunst and B. Mody (Eds.), International and Intercultural
279
Communication (pp. 499-518, 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Huesca, R. (2003). Tracing the History of Participatory Communication Approaches to Development: A Critical Appraisal. In J. Servaes (Ed.), Approaches to Development: Studies on Communication for Development (ch.8 pp. 1-36). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Hussein, K. (1995). Participatory Ideology and Practical Development. In N. Nelson and S. Wright (Eds.), Power and Participatory Development (pp. 170-180). London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.
IFAD. (1993). Communication for Rural Development: a review of IFAD’s approach to current projects and outlines for the future. Rome, Italy: IFAD.
Jacobson, T. (1994). Modernization and Post-Modernization Approaches to Participatory Communication for Development. In S. White with K. S. Nair and J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory Communication: Working for Change and Development (pp. 60-75). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Jacobson, T. and Servaes J. (Eds.). (1999). Theoretical Approaches to Participatory Communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, Press, Inc.
Jacobson, T. and Kolluri, S. (1999). Participatory Communication as Communicative Action. In T. Jacobson and S. Kolluri (Eds.), Theoretical Approaches to Participatory Communication (pp. 265-280). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, Press, Inc.
Jaffe, D. (1998). Levels of Socio-Economic Development Theory. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger.
Jeffrey, J. (2000). Consumption, Globalization and Development. New York, NY: St’ Martin’s Press.
Jones, J.F. and Pandey, R.S. (1981). Social Development: Conceptual, Methodological and Policy Issues. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Katz, E. and Lazarfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal Influence. New York: Free Press.
Kiely, R. and Marfleet, P. (Eds.). (1998). Globalization and the Third World. London, UK: Routledge.
280
Klapper, J. (1960). The Effect of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press.
Lasswell, H. (1948). The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The Communication of Ideas (pp. 37-51). New York, NY: Harper.
Lerner, D. (1958). The Passing of Traditional Society. New York, NY: Free Press.
Lineberry, W. P. (Ed.). (1989). Assessing Participatory Development: Rhetoric Versus Reality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lisk, F. (Ed.) (1985). Popular Participation in Planning for Basic Needs. Gower House, UK: International Labor Organization.
Lummis, C. D. (1992). Equality. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary (pp. 38-52). London, UK: Zed Books.
Maathai, W. (1995). Prerequisites of an Agenda for People. In U. Kirdar and L. Silk. (Eds.) People: From Impoverishment to Empowerment. (pp. 380-386). New York, NY: New York University Press.
MacBride, S. (Ed.). (1980). Many voices, one world: Communication and society, today and tomorrow. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Marsden, D. and Oakley, P. (Eds.). (1990). Evaluating Social Development Projects. Oxford, UK: OXFAM publications.
Marshall, A. A. and Stohl, C. (1993). Participating as Participation: A Network Approach. Communication Monographs. Vol. 60, n. 2, 137-157.
McChesney, R. (1999). Rich Media, Poor Democracy. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
McKee, N. (1994). A Community-based Learning Approach: Beyond Social Marketing. In S. White with K. S. Nair and J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory Communication: Working for Change and Development (pp. 194-228). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
McMichael, P. (1996). Development and Social Change: a global perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Mefalopulos, P. (2000, May). Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal: using communication to put people first. Paper presented to the
281
Conference of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico.
Mefalopulos, P. and Barros, B. (2002) Introducción a la Comunicación Participativa para el Desarrolo Sostenible. Santa Marta, Colombia: Impresos Caribe.
Mefalopulos, P. and Kamlomgera, C. (2002). Participatory Communication Strategy Design. Harare, Zimbabwe: SADC/FAO.
Melkote, S. R. (1991). Communication for Development in the Third World: Theory and Practice. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.
