The notion of communication in support of development goals has
evolved. In the early 60s, the classic "communication and development"
paradigm supported the belief that the more mass media communication
a society is engaged in, the more developed it was or would become.
Since then, communication has come to be considered as a system linking
different stakeholders working together to attain development goals.
It has come to support an alternative development model emphasizing
self-reliance, self-esteem and the respect of indigenous cultural
values. This participatory approach to communication is the outcome
of audience-oriented, empowerment strategies.
Wilbur Schramm's 1964 book, Mass Media and Development is
regarded as the classic statement of the old "communication and development"
paradigm. Concerned with "national integration", and the creation
of national identities, Schramm saw the big (television, satellites)
and small (radio) media as instruments for sharing information within
nations. This included: bringing remote communities into the national
space; and informing peasants about the decisions of their governments,
the existence of new technical knowledge, and the availability of
goods and commodities. The media were thus vehicles for education
in the broad sense, for bridging the experience and competency gap
between urban and rural communities.
Communication and the modernization paradigm
The modernization paradigm, which underpinned Schramm's work, considered
development as a social growth process, with societies moving through
stages from traditional, to transitional and modern. These different
stages were characterized by the use of different types of communication
structures-from local, traditional, interpersonal and oral, to national,
rather impersonal, modern mass media structures. Later studies inspired
by Schramm's perspective, grounded this linear progression on correlational
analysis, which showed reciprocal relationships between communication
variables and social variables such as literacy, educational enrolment,
urbanization and income levels. These studies provided justification
for investments in communication on the presumption that the more
mass media communication a society is engaged in, the more developed
it was or would become.
In the 1970s, the kind of social Darwinism expressed by the modernization
school came under attack, especially in the thinking of Latin American
scholars, and a new paradigm began to emerge. It linked underdevelopment
to factors such as contextual and structural inequalities, resource
control and deprivation, rather than to inherent inabilities or "lack"
on the part of "traditional" peoples. Hence, investments in media
hardware, or even mass media messages, in themselves, could not be
expected to change the poverty and dependency of the underprivileged,
especially given the tendency of the media to carry escapist, consumerist,
urban-oriented content, generally imported from industrialized countries,
and irrelevant to the conditions of rural people.
Communication, participation and empowerment
An alternative development model was proposed: one that emphasized
self-esteem, self-reliance and support for indigenous cultural values.
This model would need to be supported by a communication perspective,
based on participatory approaches, enabling the rural and the disadvantaged
to create their own messages, to speak for themselves, as well as
to be spoken to.
Studies of communication practices used in inducing technical change
at the micro level, in rural agriculture, health and family planning,
in Asia, Latin America and parts of Africa, showed that: (i) interpersonal
relation-ships and communication were more effective than mass media
for creating and sustaining change; and (ii) the media were generally
more influential in creating awareness of new ideas and the need for
change. This point of view was modified in later studies, which demonstrated
that mass media content, codified in dramatic and entertaining formats
("enter-educate") can lead individuals to adopt new ideas and behaviors.
The combined use of interpersonal and mass media communication, in
social campaigns, including political and civic education, literacy
and general public enlightenment, has therefore become a strategic
staple in "development" projects. Specialized training for communicators,
including agricultural extension and frontline development workers,
as well as journalists, is increasingly being integrated in such projects,
to ensure that desired information, which is culturally-sensitive
and audience-specific is created, with the participation of the relevant
"target" communities. Communication is considered in such projects
as a system linking different stakeholders for the attainment of development
objectives.
This approach to communication, which seeks to be less manipulative,
and to be more participatory and inclusive, is an outcome of audience-oriented,
empowerment strategies favored by more radical communication scholars
and activists. But while experience has shown that it may be successful
in motivating understanding and support for educational policies,
it also requires more time for negotiation, or even for just bridging
gaps of understanding on basic issues. Furthermore, these more "humane"
approaches may not always lead to desirable outcomes. Ministries and
government agencies may be accused of attempting to manipulate information
and to coerce journalists; or they may appear to be reluctant to provide
full information. Creating an environment for collaboration therefore
requires communication training for partners involved in development
cooperation at all levels. This is perhaps the most salient and sobering
lesson learned from doing "communication for development".
Alfred E.Opubor
New Africa International Network
Harare, Zimbabwe
![[ADEA logo]](../../pics/top_main.gif)
![[Table]](../../pics/top_right.gif)
![[ADEA Newsletter Image]](../../pics/newsletter.jpg)
