Over the Edge!
If you wish to respond to or discuss this please send your comments to conundrums@comminit.com and they will be shared so that they may inform the work of others.
Even when the purpose is clear and everyone understands what should happen and how, you have to be open to some variations based on different and changing perceptions about criteria and priorities.
What? Let's get out of "Jargon City". Try this...
As someone infatuated by all sports, I love to throw a ball around with my children and their friends. There is some sense of weird fun and accomplishment in one person throwing and the other catching. A rhythm is developed. People are connected as the ball moves from one to the other. Skills are learned and refined. Discussion can take place. I find it a wonderful, complete thing to do.
Nothing is more annoying, to me, than the ball being wildly thrown and rolling, for example, over a bank, through the undergrowth and down into a creek. Such events break the purpose, rhythm and boundaries of the simple beauty of throwing and catching a ball. So, this was one cranky Dad a few days ago as two of my children and two of their friends, after ten minutes of blissful throw and catch with me, started throwing the ball, "by accident" as the 7 year old put it, over the bank hard enough to go through the undergrowth and down to the stream. If that was not bad enough, Dad's irritable mood was worsened by the whooping, hollering and glees of delight as 4 kids sped past me and followed the ball over the bank, through the undergrowth and down to the stream!
Now, I can be a little slow at this parenting game, so it took me a while to realise that for the kids this was all part of the fun. Their purpose and understanding of catch and throw were very different from mine. Whilst I wallowed in the rhythm and connections, they viewed racing over a bank, through the undergrowth and down to the stream (preferably as a race and getting dirty and wet in the process) as all part of what constitutes the delights of throw and catch!
How many times have you suggested a communication strategy or activity that you believe will make a significant contribution to positive action on a difficult development issue, only to be told that, though the idea is a very good one - creative, well thought through, full of merit and likely to make a big difference - it does not come within the boundaries or mandate of the present programme? Perhaps you have received replies along these lines:
"Yes, your idea for addressing HIV/AIDS by supporting the involvement of people living with AIDS as local sensitisers and mobilisers in the public gathering points of local communities is a good one but we are funded to support teachers."
"OK, we understand how supporting the network of local travelling drama groups to address environment issues would be really effective with some of the most crucial communities and their "influencers", but this is an initiative based around television."
"Wow, we wish we could set up a local community Bank because it is badly needed for economic regeneration but what this programme is all about is a marketing campaign to encourage economic entrepreneurship."
"Oh my, why did we not think of X [your idea] when we put this programme together, but we didn't and we are not funded to do your idea, even though it is excellent and would make a real difference."
This is a dynamic that also applies across and between development issues. Why can't an HIV/AIDS programme also address malaria issues - after all it would be the same people in the same context? Isn't poverty alleviation just as crucial to raising education standards as direct work with teachers? Just measles communication in this initiative - what about other vaccine-preventable diseases? Take any issue you want, combine it with another priority development concern, and probably a few more, and it is possible to justify a whole range of connected initiatives.
There is a real conundrum here. In order for funders and organisations to have a sense of direction and order to their work, it is necessary to draw some reasonably firm boundaries around what constitutes the programme in question. This also helps with formal accountability for programme implementation and financial spending. Such factors are vital.
But maybe we have the balance wrong. Because it is equally important that the nature of the programmes we do matches the reality of people's lives. At present most development organisations organise their programming around sectoral (e.g.: Health, Education, Environment, Economic Development) boundaries. But in real life these are not such clear divisions. Everyone knows that these are all connected. They feed and bounce off each other. They do not exist in isolation. They do not even have separate antecedents.
The same assessment applies within sectors. One of the jobs that I think is the most difficult in the whole world is District Health Officer in an economically struggling country. Whilst the big agencies might have separate teams for the range of health issues - child health, polio, immunisation, maternal health, HIV/AIDS, TB, etc. - the District Health Officer (DHO) often has to deal with all of these issues by him or herself. The laser beams of the various sector teams in the international development agencies are all locked in on the DHOs in an effort to influence them to take on their agenda as the priority concern in the DHO's district, and yet this person has few, if any, resources at their disposal.
Maybe this conundrum - the apparent conflict between the very legitimate organisational and accountability demands of development agencies and the reality of people's lives, including the strongly threaded links between all priority issues in those communities - suggests a very important role for the development communication community. Perhaps we should be the kids going over the bank, through the undergrowth and down to the river chasing the really important development priorities. We should not be the cranky Dad enforcing and following the accepted rules. There are enough "cranky Dads" in development enforcing rules and procedures. A vital element of our contribution is to see the possibilities for a better match between the real nature of the issues on the ground and the ways that development organisations organise. Let's be the whooping and hollering kids getting excited over the new and creative ideas and brokering the possibility for those to be put into action.
I very much look forward to your response. Please do complete the page review form with your thoughts and comments.
Thanks.