Melkote, S. R. (2000). Reinventing Development Support Communication to Account for Power and Control in Development. In K.G. Wilkins (Ed.), Redeveloping Communication for Social Change: Theory, Practice, and Power (pp.39-53). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Midgley, J., Hall A., Hardiman, M. and Narine, D. (1986) Community Participation, Social Development and the State. London, UK: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Milbrath, L.W. (1965) Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
Miller, K.I. and Mong P.R. (1987). The Development and Test of a System of Organizational Participation and Allocation. Communication Yearbook. Vol. 10, 431-455.
Mody, B. (1991). Designing Messages for Development Communication. New Dehli, India: Sage Publications.
Mowlana, Hamid. (1997). Global Information and World Communication. (2nd ed). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (Eds.). (1995). Power and Participatory Development. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Nordenstreng, K. (1999). The Context: Great Media Debate. In R.C. Vincent, K. Nordenstreng and M. Traber (Eds.), Towards Equity in Global Communication: McBride Updated (pp. 235-268). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.
282
Parsons, R.J. (1988). Evaluation of Empowerment Practice. In L. M. Gutiérrez, R.J. Parsons and E. O. Cox, (Eds.), Empowerment in Social Work Practice: A Sourcebook (pp. 204-233). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Parsons, R.J., Gutiérrez, L.M. and Cox, E.O. (1988). A Model for Empowerment Practice. In L. M. Gutiérrez,, R. J. Parsons and Cox, E.O. (Eds.). Empowerment in Social Work Practice: A Sourcebook (pp. 3-23). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Pieterse, J.N. (1995). Globalization as Hybridization. In M. Featherstone, M. S. Lash and R. Robertson, Global Modernities (pp. 44-68). UK: SAGE Publications, 1995.
Pretty, J.N., Gujit I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, I. Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainer’s Guide. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development, 1995.
Rahman, M. A. and Fals-Borda O. (1991). A Self-review of PAR. In O. Fals-Borda and M. A. Rahman (Eds.), Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research. New York, NY: Apex Press.
Rahnema, M. (1992). Participation. In W. Sachs, (Ed.). The Development Dictionary (pp. 116-131). London, UK: Zed Books, 1992.
Raimondi, A. and Antonelli, G. (2001). Manuale di Cooperazione allo Sviluppo. Torino, Italia: SEI.
Riaño, P. (Ed.). (1994). Women in Grassroots Communication: Furthering Social Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rich, B. (1994). Mortgaging the Earth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Robirosa, M., Cardarelli, G. and LaPalma, A. I. (1990). Turbulencia y Planificación Social: Lineamentos metodológicos de gestión de proyectos sociales desde el Estado. Buenos Aires, Argentina: UNICEF.
Rogers, E. (1962). The Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
283
Rogers, E. M. (Ed.). (1976). Communication and Development: Critical Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rondinelli, D, A. (1977). Planning Development Projects. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc.
Rondinelli, D. A. (1993). Development Projects as Policy Experiments: an adaptive approach to development administration (2nd ed.) London, UK: Routledge, 1993.
Rostow, W. W. (1971). Stages of Economic Growth (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sachs, W. (Ed.). (1992). The Development Dictionary. London, UK: Zed Books.
Schiller, H. I. (1991) Not Yet the Post-Imperialist Era. Critical Studies in Mass Communications, 8, 13-28.
Schramm, W. (1964). Mass Media and National Development. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Seitz, V. R. (1995). Women, Development and Community for Empowerment in Appalachia. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Servaes, J. (1991). Toward a New Perspective for Communication and Development. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Communication in Development (pp. 51-86). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Servaes, J. (1999). Communication for Development: one world, multiple cultures. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.
Servaes, J. (2003). Communication for Development Approaches of Some Governmental and Non-Governmental Agencies.
Servaes, J., Jacobson, T. L. and White, S. (Eds.). (1996). Participatory Communication for Social Change. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.
Servaes, J. and Malikhao, P. (2003). Development Communication Approaches in International Perspective. In J. Servaes (Ed.), Approaches to Development: Studies on Communication for Development (ch.7, pp. 1-38). Paris, France: UNESCO.
