Participatory theories and approaches

Summary

Family Tree of Theories, Methodologies & Strategies in Development Communication: Convergences & Differences

Participatory theories and approaches

Participatory theories also criticized the modernization paradigm on the grounds that it promoted a top-down, ethnocentric and paternalistic view of development. They argued that the diffusion model proposed a conception of development associated with a Western vision of progress. Development communication was informed by a theory that “became a science of producing effective messages” (Hein in Quarmyne 1991). After decades of interventions, the failure to address poverty and other structural problems in the Third World needed to be explained on the faulty theoretical premises of the programs. Any intervention that was focused on improving messages to better reach individuals or only change behavior was, by definition, unable to implement social change.

Development theories also criticized traditional approaches for having been designed and executed in the capital cities by local elites with guidance and direction from foreign specialists. Local people were not involved in preparing and instrumenting development interventions. Interventions basically conceived of local residents as passive receivers of decisions made outside of their communities, and in many cases, instrumented ill-conceived plans to achieve development. Governments decided what was best for agricultural populations, for example, without giving them a sense of ownership in the systems that were introduced (see Mody 1991, Servaes 1989, White 1994).

The top-down approach of persuasion models implicitly assumed that the knowledge of governments and agencies was correct, and that indigenous populations either did not know or had incorrect beliefs. Because programs came from outside villages, communities felt that innovations did not belong to them but to the government and thus expected the latter to fix things went they went wrong. The sense of disempowerment was also rooted in the fact that “targeted” populations did not have the choice to reject recommendations or introduce modifications to interventions.

For participatory theorists and practitioners, development communication required sensitivity to cultural diversity and specific context that were ignored by modernization theories (see Gumucio Dragon 2001). The lack of such sensitivity accounted for the problems and failures of many projects. Experts learnt that development was not restricted to just building roads, piping water, and distributing electricity. Nor was it limited to efforts to increase neither farm yields nor switching farmers over to cash crops. Many of the agricultural projects failed because farmers were reluctant to abandon their traditional ways for foreign and unknown methods. As McKee (1992) writes, “they were also nervous about planting exotic crops that they could not eat but had to sell for money with which to buy food from the market.” Modernization projects undermined the importance of local knowledge and the consequences of the interaction between local cultures and foreign ideas. When piped water arrived, it was frequently used for washing rather than drinking and cooking because the people disliked its flavor. Persuading people of the benefits of healthy practices on the basis of scientific reasons was a tough sell. People were asked to change time-old practices on the basis of a foreign form of knowledge that dismissed their local traditions in the name of “true” knowledge (McKee 1992).

The lack of local participation was viewed as responsible for the failure of different programs. In the case of agricultural programs, it was concluded that the issue at stake was not the transmission of information to increase output but rather the low prices of agricultural goods in the market or the absence of a more equal distribution of land ownership. In explaining the failures of family planning programs, it was suggested that mothers were disinclined to follow instructions because fathers believed that having more children meant having more hands to work in the fields and carry out other tasks.

Participatory theories considered necessary a redefinition of development communication. One set of definitions stated that it meant the systematic utilization of communication channels and techniques to increase people's participation in development and to inform, motivate, and train rural populations mainly at the grassroots. For others, development communication needed to be human- rather than media-centered. This implied the abandonment of the persuasion bias that development communication had inherited from propaganda theories, and the adoption of a different understanding of communication.

Communication means a process of creating and stimulating understanding as the basis for development rather than information transmission (Agunga 1997). Communication is the articulation of social relations among people. People should not be forced to adopt new practices no matter how beneficial they seem in the eyes of agencies and governments. Instead, people needed to be encouraged to participate rather than adopt new practices based on information.

This understanding of communication was central to the ideas developed by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1970), whose writings and experiences became an influential strand in participatory communication. Freire's work in northeastern Brazil in the 1960s and early 1970s challenged dominant conceptions of development communication, particularly as applied to literacy training. He argued that development programs had failed to educate small farmers because they were interested in persuading them about the benefits of adopting certain innovations. Development programs tried to domesticate foreign concepts, to feed information, to force local populations to accept Western ideas and practices without asking how such practices fit existing cultures. The underlying premise of such programs was an authoritarian conception of communication that stood against the essence of communication understood as community interaction and education.

Freire offered the concept of liberating education that conceived communication as dialogue and participation. The goal of communication should be conscientization, which Freire defined as free dialogue that prioritized cultural identity, trust and commitment. His approach has been called “dialogical pedagogy” which defined equity in distribution and active grassroots participation as central principles. Communication should provide a sense of ownership to participants through sharing and reconstructing experiences. Education is not transmission of information from those “who have it” to those “who lack it,” from the powerful to the powerless, but the creative discovery of the world.

