Document(s) 4 of 16

Introduction

The roots of participatory approaches in development communication can be found in the early years of the 1970s when many people in the development community began to question the top-down approach of development dominant in the 1950s and 1960s, which targeted the economic growth of countries as its main goal. During these two decades, the success of the developed countries was held up as the model to reach. Development was thought to be triggered by the wide-scale diffusion and adoption of modern technologies. Such modernization was planned in the national capitals under the guidance and direction of experts brought in from developed countries. Often, the people in the villages who were the "objects" of these plans, would first learn that "development" was on the way when strangers from the city turned up, frequently unannounced, to survey land or look at project sites.

Mass communication played an important role in promoting "modernization" to the people. The radio was one of the main instruments used. National leaders, bureaucrats, and experts broadcast passionately from the cities about the wonderful differences which the adoption of new and foreign ideas would bring to the lives of the people. They talked at length about farming methods, cures for diseases, the importance of sending children to school, the advantages of having fewer children, the desirability of having a stable government, and so on. The mobile cinema van also became a common sight in the villages. It was one of the more popular diversions in rural communities, because these vans usually showed cartoons and comedy films first, in order to draw the crowds, who would then stay to watch the newsreels and agricultural extension productions which followed later.

It was a powerful tool. It demonstrated graphically the wonders of modern science. It showed the beautiful homes and cars of rich Western farmers, and projected the image, voice and charisma of aspiring political leaders. The private sector soon followed suit and sent its own vans to entertain with other cartoons and comedy shows, and most importantly for the companies, to show the advertisements for their wares. Government extension workers trained in the towns became the front-line communicators, repeating to farmers in their fields what they had just been taught in the towns. Posters, leaflets, and other publications made up another important instrument used as a part of this approach. It became known as "development support communication," a term coined by the FAO. The approach had a wide following because many of the earlier development efforts in the South were aimed at farmers (Rogers 1983).

The overall approach to modernizing the developing world eventually ran into problems. Experts found out that development was not restricted to just building roads, piping water, and distributing electricity. Nor was it limited to increasing farm yields per hectare or switching farmers over to cash crops. Many of the agricultural extension projects failed because farmers were reluctant to abandon their time-tested ways for strange new methods. They were also nervous about planting exotic crops which they could not eat but had to sell for money with which to buy food from the market. When piped water arrived, it was frequently used for washing rather than drinking and cooking because the people disliked its flavour. The people were asked to stop believing in spirits and demons and place their trust in science which said things called "germs," which the eyes can not see, but are the main cause of most sicknesses and pain. They had also to remember another thing called "nitrogen," which again was invisible, but affected the yield of crops. Did all this not sound like just another form of witchcraft?

Overriding the alien information communicated to the people was a bigger problem. Because the development had been centrally planned without any consultation with people, the wrong solutions were often pumped down to startled communities. High-yielding rice varieties were pushed, when the real problem was the low price of the commodity. Farmers were given detailed instructions on improving soil of land that they did not own, and which they were at constant risk of being evicted from. Mothers were lectured on the bliss of two-child families, when fathers were bent on having at least six children to help work the land and tend the livestock.

Central planning also deprived people of ownership of local development plans. Development became the responsibility of the government. Whereas in the past, farmers would collectively maintain traditional water sharing systems, they became sidelined by workers of irrigation authorities, who built new channels and dictated the release and termination of water supply. When the irrigation channels eventually broke down, farmers just waited for these same workers to turn up to repair them rather than fix the problem themselves, believing that the system did not belong to them. If the workers failed to come, the system was abandoned.

The expensive failures of the top-down, mechanistic approach were noticed in the cities. Activists began to criticize them loudly as focused on the symptoms, not root causes of poverty. They were appalled by the arrogant top-down communication which fractured fragile developing communities by undermining indigenous knowledge, beliefs, and social systems. They were also furious with development plans which catered more to the interests of the city elites than the people in the villages.

Meanwhile, other activists started to question the basis of the modernization approach. They said that the solution to underdevelopment did not pivot around the adoption of Western technologies. Instead, it rested on the way the whole world was structured, which saw the developed countries (also the former imperial powers) progress and benefit at the expense of the poorer countries (also the former colonies). The developed countries were more powerful than the developing countries, and the latter had to depend on the former for their well-being.