284
Shepherd, A. (1998). Sustainable Rural Development. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Spybey, T. (1996). Globalization and World Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Sreberny-Mohammadi, A. (1997). The Many Cultural Faces of Imperialism. In P. Golding, and P. Harris (Eds.), Beyond Cultural Imperialism: globalization, communication and the new international order. (pp. 49-68). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Straubhaar, J. (1991). Beyond Media Imperialism: Asymmetrical Interdependence and Cultural Proximity. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 1-21.
Tehranian, M. (1977). Communications and National Development. In M. Tehranian, F. Hakimzadeh, M. L. Vidale (Eds.), Communications Policy for National Development: A Comparative Perspective (pp. 17-50). London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Tehranian, M. (1990). Technologies of Power: Information Machines and Democratic Prospects. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Tehranian, M. (1999). Global Communication and World Politics: domination, development and discourse. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner.
Thomas, P. (1994). Participatory Development Communication: Philosophical Premises. In S. White with K. S. Nair and J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory Communication: Working for Change and Development (pp. 49-59). New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Titi, V. and Singh, N. (1995). (Eds). Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Toward Operational Strategies. London, UK: Zed Books, 1995.
Tomlinson, J. (1991). Cultural Imperialism. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and Culture. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
Uphoff, N. (1985). Fitting Projects to People. In M. Cernea (Ed.), Putting People First (2nd ed., pp. 467-511). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
285
UNDP. (1990-1999). Human Development Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
UNESCO. (1996). Report on the Sixth Round Table on Communication for Development, 2 – 5 September, 1996. Harare, Zimbabwe: UNESCO Regional Office for Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Wallerstein, I. (1990). Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World-System. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity (31-56). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Wang, G. and Dissanayake, W. (Eds.). (1984). Continuity and Change in Communication Systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
White, S. with Nair, K. S. and Ascroft, J. (1994). Participatory Communication: Working for Change and Development. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Wilkins, K. G. (1994). Toward an Approach to Quantitative Research in a Word Without Intrinsic Properties. Paper presented to the International Communication Association Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Wilkins, K. G. (Ed.). (2000). Redeveloping Communication for Social Change: Theory, Practice and Power. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Wilkins, K. G. (2002). International Development Communication: Proposing a Research Agenda for a New Era. In W. B. Gudykunst and B. Mody (Eds.), International and Intercultural Communication (2nd ed., pp. 537-551). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Woods, N. (2000). The Political Economy of Globalization. London, UK: MacMillan Press Ltd.
World Bank. (1990-2000). World Development Reports. New York: Oxford University Press.
Worlsley, P. (1984). The Three Worlds. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
286
Zaman, W. A. (1984). Public Participation in Health Programs. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
287
FAO PROJECT-RELATED DOCUMENTATION
Amukogo, E. M. (Speaker). (1995). Statement delivered at the launching of Communication Programme in Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. [Public Speech]. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Anyaegbunam, C. (1995). Initial Assessment of Communication Skills Needs. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Balit, S. and Angeli, L. (1995). Technical Review Mission: 4-15 December 1995. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Balit, S. (1996). Back-to-Office Report – Roundtable on Communication for Development. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Balit, S. (1999) Voices for change: Rural Women and Communication. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Caley, F. N. (1997, December). Auchab, S., Mbish, F., E., Nandjebo, P. N., Simataa, A. M. and Wa-Kihimise, R. Communication Strategy to Reduce Reluctance of Adult Illiterates to Enroll and Remain in the National Literacy Program in Namibia. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Coldevin, G. (1987). Perspectives on Communication for Rural Development. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Coldevin, G. (1995, September). Report of a Backstopping Mission Undertaken in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Coldevin, G. in collaboration with the Extension, Education and Communication Service of FAO. (2001). Participatory Communication and Adult Learning for Rural Development. Rome, Italy: FAO.
D’Huys, P. (1997, October). Mission Report: Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
FAO. (1967). Program of Work and Budget for 1968-69. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1969). Program of Work and Budget for 1970-71. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1971). Program of Work and Budget for 1972-73. Rome, Italy: FAO.