Warren Feek
Executive Director, The Communication Initiative
wfeek@comminit.com
Comments
I agree with Warren that a balance between "strategic directions" and local responsiveness and innovation must be created - and that the balance right now is slanted toward the planners, funders, highly paid consultants who set the directions (with or without input from the local innovators). However, what can we do about it? If we are in the role of the planners, what shoudl we do differently? If we are in the role of the local innovator, how can we leverage our networks, our evidence, even our charisma, to be able to use the funding more aptly? Maybe this is a follow up article....
I totally agree with you. I have been working in the field for many years now, and I do not think that much has changed from one side or he other. Unfortunately, we communicators (I will include myself) lack the necessary humility to accept that what works lies within the community itself and that our role is only to facilitate their own dialogue, analysis and decision making.
I do not want to look to pesimistic because I have seen wonderfully successful integrated projects that begin 10 or 15 years ago and that are still on-going.
I still ask myself about the concept of communication for development... don't you think that development through communication could meant something more realistic than the latter?
I also believe that people react to a need, and not the other way around. Take water projects for instance. Nobody can live without it. So, when you facilitate social mobilization around it (showing the real value of it, watershed care, organization, community work in the construction), it works! and you can leave in peace knowing that you have saved some lives and contribute with a one little stone of a great building.
Yes, I think we have a long way to go when advocating for communication when technicians design "development projects". It has to be done fromthe beginning and not be called upon when they want a "communication campaign" on the TV or the radio. There is much more to that... not that I disregard of those (actually I am very good at using them) but you shouldn't abuse them. We always come in too late, or almost always. I repeat, I do not want to sound too pesimistic. Actually, I am not. I do believe that this first Congress on Communication for Development should not be just another COngress. It should be used to dialogue with humility and sincerety and not just another world meeting. We have a good chance to hear good examples, what works and what doesn't so that we all learn and accept our mistakes the same way we take the glory when it comes.
Mr. Feek, thanks for you attention and congratulations to you for this initiative which I find of absolute value.
Best regards, Patricia Cervantes
Warren
Your observations and comments are very relevant. In communication, the common and now well accepted rule is to match the message to the audience and better still let the audiences decide what the message should be. In the same manner, should people fit with the projects or projects fit the people is a common lament in international development.
I think one solution to this problem is giving common people the right and opportunity to be heard by the people who make decisions: policy makers, donors and elites. And as a second, the decision makers need to realize that they need to act based on what they heard and not simply provide lip service.
This may sound idealistic, but the solution to a certain degree is access and dialogue.
Best
Ketan
Including new ideas and connections that fit within and expand the successes of an existing program is itself thrilling and makes the project doubly rewarding. It makes elemental sense to take advantage of natural connections, and is foolish to not do so when possible.
Two aspects of the exercise are important: (1) the creative part - identifying the connections, possibilities, and benefits consistent with the original purpose, and (2) the practical part - finding the resources for implementation.
The kids demonstrated connections that might be included in your game of throw and catch, but cranky Dad was not seeing the merits. The kids probably were not able to articulate their purpose; Dad was caught up in the game as it had been defined, perhaps forgetting its broader purpose. But afterward, outside of the game, the possibilities in fun and learning that could extend the reach of purpose, became more obvious. If someone had stopped cranky Dad and told him how going over the bank could be an enhancement rather than merely a disruption of the purpose of the game, he would have been happier to incorporate new rules.
But identification aside, cranky Dad will not expand the game unless he can be made to see how the new ideas can in fact be incorporated. The pesky reality of life is that when existing funding is restricted and new funding not available, the game can not be changed. Someone needs to address the opportunities for additional resources, or to identify actions that do not add significant cost to the original project.
It does little good to berate cranky Dad after the game for squelching the boys exuberance – it’s too late. Had Dad not been cranky, or had someone been able to identify the possibilities and see how to craft new rules during the game, perhaps the thrill of going over the edge might have infected them all.
Comments and Views
Excellent piece that ought to give Development Practitioners insights on how they must organize and deliver development through proper communication strategies right from policy making to implementation and realization of development outcomes. I am a senior citizen from India, a snall time trade economist, corporate staffer, lately an avid development watcher.
Unabashed practice of “populist vote bank politics� has descended like a scourge on Indian development scenario since April 2004 when the Congress government took the reins, pushing a billion people back into a deep “blackhole of despair�, a void of non-development. Utter lackadaisical policy making or some times a total “policy holiday� (like tax holiday) on crucial development issues. An Indian Media major, covertly in league with the Government, is not only aiding and abetting the re-establishment of a centralized monolithic governance, but also creating divides of sorts within an otherwise peace-loving polity, and rationalizing their stance as propagating “secular governance�. There is no Center of Gravity in Indian political ethos that rallies them as a single voice around any public issues. Teaching public policy is on the back burners lest people become more conscious of their rights and press for better quality and speed in development.