At the macro level, the dependency debate led to mass communicators making serious efforts at rerouting information flows away from the traditional gatekeeping junctions located in London, Paris, Madrid, and New York. Third World news networks were established, and articles written by people from the developing countries for themselves.

Ascendancy of Participatory Approaches

Generally, four different ways of participation can be observed in most development projects claiming to be participatory in nature (Uphoff 1985). They are described below.

• Participation in implementation — People are actively encouraged and mobilized to take part in the actualization of projects. They are given certain responsibilities and set certain tasks or required to contribute specified resources.
• Participation in evaluation — Upon completion of a project, people are invited to critique its success or failure.
• Participation in benefit — People take part in enjoying the fruits of a project, such as water from a hand pump, medical care (from a barefoot doctor), a truck to transport produce to market, or village meetings in the new community hall.
• Participation in decision-making — People initiate, discuss, conceptualize and plan activities they will all do as a community. Some of these may be related to more common development areas such as building schools or applying for land tenure. Others may be more political, such as removing corrupt officials, supporting parliamentary candidates, or resisting pressures from the elites. Yet others may be cultural or religious in nature — organizing a traditional feast, prayers for an end to the drought, and a big party, just to have a good time.

Most will agree that participation in decision-making is the most important form to promote. It gives people control over their lives and environment. At the same time, the people acquire problem-solving skills and acquire full ownership of projects — two important elements which will contribute towards securing the sustained development of their community.

The other three forms of participation — implementation, evaluation and benefit — have been criticized as being false participation by those who believe that participation in decision-making is fundamental and indispensable to the approach. They feel that people are being manipulated through these three forms of pseudo-participation to accept plans made by other, more powerful people.

Others who disagree argue that the three ways allow people to build up capacity to participate in decision-making. They also feel that prematurely mobilizing people to make their own decisions and chart their own development can put the people at risk of conflict with powerful interests and jeopardize their safety. They sometimes go on to say that groups who mobilize people in this way are actually manipulating them towards conflict.

A number of governments of Asian countries which have met with impressive successes at economic development have articulated their reasons for not being in a hurry to promote Western-style democracy and participation. They are outlined below.

• Asian societies favour collectivism, while Western societies cherish individualism.
• In developing countries, national interests should take precedence over those of individuals.
• Diversity of views can confuse people.
• People must be educated and mature before they are able to make good decisions from a diversity of views; therefore communities in developing regions require education first, then diversity.

Although proponents of participation appreciate that there is more good than bad in the approach, they also recognize that it has its limits. An international conference of practitioners and researchers working in participatory communication announced three caveats (White 1994) at the end of their meeting. They are described below.

• Participatory communication processes are not a panacea for development. Such processes are not suitable for solving all problems in all contexts or time frames. The mother whose child is dying of diarrhea does not want to "participate." Short-term solutions and intervention are also needed. Participatory processes unearth "root causes" of poverty and oppression and usually involve long-term goals.
• The apparently opposing concepts of "participation" and "manipulation" can be viewed from many perspectives. The interventionist who attempts to "sell" solutions to a "target population" may be accused of being manipulative, and may also be bringing along a whole set of alien cultural premises. However, the participatory social communicator may also enter a village with a particular picture of reality and set of values, hoping the people will come to perceive their oppression the way he or she sees it. This may be equally manipulative.
• The price people have to pay for taking part in participatory processes is often overlooked. It is often assumed that the villager has nothing better to do with his or her time. For every hour spent "participating" there is an opportunity cost: that is, the fact that the villager may be foregoing more productive activity if the participatory process does not lead to benefits either in the long or short term. The social communicator should take this into consideration when entering a village or slum.

Participatory Communication Takes Over

Also, for the first time, development communication was no longer the exclusive domain of the professionals. Ideally, participatory communication was practiced spontaneously by the people without mediation. It was the byproduct of participatory processes and participatory communities.