Freire's ideas ran against fundamental principles in the diffusion model, namely the sender-focus and behavioral bias that it inherited from persuasion models in the United States. He diagnosed the problems in the Third World as problems of communication, not information as persuasion theories proposed. Solutions, then, needed to have an understanding of communication that was not limited to the application of Western ideas. Freire also challenged the value judgment in early development theories that viewed agricultural and health practices in the Third World as backwards and obstacles to modernization.

Freire's model and participatory models in general proposed a human-centered approach that valued the importance of interpersonal channels of communication in decision-making processes at the community level. Studies in a variety of Third World rural settings found that marginal and illiterate groups preferred to communicate face-to-face rather than through mass media or other one-way sources of communication (Okunna 1995). The recommendation was that development workers should rely more on interpersonal methods of communication rather than national media and technologies, and that they should act as facilitators of dialogue.

Because media and technologies were perceived as foreign to local communities, they should be used to supplement instead of dominate interpersonal methods. The notion of “group media” drew from Freire to call the media that are means for small groups to develop a critical attitude towards the reality of self, the group, community and society through participation in-group interaction. Group media has helped marginal groups to speak to one another, to articulate their thoughts and feelings in the process of community organizing (Hamelink 1990). Community-based forms of communication such as songs, theater, radio, video, and other activities that required group intervention needed to be promoted. More than mechanisms to disseminate information, they could provide opportunities to identify common problems and solution, to reflect upon community issues, and mobilize resources. Community members, rather than “professionals”, should be in charge of the decision and production processes. This is precisely what “small” media offer: an opportunity for media access in countries where the mass media are usually controlled by governments and urban elites.

The value of participatory media is not in being instruments of transmission but of communication, that is, for exchanging views and involving members. Community media dealt with various subjects: literacy, health, safety, agricultural productivity, land ownership, gender, and religion.

There have been a number of paradigmatic examples. In Latin America, miners' and peasants' radio in Bolivia, grassroots video in peasant and indigenous movements in Brazil, tape recorders in Guatemala, small-scale multimedia in Peru and other cases of low-powered media based in unions and churches were offered as concrete examples of participatory communication development (Beltrán 1993). Canada's "Fogo process" was another experience informed by similar principles in which populations living in remote areas actively produced videos to discuss community issues of people living in remote areas and to communicate with outsiders about their concerns and expectations (Williamson 1991). In Africa, popular theater has been successfully used to increase women's participation and ability to deal with primary care problems. Through songs and storytelling, women were able to raise awareness and attention to issues and address problems, something that had not been achieved through “modern” media such as television and newspapers (Mlama 1991). Community participation through popular theater motivated rural communities to become involved in health care. Participation was credited for the reduction of preventable diseases such as cholera and severe diarrhea after communities constructed infrastructure that helped to improve sanitary conditions situation (Kalipeni and Kamlongera 1996).

In stressing the relevance of “other” media and forms of communication, participatory theories lifted development communication out of the “large media” and “stimulus-response” straitjacket and opened new ways of understanding interventions. They expanded the concept of participation that in modernization theories was limited to voting in party and electoral politics and championed a view of democracy that implied different forms of participation at different levels.

They also removed professionals and practitioners from having a central role as transmitters of information who would enlighten populations in development projects. People, not change agents, were central to community participation. It downplayed the role of expert and external knowledge while stressing the centrality of indigenous knowledge and aspirations in development. Communication was a horizontal process, diametrically different from the vertical model that placed knowledge in the domain of modern experts.

Participatory communication identified encouraging participation, stimulating critical thinking, and stressing process, rather than specific outcomes associated with modernization and progress, as the main tasks of development communication (Altafin 1991). Participation needed to be present in all stages of development projects. Communities should be encouraged to participate in decision-making, implementation, and evaluation of projects. This would give a sense of involvement in their lives and communities, and provide them with a sense of ownership and skills that they can use beyond the timetable of development projects (Kavinya, Alam & Decock 1994). Community empowerment has become became one of the main contributions of participatory theories to development communication. Empowerment is possible only if community members critically reflect on their experiences and understand the reasons for failure and success of interventions (Bradford & Gwynne 1995, Purdey, Adhikari, Robinson & Cox 1994).

Certainly, participatory communication has not lacked critics. Even though vindicating some tenets of participatory theories, other positions argued that they were elaborated at a theoretical level and did not provide specific guidelines for interventions.

One problem in participatory models was that it was not clear that communities needed to be involved for certain results to be achieved. In some cases such as epidemics and other public health crises, quick and top-down solutions could achieve positive results. Participation communication ignores that expediency may also positively contribute to development. Belaboring through grassroots decision-making process is slower than centralized decisions, and thus not advisable in cases that require prompt resolutions. Participation might be a good long-term strategy but has shortcomings when applied to short-term and urgent issues.

Another problem was that participation in all stages does not have similar relevance. It was not clear what participation entailed. If decisions were made outside of the community and the latter was assigned the role of implementing and evaluating results, some positions argued, participation was limited to instances that depended on decisions previously made (McKee 1992). It was not true participation and, therefore, maintained power inequalities.

