Communication for Development and Social Change - another framework?

Communication for Development and Social Change (CDSC) has been a dynamic field where there is still a lot to explore and many ideas are yet to crystalize. A lot of scholars have proposed different frameworks at different points in time and will continue to do so to help understand and explain this ever-changing field of scholarship and practice. Meanwhile, I take the opportunity to share the framework that is helping me these days to understand the range of practices in CDSC (or C4D or CSC, whatever name you prefer). And for the lack of a better name, I would call it what it is, a just another framework.

Coming straight to the point, any communication endeavor for development or social change has these basic elements that define it:

1.       Objective – One or more goals that drive and guide all the communication efforts

2.       Voice – whose voice is communicated or who decides what is communicated  

3.       Medium – The communication platform or medium used

4.       Action – that results from the communication efforts  

The fifth element is equally important but doesn’t define the communication endeavor:

5.       Evaluation – how the communication endeavor is assessed

Instead, the fifth element is decided based on the four elements mentioned earlier. CDSC initiatives with different objectives, participants, media, and resulting actions need to be evaluated differently. Some other critical factors that also influence the evaluation and its feasibility include time frame of a program, its geographical location and reach, and the availability of resources for evaluation.

This just another framework helps break away from binary and/dualistic conceptualization of the subject that seeks to categorize everything as either top-down or participatory. It also gives equal importance to all the four elements of CDSC, some of which get neglected in the different frameworks proposed so far.

Now let us consider some examples and see how they can be understood using this framework. Consider a community-based participatory communication program to encourage women’s participation in a village council in India. The objective is what it says – improvement of women’s participation in the village council. The voice that is given most importance in a participatory program like this is that of these rural women. In terms of medium, it would be unmediated interpersonal communication, in small or slightly large groups of this rural community. There can be more than one way of communication used here, for example, a community radio can be an apt medium to encourage women to raise their voice. And, lastly, action could be something like more number of women attending the CDSC program meetings, attending the village council meetings, participating in them, voting in elections, running for membership of the council, and becoming the members of the council. Another desired action can also be more women listening to community radio or speaking on it. These actions can also help evaluate the program. A long-term outcome for evaluating can also be lesser number of cases of domestic violence, sexual harassment, or dowry reported.

In a photovoice program to encourage dialogue among people in a post-war region, the objective can be to help them overcome trauma and improve their civic engagement. The medium in a photovoice program is photographs that trigger interpersonal dialogic communication among the participants. Often the pictures are also taken by the participants, thus, the voice being primarily of the participants in both, mediated and unmediated communication. The desired action from a project like this can only be deep dialogic conversations among participants, unless a longer study is designed to work with them and expect a change in their emotional health and civic participation.

Let us also consider a health communication program aiming to encourage safe sex among adolescents of a community where cases of STD infections are high. The objective is to encourage the behavior of safe sex among adolescents and contain STD infections as a result. The message is pre-decided here, the voice is therefore that of a public health expert. Various mediums that can be used to create awareness may include engaging mobile phone apps, billboard advertisements, and some entertainment-education programs. The needed action is more adolescents buying and using condoms (assuming that adolescents have access and resources to buy condoms). An evaluation of this program can also look at the number of users of the mobile phone app, the changes in the demand of condoms since the program was launched, and changes in the reported cases of STD infections.  

The table shows the mapping of these cases discussed on the framework proposed. This just another framework helps refrain from simplistic labeling of these CDSC programs. A program is not merely “highly participatory” or “not participatory at all,” and voice is still an important and defining aspect of it. Each program is designed as per its objective, availability of medium and desired actions. Even those programs that claim participation-as-an-end as their goal, that defines their objective – to increase participation and communication among group members. Those interested may use this just another framework as and when it helps them, until another and a better framework comes along for us.