For the practitioners, communication ceased to be the simple transfer of information. The question of who initiated a communication, and how the decisions leading up to the communication were made, became more important than what was being communicated. Communicators were no longer neutral movers of information, but were intervening actively to trigger changes aimed at encouraging people's participation. In many ways, the "techniques" of communication had not changed. What had changed profoundly were the ideologies and philosophies behind the practice of the techniques.

The emphasis on interpersonal and traditional methods encouraged the development and use of these communication methods, which had been largely ignored until then. Street theatre, folk-songs, speech, and group activities became important and effective channels for participatory communication. Large-scale national communication activities were set aside in favour of small, localized, and intimate programs.

Participatory Communication

The Evolution of Development Communications
Development Model	Communication Model	Broadcasting Approach
Modernization growth	Top-down diffusion	Farmers' radio
Basic needs growth with distribution	Horizontal grassroots	Radio forum
Dependency	"Conscientization"	News exchange
"Another"	Participatory	Community radio
Growth	Social marketing	Enter-educate

A small selection of the methods used by groups working at the community, regional, and subregional levels are described in the following sections of this chapter.

Working at the Community Level

Entering the Community

The first step usually focuses on the identification of a community partner in a participatory communication project. Many NGOs do this through drawing on their knowledge of the region where they have been working. To minimize risks of failure and to shorten the lead time for the start-up of the project, many NGOs select communities with whom they have worked, or are working. There are two advantages in doing so: first, there is an existing working relationship (which may not be totally participatory), and second, the NGO has a feel for the needs and aspirations of the community and can match these to the organizations' resources and capacities.

If a "new" community is identified, a slow process of "getting-to-know-each-other" is initiated. NGO workers, preferably from the area where the community lives and works, or possessing a good appreciation for the life and challenges of the people, and able to speak their language, visit the community with no aim except to introduce the NGO to the people and meet members of the community. A number of NGOs require their field staff to live with the communities for a long enough period of time (which may stretch over several months or even a year) that they both become accepted by the people and acquire a good appreciation of life in the community. During this period of residency, the potential role of the NGO is allowed to evolve naturally and informally through the NGO workers' interactions with members of the community.

The success of this crucial first step rests partly on the NGO workers and partly on the reputation of the NGO amongst the community. NGO workers belonging to credible organizations with a good track record at the grassroots will be greatly helped by the goodwill which such credibility brings. The basic task of the NGO staff at this time is to listen to the people.

Preparing to Plan Action

The period of listening and "getting-to-know-each-other" leads either to a decision to collaborate or not to collaborate. If it is the former, the next step is often the planning of the collaboration. Communication plays an important role at this stage. As many people as possible from the community need to be encouraged and provided with the opportunity to participate in the planning process. Meetings of the community are good starting points. The purpose of the planning exercise can be explained and debated, the people to be involved introduced to each other, and the methods for planning agreed upon.

Formal community meetings may be alien to the way of life of many villages. People in these communities should not be rushed into holding such meetings. As much time as possible should be given to informal consultations and discussions; the suggestion to meet should ideally evolve from these consultations.

The leaders of the enterprise will probably emerge at this stage. The person facilitating the process should ensure that leaders are eventually elected by a majority and interference in the choice of the leaders reduced to a minimum. A discussion of the desired attributes of the leaders should ideally precede the elections. After the elections are conducted, there is a possibility that contenders who have lost may decide to leave the group, taking with them their family, friends, and supporters. How the group responds to their departure is important in setting the tone for future interactions between the group and the departing members.

Planning What to Do

A first step may be reflection upon the current conditions, problems, aspirations and resources of the community. Media can plan a catalytic role here. Traditional and folk media have been used effectively in facilitating this process of reflection in many communities. In some villages, members of the community or a local theatre group prepare and present to the community a play about a fictitious place where conditions are similar to those in the village. The play, however does not have an ending. At an appropriate time members of the community are invited to act out the ending or to suggest what the ending may be. This method is effective for a number of reasons. It is entertaining. It is easy to participate in, because the event is conducted in an indigenous art form. It is also nonthreatening and minimally confrontational because issues are being addressed through proxies offered by imaginary characters in the play.