Another problem was that the focus on interpersonal relations underplayed the potential of the mass media in promoting development as participation and process. Little attention was paid to the uses of mass media in participatory settings, an issue that is particularly relevant considering that populations, even in remote areas, are constantly exposed to commercial media messages that stand in opposition to the goals set by programs. This lack was particularly evident in Freire's theory of dialogical communication that is based on group interactions and underplays the role of the mass media.

Participatory approaches usually avoided the issue that people who lived in non-democratic societies might be were wary to participate out of fear of retaliation. Moreover, people can be manipulated into participating. This would violate local autonomy and the possibility that members might not be interested in taking an active role. Critics argued that participatory communication, like social marketing, could also be seen as foreign, pushing for certain goals and actions that have not resulted from inside communities. Participatory communication did not offer the chance not to participate, and implicitly coerced people to adopt a certain attitude.

Social marketers charged that participatory approaches were too idealistic, falling short from offering specific practical guidelines, and offering recommendations with limited impact. These shortcomings are particularly pronounced when funds for development communication are short and funding agencies are interested in obtaining cost-effective results not just at the local but also the national level.

Other critics, particularly in Asia, thought that participatory models were premised on Western-styled ideas of democracy and participation that do not fit political cultures elsewhere. Individualism rather than community and conflict rather than consensus lie at the heart of participatory models developed in the West. Participation can also promote division, confusion, and disruption that do little to solve problems. It may privilege powerful and active members of the community at the expense of the community as a whole. Education and decision-making skills, rather than participation for its own sake, should be promoted.

To these criticisms, advocates of participatory models admitted that divisions and conflicts might result but, they argued, the answer should be teaching negotiation and mediation skills rather than opting for interventions that disempower people in the name of consensus-building. Although advocates of participatory theories viewed their critics as favoring government centralization and leaving power inequalities intact, they admitted that some original premises needed to be revised (White 1994).

Participatory approaches needed to:

Be sensitive to the potential convenience of short-term and rapid solutions.

Recognize that recommendations for participation could also be seen as foreign and manipulative by local communities (just like modernization theories).

Translate participatory ideas into actual programs.

Be aware that the communities may be uninterested in spending time in democratic processes of decision-making and, instead, might prefer to invest their time on other activities.

Recognize that communities are not necessarily harmonious and that participation may actually deepen divisions. Servaes (1996, 23) admits that "participation does not always entail cooperation or consensus. It can often mean conflict and usually poses a threat to existent structures...Rigid and general strategies for participation are neither possible nor desirable."

To prevent some of these problems, it was suggested that it was preferable that projects be carried out in communities where agencies already had linkages (McKee 1992) Previous knowledge of problems and characteristics of a given community was fundamental to identify activities and define projects. Existing linkages could also provide agents that were familiar with (or even were from) the community who could assist in creating organizations and networks to stimulate participation. No previously determined set of activities was advisable if the interests and dynamics of communities were not known. Workers would also provide important feedback information about the progress of projects through regular, face-to-face contact with participants. These practices function as a sort of transmission belt for making sure that community issues are addressed and that members have a voice in deciding future courses. The peril is to focus solely on professional technicians and leaders without consideration of involving the community at large.

Against criticisms that participatory communication leads to the existence of a myriad, disconnected projects carried out by multiple NGOs, coordination plans were deemed necessary. Providing a sense of orientation and organization was required to prevent that development efforts become too fragmented and thus weaker. Because NGOs are closer to communities than governments and funding agencies, they have the capacity to respond relatively quickly to demands and developments. But without a more encompassing vision, projects may only obtain, at best, localized results that fail to have a larger impact.

It was also recommended that relying on grassroots media was not sufficient. Populations needed media education to develop skills to be critical of commercial media and to develop alternatives that would help them gain a sense of empowerment and counter other messages. Yet, it was undeniable that local media provided a sense of ownership and participation that was key to sustainable development and could not be replaced by any other strategy.

Responding to critics who were impatient with obtaining “results,” participatory approaches suggested that development communication requires a long-term perspective that is usually missing among funding agencies and governments interested in getting quick results and knowing whether efforts pay off. Participatory theorists turned the criticisms about “timing” and “impact” onto their critics, arguing that the so-called problems of participatory approaches in “showing results” did not originate in the model but in how organizations approach development communication (Melkote 1991). Short-term projects that are prone to be terminated according to different considerations make it difficult to promote participation and examine the results of interventions in the long run. The interests of funders and politicians, who were urged to prove effectiveness of investments, ran against the timing of participatory development communication projects. For the latter to be possible, NGOs, funding agencies and other actors involved needed to be sensitive to the fact that grassroots projects cannot be expected to "produce results" in the manner of top-down interventions. Neither community development nor empowerment fit the timetables of traditional programs.