288
FAO. (1973). Program of Work and Budget for 1974-75. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1975). Program of Work and Budget for 1976-77 Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1977). Program of Work and Budget for 1978-79. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1979). Program of Work and Budget for 1980-81. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1981). Program of Work and Budget for 1982-83. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1983). Program of Work and Budget for 1984-85. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1985a). FAO: the first 40 years. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1985b). Program of Work and Budget for 1986-87. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1987a). Informe Communicacion Para el Desarrollo: Consulta de expertos organizada por la FAO. [Report of FAO Expert Consultation on Development Support Communication]. Rome, Italy. FAO.
FAO (1987b). Perspectives on Communication for Rural Development. Rome, Italy. FAO. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
FAO. (1987c). Program of Work and Budget for 1988-89. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1989a) Guidelines on Communication for Rural Development: A brief for development planners and project formulators. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1989b). Program of Work and Budget for 1990-91. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1990a). Communication strategies for rural development: a case study of the use of campaigns in Lesotho. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1990b). Development Support Communication Report. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1991a). Development Support Communication Report. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1991b). Program of Work and Budget for 1992-93. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1991c). Towards Putting Farmers in Control. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1992a). Development Support Communication Report. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1992b). Roundtable on Development Communication. Rome, Italy: FAO.
289
FAO. (1993a). Development Support Communication Report. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1993b). Program of Work and Budget for 1994-95. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1993c). Project Document: Development Support Communication in Southern Africa. Rome, Italy: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
FAO. (1994a) Mali: Politique Nationale de Comunication pour le Dévelopement. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1994b). Review of FAO/Italy Trust Fund Projects. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1995a). Is Communication for Development the Answer for you Development Program? [Brochure]. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
FAO. (1995b). Program of Work and Budget for 1996-97. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1995c). Understanding farmers’ communication networks: An experience in the Philippines. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1996a). Communication for Rural Development in Mexico. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1996b). Report of Tripartite Review Mission: 6-16 September 1996. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
FAO. (1997a). Program of Work and Budget for 1998-99. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1997b). Report of Tripartite Review Mission:15 – 23 September 1996. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
FAO. (1997c). Suggested Operational Plan in order to Achieve Self Sustainability for the SADC Centre of Communication for Development.
FAO. (1997d). The Internet and Rural and Agricultural Development. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (1998a). Knowledge and information for food security in Africa: from traditional media to the Internet. Rome, Italy: FAO.
290
FAO. (1998b). One-year Extension of Project: Communication for Development in Southern Africa (DSC in Southern Africa – Main Phase, One-year Extension). Rome, Italy: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
FAO. (1999). Program of Work and Budget for 1970-71. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (2000). Reforming FAO into the New Millenium. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (2001). International Workshop on Farm Radio Broadcasting: Final Report. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (2002a). The design and Implementation of National Information Policies for Sustainable Development in Africa: Issues and Approaches. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. (2002b). Review of FAO/Italy Agricultural Development Projects. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Gova, M., Mamutse E. O., Dodo, A., Dube, B., Manimimini, O. and Muko, P. (1995a, November). Action PRCA in HTP Project Demonstration Sites. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Gova, M., Mamutse E. O., Dodo, A., Dube, B., Manimimini, O. and Muko, P. (1995b, December). Communication to Improve People’s Participation in Field Projects – Field Research Report. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Gova, M., Mamutse E. O., Dodo, A., Dube, B., Manimimini, O. and Muko, P. (1995c, December). Communication to Improve People’s Participation in Field Projects – Communication Strategy. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Hobane. P. A. (1997, November). Report on Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Johnston, T. (1996, July). Communication to Improve People’s Participation in Field Projects: Summary Report of a Consultancy. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Kamlongera, C. (1998, May). Towards a Strategy for the SADC Centre of Communication for Development. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
291
Mefalopulos, P. (1995, February). Mission Report: Namibia, February 26 – March 6, 1995. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Mefalopulos, P. (1996, November). Mission Report: Namibia, November 10 - 17, 1996. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Mefalopulos, P. (1997, August). Mission Report on Participatory Assessment and Planning Programme for the Formulation of Sustainable Livelihoods and Food Security Programme in Malawi. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Mefalopulos, P. (1997). Office Memorandum: January 17, 1997. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Mefalopulos, P. (1998, January). Back-to-Office Report: Bulawayo, 28-31/1/98. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Mefalopulos, P. (1998, August). End-of-Assignment Report. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Mhloyi, M. M. (1996, January). Baseline Study on the Communication Programme for the Horticultural Training Programmes. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Murray, A., Ohrein, D. and Sycholt, M. A Report on Farmers’ Pre-Intervention Agricultural Practices, Information Levels, Needs and Participation in OFTPs in Kavango. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
REMU. (1996, March). A Communication Plan to Assist the On-Farm Demonstrations in the Kavango Region of Namibia. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Rivera, W.M. (with Qamar, K. M. and Van Crowder, L.). (2001). Agricultural and Rural Extension Worldwide. Rome, Italy: FAO.