New technologies, such as small-format videos, have also been used successfully. The most famous is the "Fogo Process" (Williamson 1991), in which video is used as a "mirror" to reflect the issues and aspirations of people living in isolated communities. The people take an active part in planning and executing the production of a video of themselves. They also take an active part in the editing process, deciding what to cut and what to include. Besides helping the communities reflect, the videos have also served as highly effective communication between the people and outsiders, typically politicians and bureaucrats. Outsiders receive accurate and candid messages from the people through these videos, and because they often convey intense emotions, are also effective in moving outsiders to action. Replies are frequently sent back to the people on a video. Promises for corrective action recorded in this way are hard to break and help the people advance the issues they are advocating.

"Photo novella" are equally effective. People are provided with a still camera with which they are free to photograph anything they want to make up a pictorial novel about themselves. The pictures shot are displayed and arranged into an order through the collaborative efforts of members of the community. The picture stories help in reflection, communication with outsiders, and measuring progress of cooperative efforts. An example of the latter was provided by a group of villagers living on a mountainside threatened by serious landslides which were robbing the farmers of scarce arable land. The solution, learned from neighbouring villages, was to build retaining walls with large boulders — a back-breaking and long-term project. Photographs of the progress of "rock-walling" and the accumulating amounts of rich top-soil trapped by the walls convinced the villagers to build the walls, and motivated them to complete their daunting task.

A somewhat surprising success in the Philippines is a method called CIPS — Community Information and Planning System — surprising, because it is based on scientific research, which many people had first thought alien and not useful to rural communities. In this method, villagers who have heard about CIPS invite the university where CIPS was developed to send a trainer to work with the community. The trainer begins by conducting a short, informal course on the research process. The course is taught in the local dialect and presents the research process in a simple, easy-to-implement way. The people begin their research immediately after the course. They collect data and analyze them as a group. The results of the research are displayed on large charts, in easy-to-understand graphics, and presented to the community during a village meeting. After members of the community have understood the findings of the research, they prioritize problems and plan actions to address them. The actions are usually written up in the form of a proposal to a local government agency. This method has proven to be highly effective in promoting development activities to policy-makers because of the scientific approach adopted and the data backing requests for action.

Supporting Action

It is likely that if the community has advanced to the stage of action, a group of some kind will have evolved within the community to run the communication activities of the community. It will probably comprise opinion leaders like religious leaders, traditional birth attendants, teachers, folk musicians, actors, and others with a flair and love for communication and interaction with people. The communicators should ideally be elected by the community, with their duties defined during the elections.

The village communicators may be offered training in communication methods. Such training should emphasize the principles of participation and the supportive role of communication in triggering participation. Traditional and folk media should be used. Other media such as wall newspapers, video, and static displays may be also introduced. But the overall emphasis will probably be on interpersonal methods like speech, group discussions, and presentational skills (to peers as well as outsiders, like government officials). They may be also introduced to management skills, like the best way to sequence communication to support action in the community, and the breaking down of large problems into smaller component parts, to be addressed in order of priority. To be congruent with the goals of participatory communication, all training should focus on communication as an instrument to empower the people rather than as a vehicle for moving information. Communication for the facilitation of action may aim at a number of objectives:

• creating a very clear understanding of the proposed action;
• gathering feedback to ascertain whether the course of action is acceptable to and supported by (ideally) all, and if not, to find alternatives;
• communicating the finalized course of action;
• providing support and appropriate publicity as the action is being implemented;
• keeping members informed of progress and the gathering of their reactions;
• reporting the impact of the action;
• gathering and sharing members' reactions to the action taken;
• planning for the next round of action; and
• iterating the process.

