Communication is essential to participatory development. So why is the role of communication in development still poorly understood? Why the lack of support from large development players? This paper highlights gaps between discourse and action, along with outdated evaluation methods, short timeframes and problems of power relations and culture. Participatory communication for development and social change needs to move beyond newly acquired jargon: it must be part of development organisations’ policies, strategies, budgets and staffing.
Communication for development and social change has been around since the early 1970s, but is still considered a nuisance by many large development players. It is a difficult subject; explaining it involves simplifying larger issues. Communication for social change is about people taking into their own hands the communication processes that allow them to make their voices heard; to establish dialogues with planners and development specialists; to take decisions on the development issues that affect their lives; to ultimately achieve social changes for the benefit of their community.
Participation in development programmes and projects cannot occur without communication. There are many examples where communication has proved crucial to dialogue and participation, contributed to sustainability and helped communities make other gains. But issues of power and culture are unavoidable. Related challenges include:
- Timeframes: Aid and development agencies systematically impose their agendas and deadlines. Pressures on communities, NGOs and national governments are enormous. Short timeframes make little sense in a development context; a long-term vision is needed.
- Conceptual confusion: The provision of information (one-way) is often confused with communication (two-way). Similar distinctions have to be made between access and participation and between journalists and communicators.
- Political attitudes: The mentality of donors and agencies in Europe and North America tends to be vertical and centralised, with a bias against bottom-up behaviour.
- Evidence and evaluation: For many, evaluation has become a mechanical process with little concern for real benefits. Traditional methods are not sufficient to evaluate participatory communication and social change. Participatory approaches are preferable: no one is better placed to evaluate social change than those that are the subjects of it.
Development organisations should be the first to promote participatory communication for development; it is in their interests to achieve sustainability in their programmes and investments. How can we assess real commitment to communication for social change? Four key aspects are needed:
- Every development organisation should have a communication policy, clearly stating its position on participatory development and the place of communication in programmes and projects.
- Organisations should develop strategies of communication for development and social change. This requires long-term planning. Every programme and project, from inception, should have a communication component.
- Organisations need to budget communication components as separate items from information or institutional visibility activities. Budgeting communication for programme support ensures that policies and strategies are implemented, not just good intentions on paper.
- No organisation can claim commitment to communication for development and social change without involving professionals from the communication field. This does not mean journalists or public-relations staff; communication for development is a specialised field. It calls for high-level specialists and strategists.