SADC. (1997). SADC Centre of Communication for Development. [Brochure]. Harare, Zimbabwe: SADC/FAO.
SADC. (2002). Final Report of The Southern Africa Development Community Centre of Communication for Development. Harare, Zimbawe: SADC/ FAO.
Saouma. E. (1993). Front Line of Development. Rome, Italy: FAO.
292
Van der Stichele, P. (1998, March). Monitoring Mission: 10-13 March, 1998. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Vigne, P. (1998, July) A Post-Implementation Study of a Communication Activity in Support of On-Farm Demonstrations in the Kavango Region of Namibia. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Villet, J. and Anyaegbunam C. (1995) Preparation of a Curriculum for Post-Graduate Professional Diploma Course in Communication for Development. Working paper. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Villet, J. (1995a). Inception Report: 23 February 1995. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Villet, J. (1995b). Project Progress Report No. 1: October 1994 – May 1995 and detailed Workplan May – December 1995. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Villet, J. (1996) Project Progress Report No. 2: June 1995 – June 1996. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Villet, J. (1997a). Project Progress Report No. 3: July 1996 – March 1997. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Villet, J. (1997b). Project Summary Workplan. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Villet, J. (1997c). Project Progress Report No. 5 and Extension Inception Report: September 1997 – March 1998. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Villet, J. (1998, July). Preliminary Terminal Report: Project findings and Recommendations. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
Watamba, V., Kaumba, J., Kahilu, D., Ching’embu, F. B., Masialeti, E. M., Chanda, D. (1996, June). Introducing Women to Modern Beekeeping Methods: Report of the PRCA conducted in Kisasa, Mujimanzovu and Wamafwaha in Solwezi District, North-Western Zambia, June 3 – 16, 1996. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO Project GCP/RAF/297/ITA.
293
Zambia Communication for Development Board. (1995, December). A Position Paper. Presented by Kasoma, F. P. at the FAO Regional Communication for Development Seminar, Harare, Zimbabwe.
294
VITA
Paolo Mefalopulos was born in Tripoli, Libya, on June 28, 1959, the son
of Ettore Mefalopulos e Anna Rosa Andreotti. He obtained the Diploma of
Maturita’ Classico at the Liceo San Francesco di Siena, Italy in 1978. He then
attended the Deere College in Athens, Greece, where he received the Bachelor of
Arts in Sociology in 1983. In 1985 he received the degree of Master of Arts in
Telecommunication from Michigan State University. After that he had a number
of experiences in the world of media first at a national and then at an international
level. He has worked with some of the major international organizations, among
them UNESCO, FAO, ILO, European Union, in the field of communication for
development. That led him to work in various countries such as Jordan, West
Bank and the Gaza Strip, Guatemala, Bolivia, Nepal, Pakistan, Zimbabwe,
Zambia, Malawi, Namibia and Colombia. At the completion of his three-year
assignment with FAO in Zimbabwe he entered the graduate School of The
University of Texas at Austin in August 1998.
Permanent address: 3822 North Fifth Street, Apt. 1, Arlington, VA 22203
This dissertation was typed by the author.
Related Documents