Withdrawing from the Community

NGO workers who help set up participatory communication projects should plan their withdrawal from the communities as soon as the people indicate their readiness to take complete charge. The plan for withdrawal may be usefully stated sometime early in the interactions between the community and the NGO, so that the people can prepare for it — more importantly, it signals to the community that the NGO is sincere about taking participation to its ultimate level, with the people in full control. There have been debates in recent times about NGOs deliberately creating dependence among the communities they work with to protect their continuing role (and sources of funding). The withdrawal should, in most cases, be phased in gradually. It can begin with the handing over of functions normally performed by the NGO worker. The worker can next relocate from the community (if she or he has been living there) and return for visits. Their frequency can be gradually reduced to once or twice a month. Some NGOs stop visiting completely and instead invite members of the community to visit them any time they need to, or happen to be nearby, as on market days or at other times. Withdrawal should not mean a termination of interest by the NGO in the community. As noted in the section on research below, the NGO must keep track of the progress of the community in order to learn from it. The tracking should continue for as many years as possible, because participatory communication processes evolve continuously over long periods of time.

A Practical Approach to Development Communications — 1
Group Focus Assessing NGO capacity Entering selected community Planning action Communicating action plan Processing feedback and refining plans Action communication support Assessing and refining action Sharing benefits and costs Evaluating action Iterating process Eventually Withdrawing Keeping in touch

Working at a Regional Level

Audience Research

Participatory mass media organizations usually have some form of strong audience research mechanism. This may not always be in the form of a formal or scientific research unit managed by trained social scientists. More often, it takes the form of letters from readers or listeners, quizzes, phone-ins, outside broadcast units, roving reporters, etc. The feedback and feedforward comes when the people interact face to face, and share their views on the media with media workers. Feedforward is considered more important than feedback among some media workers. Feedback is when people react to stories or programs conceived independently by the media workers. Feedforward is when people tell the media workers what is important for media coverage, and which is the best angle and way of covering these issues.

Commercial stations, which are caught up in "rating wars" and competition for the advertising dollar, probably do more elegant audience research than participatory media managers. But there is a very fundamental ideological difference between what they do and what participatory media workers do. Commercial stations aim to capture "market segments," which they can then sell to advertisers for a profit. Their loyalty in business is to the advertiser. Participatory media's loyalty is to the people. Their reason for research is to ensure that the people's interests are being reported, and that they are provided with an effective forum to state their case.

People in Charge

The other form of participatory mass media places people in charge of programming decisions. They decide what to broadcast, as well as how, where, and when to do it. The professionals stay in the background, looking after engineering details and assisting in the creation of the programs, when called upon. New technology has made radio transmitters so simple to operate, that the people can do it independently. New technology has also led to the manufacturing of portable audio and video recorders, and desktop publishing systems, which in turn have simplified technical production processes and brought down the cost of operating such media. The availability of low-cost portable power generators has also helped in the relocation of many such technologies to rural settings, so that people there have easier access to the media. The main obstacles to the popular use of such technologies are the restrictive media laws in most developing countries, which limit media ownership to government or those trusted by government.

Most of these people-managed media broadcast or print material conceived and produced by members of the community. What they lack in professional finesse they more than make up for in credibility and feeling. Community radio stations often double up as important personal communication tools, sending personal messages to faraway places not served by telephones or the post office. They also help extend the reach of traditional and folk media by recording or broadcasting them "live." Such media also serve the important purpose of correcting the imbalance of power between the power holders and the people. When operated by fearless leaders, such media can quickly create awareness about incidents of oppression and mobilize local and external resistance to the oppression. Community radio was one of the principal "weapons" in the "people-power revolution" of the Philippines, which toppled a corrupt administration.

A Practical Approach to Development Communications — 2
"Larger" Focus (Using "Amplifying" Media) Audience" research Feedback Feedforward "Audience" generated programming "Audience" managed programming

Such dramatic events aside, most of the successes of community broadcasting are to be found in the nonformal education sector (Beltrán 1993). Literacy programs have been effectively conducted over community radio and television stations. Other subjects covered by these stations include gender issues, farming, health, income generation, workers' safety and occupational health, land tenure, and religious matters.

Challenges in Practice

Definitions

Disagreements over what constitutes true participation have troubled practitioners from the beginning. These have stemmed partly from differences in ideology and partly from the community settings where work was attempted. The ideological debate has ranged from those who felt that true participation must put people in charge of making all the decisions, to those who have felt that participation at other levels was also valid, and that the process could evolve from these levels towards the ideal goal. Other debates have resulted from the wide range of cultural and environmental settings to which practitioners had to respond and adapt. These adaptations have created participatory communication approaches different enough to cause disagreements among the communicators.

