The Dominant Paradigm - Family Tree of Theories, Methodologies and Strategies in Development Communication

Editor's note: Below is an excerpt from Silvio Waisbord's 2001 paper "Family Tree of Theories, Methodologies and Strategies in Development Communication: Convergences and Differences", commissioned by The Rockefeller Foundation. Click here to return to the Table of Contents.

"Behavior change models have been the dominant paradigm in the field of development communication. Different theories and strategies shared the premise that problems of development were basically rooted in lack of knowledge and that, consequently, interventions needed to provide people with information to change behavior.

The early generation of development communication studies was dominated by modernization theory. This theory suggested that cultural and information deficits lie underneath development problems, and therefore could not be resolved only through economic assistance (a la Marshall Plan in post-war Europe). Instead, the difficulties in Third World countries were at least partially related to the existence of a traditional culture that inhibited development. Third World countries lacked the necessary culture to move into a modern stage. Culture was viewed as the 'bottleneck' that prevented the adoption of modern attitudes and behavior. McClelland (1961) and Hagen (1962), for example, understood that personalities determined social structure. Traditional personalities, characterized by authoritarianism, low self-esteem, and resistance to innovation, were diametrically different from modern personalities and, consequently, anti-development.

These studies best illustrated one of modernization's central tenets: ideas are the independent variable that explains specific outcomes. Based on this diagnosis, development communication proposed that changes in ideas would result in transformations in behavior. The underlying premise, originated in classic sociological theories, was that there is a necessary fitness between a 'modern' culture and economic and political development. The low rate of agricultural output, the high rate of fertility and mortality, or the low rates of literacy found in the underdeveloped world were explained by the persistence of traditional values and attitudes that prevented modernization. The goal was, therefore, to instill modern values and information through the transfer of media technology and the adoption of innovations and culture originated in the developed world. The Western model of development was upheld as the model to be emulated worldwide.

Because the problem of underdeveloped regions was believed to be an information problem, communication was presented as the instrument that would solve it. As theorized by Daniel Lerner (1958) and Wilbur Schramm (1964), communication basically meant the transmission of information. Exposure to mass media was one of the factors among others (e.g. urbanization, literacy) that could bring about modern attitudes. This knowledge-transfer model defined the field for years to come. Both Lerner's and Schramm's analyses and recommendations had a clear pro-media, pro-innovation, and pro-persuasion focus. The emphasis was put on media-centered persuasion activities that could improve literacy and, in turn, allow populations to break free from traditionalism.

This view of change originated in two communication models. One was the Shannon-Weaver model of sender-receiver, originally developed in engineering studies that set out to explain the transmission of information among machines. It became extremely influential in communication studies. The other was the propaganda model developed during World War II according to which the mass media had 'magic bullet' effects in changing attitudes and behavior.

From a transmission/persuasion perspective, communication was understood as a linear, unidirectional process in which senders send information through media channels to receivers. Consequently, development communication was equated with the massive introduction of media technologies to promote modernization, and the widespread adoption of the mass media (newspapers, radio, cinemas, and later television) was seen as pivotal for the effectiveness of communication interventions. The media were both channels and indicators of modernization: they would serve as the agents of diffusion of modern culture, and also, suggested the degree of modernization of society.

The emphasis on the diffusion of media technologies meant that modernization could be measured and quantified in terms of media penetration. The numbers of television and radio sets and newspaper consumption were accepted as indicators of modern attitudes (Lerner 1958, Inkeles & Smith 1974). Statistics produced by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) showing the penetration of newspapers, radio and television sets became proxy of development. Researchers found that in countries where people were more exposed to modern media, more favorable attitudes towards modernization and development. Based on these findings, national governments and specialists agreed to champion the media as instruments for the dissemination of modern ideas that would improve agriculture, health, education, and politics. So-called 'small' media such as publications, posters and leaflets were also recommended as crucial to the success of what became known as Development Support Communication, that is, the creation of the human environment necessary for a development program to succeed” (Agunga 1997).

The 'diffusion of innovations' theory elaborated by Everett Rogers (1962, 1983) became one of the most influential modernization theories. It has been said that Rogers' model has ruled development communication for decades and became the blueprint for communication activities in development. Rogers' intention was to understand the adoption of new behaviors. The premise was that innovations diffuse over time according to individuals' stages. Having reviewed over 500 empirical studies in the early 1960s, Rogers posited five stages through which an individual passes in the adoption of innovations: awareness, knowledge and interest, decision, trial, and adoption/rejection. Populations were divided in different groups according to their propensity to incorporate innovations and timing in actually adopting them. Rogers proposed that early adopters act as models to emulate and generate a climate of acceptance and an appetite for change, and those who are slow to adopt are laggards. This latter category was assumed to describe the vast majority of the population in the Third World.

For Rogers, the subculture of the peasantry offered important psychological constraints on the incorporation of innovations, and consequently, development. His view on development reflected the transmission bias also found in Lerner and Schramm. According to Rogers, development communications entailed a 'process by which an idea is transferred from a source to a receiver with the intent to change his behavior. Usually the source wants to alter the receiver's knowledge of some idea, create or change his attitude toward the idea, or persuade him to adopt the idea as part of his regular behavior' (Rogers 1962).

However, diverging from the media-centrism and 'magic bullet' theory of effects that underpinned earlier analyses, Rogers and subsequent “diffusion” studies concluded that the media had a great importance in increasing awareness but that interpersonal communication and personal sources were crucial in making decisions to adopt innovations. This revision incorporated insights from the opinion leader theory (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955) according to which there are two steps in information flow: from the media to opinion leaders, and from leaders to the masses. Media audiences rely on the opinions of members of their social networks rather solely or mainly on the mass media. In contrast to powerful media effects models that suggested a direct relation between the mass media and the masses, Lazarsfeld and Katz found that interpersonal relations were crucial in channeling and shaping opinion. This insight was incorporated in diffusion studies, which proposed that both exposure to mass media and face-to-face interaction were necessary to induce effective change. The effectiveness of field workers in transmitting information in agricultural development projects also suggested the importance of interpersonal networks in disseminating innovations (Hornik 1988). Consequently, a triadic model of communication was recommended that included change agents, beneficiaries, and communicators.

Confirming Lerner's and Schramm's ideas, another important finding of diffusion research was that what motivates change is not economics but communication and culture. This is what studies on how farmers adopted new methods showed. Such studies were particularly influential because a substantial amount of early efforts targeted agricultural development in the Third World (Rogers 1983). Other applications targeted literacy programs and health issues, mainly family planning and nutrition.

In the mid-1970s, main representatives of modernization/diffusion theories considered it necessary to review some basic premises (Rogers 1976, 1983). In a widely quoted article, Rogers admitted 'the passing of the dominant paradigm.' Schramm and Rogers recognized that early views had individualistic and psychological biases. It was necessary to be sensitive to the specific sociocultural environment in which “communication” took place, an issue that was neglected in early analyses. To a large extent, these revisions resulted from the realization that the “trickle down” model that was originally championed was not proven to be effective in instrumenting change. The stages model remained but the top-down perspective according to which innovations diffuse from above needed modification.

Other positions suggested that the traditional model needed to integrate a process orientation that was not only focused on the results of intervention but also to pay attention to content, and address the cognitive dimensions (not just behavior). Many of these observations were integrated into the diffusion approach. By the mid-1970s, Rogers' definition of communication showed important changes that partially responded to criticisms. Development was theorized as a participatory process of social change intended to bring social and material advancement. Communication was no longer focused on persuasion (transmission of information between individuals and groups), but was understood as a 'process by which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding' (Rogers 1976)."