India’s Finance Minister’s (FM) indulges in nice platitudes like �Outlays� should result in “Outcomes�. Soon after elections were over and Congress took the reins in April 2004, the politician economic think tank nexus suggested “calibrated policy making� for creating jobs for faster poverty reduction, and instituting “Delivery Mechanisms� to delivery development to the poor. None was done Intelligentsia and the upper class very well know that the party in power is communicating this to cultivate their vote banks constituencies. What this rhetoric has led to are mere pronouncements of “dissipative�, I repeat, “dissipative� mega poverty reduction spends by the government. In the absence of transparency in governance all this leads not to poverty reduction, but undue enrichment of the ruling Party at the expense of the masses. The Right to Information Act recently put in place is just hogwash. How great is our kind of democracy then and how do we communicate with the illiterate masses. The recent Bihar elections and the return to power of BJP in grass-roots municipal and Panchayat elections seems to be a silver lining, and must have some lessons.
Yet another rhetorical deception was the public touting by the Media major, that one former Prime Minister (of the same Congress Party) said that we have a “15 Paisa delivery from development outlays� meaning that 85% of the Development outlays get hijacked and gobbled up mid-stream by Politicians and the power brokers. Yet India is developing, -- not because of governance but despite utterly bad governance.
People are showered with promises and deceived before elections. Our Dadar Railway Station in Mumbai needs development. Bangalore, the IT-capital of India is crying for a Metro and a modern Airport to take off from the drawing board for over 12 years now, and nothing is happening. The recent spat between an IT–Industry Celebrity and an entrenched politician in the South is yet another case in point. How then the “excluded, totally powerless, billion strong masses of India� communicate with governments that have -- monolithic underpinnings, bereft of any “conscience� or “shame�, governments that have been flouting “social contract� mandated upon them with temerity for the past 60 years --, despite people reposing confidence in them, patiently awaiting “development� to dawn into their local villages, urban gullies and streets.
No urban renewal policy yet. People do not have clean public space to meet and deliberate on their voes. Now the marshy islands of Thane Creek between Mumbai and New Bombay will be developed as a mega city. The builder politician industrialist nexus seems to be getting stronger by the day throwing to winds all development norms that might give some space for Quality in Development outcomes.
Public might find some succor only when India decentralizes its governance. Mahatma Gandhi when asked “if power were devoluted to village level what if the illiterate ruffians take over and create a mess�, told Mr Apa Saheb Pant, Pune (near Mumbai, Maharashtra), a great Philosopher-Diplomat of sixties, “tame it (power) with a spirit of service�. Such laudable ideals can be realized only when governance is decentralized at grass-roots level and people can voice what they want to see as “development� A billion voices must raise bottom-up and communicate, that can happen only when governance in India is decentralized.
Back to NGO speak, Mr Feek (it rhymes!) We need a new intervention paradigm. We are doing things because its easier, or logical (whose logic) or because "that is how they are done", not for maximum impact. I cannot tell how frustrated the topic makes me. To make it worse these divisions result in parallel efforts and a waste of energy and train us to approach solutions in this ineffectual manner. I feel like Im running on a treadmill. Breathing hard and going nowhere. I could go on but will stop with this example...
My mother has worked with a number of public health programmes and she tells an amusing story from a village she visited. After a wonderful session with the village leaders an old woman got up and thanked the team warmly but noted.... "each time you people come with a different thing (today malaria, the next immunization etc.) why dont you just talk to yourselves in your office and start coming together next time... wont it be easier for you?"
...polite way of saying, "you guys really arent that smart are you?
Pamela Braide
A very bold attempt to discuss some of the shortcomings of the stringent yet unhelpful processes to obtain the necessary resource for development. I believe that the major development agencies have not as yet taken to heart the need to look at development in its holistic character.
Anthony.
Executive Director
ProFoundMedia Ghana
profoundmediaghana1@virgilio.it
actually quite motivational. Loved the notion of recognizing the perspective of dad and the perspective of the kids. yes we do need to be the ones to be able to do both as required by the precise nature of throwing and catching, and the necessitiy to create the entusiasm and reality needed as we joyfully go over the bank, into the brush and to the creekside....the challange is to find the ball first and together. This is also the joy of change and communications work. Lets go after some errant balls and bring them back to the game of catch. Brian
I think the word conundrum implies that this is a puzzle that one is at leisure to ponder over and discuss. In my view, what you have highlighted in this article is the fragmentation of the development sector which I think is a very serious issue and sometimes I am compelled to think of it as a tragedy. It is not only the organisational accountability that creates this fragmentation, it is also the fierce competition for resources that makes organisations guard their work jealously and refuse to see the benefit of collaborations and strategic partnerships with complementary organisations (like linking gender equity with poverty alleviation)for fear of diluting their influence and their ties with their funders. This has very real consequences for the lived realities of peoples daily lives and my research in India, where I am now, has given me ample evidence of this. Thank you.
This is actually te worse nightmare of every Corporate Affairs manager-being told that you have a very brilliant idea that other considerations can allow to pass on this schedule.For me what i do is to warn my principal of consequence of ignoring this good idea for the sake of 'good politics'.Never play politics with development issues
Although I'm doing smth different things in Ukraine, I usually face the same attitude of the funders. It is very difficult to overcome it, but possible. Good luck! Best, Dmytro dp@znayu.org.ua
- Log in to post comments