Conflict

Another challenge is the conflict participatory communication frequently causes among the people. Conflict results because this process readjusts the power relationships between those lacking, and those holding, power. By participating, people claim power for themselves, thereby threatening the influence of the power holders. Conflict also frequently occurs among the people themselves. The community sometimes splits into factions because of disagreements over goals and methods of doing things, and the involvement or exclusion of certain members of the community. As a result, participatory communication, which sets out to address root causes of development, often tends to cause serious conflict. This history of conflict has caused many practitioners to appreciate the need for equipping themselves and the people with conflict management skills, the most important being negotiation and mediation.

Up-scaling

Successes in participatory communication have proved difficult to replicate or up-scale. This is a major obstacle for NGOs interested in extending the benefits of participatory communication to a majority of the communities they serve. The challenge appears to stem from a number of factors. The first is the people-based nature of participatory communication skills. Some people seem to have special attributes which make them highly effective facilitators of the process. They are the "charismatic leaders" who "make things happen." These attributes presently remain elusive and escape identification or replication through training. The attributes of the communities have also been identified as crucial, with certain preconditions thought necessary for success. Up-scaling problems may also be traced to the special commitments and support usually given to experimental efforts by communities and organizations, but seldom available to the same degree in large-scale projects.

Governance

Among all the preconditions for success, the type of governance affecting the people may be the most important. People who live in highly controlled states may desire participation very intensely, while being very reluctant to subscribe to such approaches for fear of reprisals against them, their families, and friends. This represents not only a challenge but also a risk for those setting out to promote participatory communication.

Lure of the Private Sector

Privately owned companies are starting to affect participatory processes almost to the extent that local authorities have in the past. They do so by offering money, employment opportunities and other incentives to selected members of communities in order to seek desired cooperation from communities — incentives not always beneficial to the people's long-term interests. For example, certain timber companies frequently offer jobs with high salaries to community leaders in areas to be logged, thus securing the cooperation of the communities by co-opting their leaders. People who set out to fight these companies must first suffer all the painful results of conflict with their own leaders. Threats from the private sector are difficult to address because their methods are subtle and usually very attractive in the short term.

NGO Specialization

Whereas most NGOs were generalists in the past, many now work on specialized issues such as water, income generation, agriculture, gender, etc. These organizations face difficult problems when working in the participatory mode, because people often identify issues and problems that are outside the NGOs' areas of specialization. The best solution would seem to be a networking of NGOs sharing specialist skills in response to needs identified by the people.

Coexisting with "Other" Communication

Few communities live in total isolation from the outside world. In terms of communication, they may be reached by entertainment films in cinemas; television, radio, newspapers and magazines from the cities; salespeople from companies; and others, who do not practice participatory forms of communication. Facilitators need to introduce ways of coexisting with, or countering components of the larger communication system, so that people may sharpen their ability to interpret the communication reaching them. One way is education on the workings of different forms of media, and some of the intentions which drive their operation. The other approach is to counter competing messages with alternative information. For example, promotional campaigns for harmful chemical pesticides mounted by companies can be countered by participatory programs on integrated pest management which require minimal use of chemicals.

Long-term Commitment

Participation takes time. It is a process which cannot be rushed to meet deadlines or fit annual budgets. The two- or three-year funding cycles, which typically govern the implementation of sponsored development projects, are usually too short for real participatory communication processes to take root in communities.

Such projects may actually shut down processes just as they are about ready to evolve into vibrant participatory communication. Long-term commitment is required not just of the funding agency but also of the people. Participation takes up precious time and energies (which are often the only resources) of members of the community involved. Programs should ideally be designed to deliver sufficient short-term benefits to motivate the people in maintaining their commitment towards attaining long-term goals.

Flexibility

NGOs and their funding agencies must adopt flexible management approaches in the implementation of participatory programs. They must structure their work plans and budgets so that changes evolving out of participatory processes are accommodated quickly, with a minimum of difficulty. The objectives, anticipated outputs, and work plan described in documentation for participatory projects will probably change as people begin to take an active part in shaping project activities. Such administrative changes should be welcomed as indications of success, rather than symptoms of poor project design. Funding agencies and NGOs which are run in a participatory manner are the ones able to operate effectively with this form of project management.

Ethical Considerations

Manipulation

NGOs should never manipulate the people with whom they work, even if it appears to be in the best interest of the community. Instead, people should be provided with all the facts and alternatives, so they can make a decision acceptable to the majority of those involved. Manipulation sometimes happens in reverse: the people may try to manipulate the NGO. For example, the people might identify a priority problem within the area of expertise of the NGO just to obtain the organization's commitment to the community, even though the identified problem maybe very low in the people's hierarchy of needs.

Putting People at Risk

Participatory programs often threaten the interests of power holders, who may then retaliate against the people taking part in such programs. Facilitators should be mindful of such risks and explain them to the people, who should then make their own decisions on the amount of risk they are willing to bear as a group.

Leaving Communities "Fractured"

Participatory programs can profoundly alter the relationships and traditional systems of a community. NGOs must commit themselves to working with the people in completing these changes with results which are beneficial to them. NGOs must not abandon the communities in the middle of change, when the challenges are greatest. Doing so will probably leave the communities fractured and worse off than before.

Training

Such skills may be broadly grouped into two types. The first relates to participatory communication within small communities, where interpersonal and group methods are most effective and feasible. The second refers to programs conducted through the mass media which involve larger numbers of people all at once. In both categories, the training methods used should be congruent with the principles of participation. Top-down, teacher-to-student methods should be avoided wherever possible. Participatory methods should be favoured. Here the division between trainees and trainers is fuzzy, and everyone learns from the other.

Community-focused Work

Some of the most important skills are listed below. A detailed description of what each of the skills may comprise will not be provided here, mainly because such specifics must relate to the culture and ways of life of particular communities where the NGO staff are working. This section identifies "generic" training areas, which may then be "fleshed out" by the NGO in consultation with members of the community with whom they work:

• language (of the people with whom the NGO will work);
• listening;
• negotiation (for conflict management);
• mediation (for conflict resolution);
• appreciation of traditional and folk media (these must be conserved, as some of them may be corrupted by adaptations for development purposes);
• methods of "entering" a community;
• facilitating participatory planning;
• facilitating action;
• facilitating cost and benefit sharing;
• facilitating evaluation;
• facilitating iteration;
• withdrawing from the community; and
• keeping in touch after withdrawal.

"Larger" Focused Work

Training may be provided here to the media "professionals" who are responsible for operating various mass media, and to the people who will take part in the management and production of content to be disseminated by the mass media.

Training for the media "professionals" should cover the following skills:

• audience research:
• field-based production;
• negotiation (for conflict management); and
• mediation (for conflict resolution).

• production techniques;
• management of community media;
• program planning (for radio and television);
• audience research;
• negotiation; and
• mediation.

Conclusion

After two decades and more of experimentation, many development communication practitioners and researchers believe that they have found in participatory communication the most appropriate concept to guide their work in the developing world. However, it is a concept that has proved to be immensely challenging in application. We may be still a long way from translating these concepts fully into practice. This is a challenge which practitioners working in close collaboration with researchers should take up. Some of the critical considerations this collaboration should aim to study and understand are suggested below.

• Preconditions: are some communities better placed to apply participatory communication than others because of the favourable conditions they enjoy? If so, what are these preconditions?
• Leadership: participatory communication comes to life when facilitated by the right people. They are the "new leaders" who possess special attributes that nurture participation. What are these qualities? Can they be learned?
• Conflicts: are a frequent "byproduct" of participation. What are their causes? How does one manage and resolve them? Impact: on traditional communication systems when participatory processes take over.
• Appropriate application: when, and for what purposes are specific participatory communication methods best suited?
• People cost: participation is thought to be "expensive" to the people involved. What are the contributions and resources they have to invest in a participatory communication program to make it "work"?
• External funding: classical projects are thought to be too inflexible in design and management to nurture dynamic participatory processes. What is the most appropriate mode of funding? What should donors concentrate on funding?

Bibliography

Document(s) 4 of 16