Document(s) 12 of 39

Asia is a region of many faces. This chapter speaks of the Asian experience with participatory development communication (PDC) from the perspective of one of its sub-regions – that grouping of nations known collectively as South-East Asia. More precisely, the chapter delimits itself to PDC as interpreted by communication units set up in South-East Asian colleges and universities as part of their agricultural extension or outreach function. The affinity of these units with the media offices of extension services in US land grant colleges¹ is obvious. Nonetheless, they have evolved – and continue to do so – into hybrid structures more appropriate to their cultures and to the state of knowledge in the field of development and communication.

There are other Asian viewpoints on PDC, notably in India and other parts of South Asia. They will be similar to the South-East Asian experience in some ways, different in others. All have lessons to offer in the continuing delineation of the relationship between communication and human development.

University communication units

The communication units referred to are found in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. They are at the incipient stage in transitional societies such as Cambodia, Laos and, perhaps, Myanmar. Regarded as adjuncts to the biological and physical science departments of their universities, the older units were initially tasked with extending the results of research generated by those departments, with some public relations and publicity jobs for administrators thrown in. This they were expected to accomplish through the media; hence, they were staffed with writers, editors, artists, audio and video specialists. Face-to-face interaction with farm families was considered something that extension workers do and, therefore, was outside the mandate of the communication staff.

An obsolete, ante-millennium model of PDC, you say? It is alive and kicking in South-East Asia in spite of globalization, state-of-the-art information and communication technology, participatory communication activism, terrorism and all other change-inducing phenomena now sweeping the world. Evidence of its endurance may well be mirrored, in greater or lesser degree, among the organizations usually represented in international events: the focus on proffered technology, the sidelining of communication practitioners within the organization, the forced merger of communication with other seemingly related units for reasons of efficiency, economy or whatever.

Evolution of participatory development communication in South-East Asia

There is another side to the picture, however. It was in this type of communication unit that PDC as study and practice first saw light in SouthEast Asia, was nurtured and then diffused to other developmental fields such as health and the environment, among others. At least seven of those university communication units have evolved into fully fledged teaching departments with their own research and outreach programmes. One has even achieved college status, although still under rather shaky circumstances at the moment.

Every forward step has meant greater latitude to break away from traditional characterizations and to chart their preferred direction while expanding their influence. In the College of Development Communication (CDC) at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños, for instance, the staff remains concerned with the agricultural content of PDC, but in the broader context of natural resource management (NRM) through their association with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), or of reproductive health through their projects with the Philippine Department of Health and the Johns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs. Through formal and non-formal training programmes, CDC has produced hundreds of development communicators who have fanned out to other fields besides agriculture and to other countries outside South-East Asia. Through its various curricula and publications, then, reinforced by its links to research and action programmes such as Isang Bagsak,² CDC has become the nucleus of a major network engaged in the study and application of communication principles in or for development.

The participatory character of development communication has always been considered a given in most of South-East Asia, although the type and degree of participation may not always have been uniform. Until recently – for example, in Malaysia – 'participatory' did not always translate into direct critiques of government policies as in, say, the Philippines, where the political institutions are more Westernized – some would say too Westernized. On the other hand, even in an old democracy such as Thailand, participatory development communication as taught in the universities may still follow the top-down diffusion mode simply because of less exposure to ever-changing development communication thought as new insights are uncovered. As for a hierarchical society such as Cambodia's, particularly with its present form of government, participatory development is still uneven. There is less of it in formal communication encounters, but apparently a great deal more among peers in informal field settings. Clearly, PDC is a product of a society's culture, socio-political institutions and acceptance of current thinking in development and communication. It is also clear that PDC professionals everywhere have a great opportunity to enlarge the degree of citizen participation in their societies by always making visible in their work the principles of participatory development.

And what is the essence of PDC in South-East Asia today? Mindful of its beginnings, PDC aligns itself with those who would reduce, and possibly eliminate, hunger, poverty and sickness in the world. Yet, as a social science, it does not identify with technology per se but with the people who use or do not use it, particularly among the disadvantaged in rural areas. Thus, its ultimate goals are equality and social justice for all and freedom for everyone to develop their potential. It uses the tools and methods of communication chiefly to educate through non-formal ways so that people may have both the capacity and the information to make their own decisions.

Some observations and reflections

South-East Asian development communicators have had their problems and setbacks, to be sure. But they have also had their high moments and successes. Through it all they have learned from their own experience and that of others. A few of their more current observations and reflections on participatory development communication are shared below:

• The conceptual difference between communication as process and communication as media or channels seems to bear repeating every so often. As process, it is the exchange or interchange of all types and kinds of information within a society or social group, which is why communication is said to be the most basic of all social processes. It is also seen by many as communication through mass or community media. This traditional perception can be enlarged to include all the mechanical and personal avenues through which information flows between and among the members of a social group. Whether seen as process or as channel, communication can be consciously used for development. Development communication, then, is the process of multilevel exchange within a society of information whose intent is to advance human development and which is channelled through selected media.
  
  
• Communication media have long been dichotomized into mechanical and personal. Mechanical media, such as radio, television and now information and communication technologies (ICTs), have received much more attention. It is time to ferret out the nuances of interpersonal communication that promote development. Initiatives such as Isang Bagsak have made a good start. They can also explore the workable combinations of face-to-face and mediated communication that delineate process. In this way, they can take the concept of development communication process out of the generic stage that it is still in and give it more precision and specificity.
  
  
• It seems to have become standard in many disciplines for younger professionals to denigrate the work of their predecessors around the globe as being reactionary, perhaps forgetting that they do so from the vantage point of hindsight. And so they try to reinvent the wheel. Without the foundation laid down by those seminal thinkers around the world who have gone before, today's communicators, for instance, would not have had the concept of communication in, or for, development to begin with, and to which is now attached the 'participatory' label. A lesson worth sharing with other development professionals is this: do not turn your back on your beginnings. Acknowledge them, even as you build on them.
  
  
• In the practical realm, new models of communication do not necessarily replace older ones. They just co-exist. This is reflected today in the undiscriminating use of terms associated with both old and new models. As a case in point, 'target audiences' and 'beneficiaries' are spoken of alongside of 'stakeholders' and 'participants'. PDC professionals should set the example of being clear about the kind of communication they advocate and of adapting their terminology accordingly. At the same time, they should recognize that older models retain their validity in certain situations and can still be used where appropriate.
  
  
• It is now accepted that rural people and other disadvantaged groups have the right to participate in decisions affecting their lives. They need to be empowered – as the stock phrase goes – to realize their self-worth, and to have their opinions heard and factored into the development dialogue. The same can be said of another group in the development world – the extension technicians, media practitioners and other rank-and-file fieldworkers. In the diffusion model of technology transfer, they are the faceless middlemen who connect the scientists to the local communities. In later communication models, they are hardly visible and are, perhaps, just as neglected. They need to be recognized, too, as valued participants in the development process and accorded equal rank with the other actors.
  
  
• As shorthand for innovation, technical content, improved practice or – in our case – natural resource management, technology is not a bad word. PDC professionals should make their peace with it. Development needs a balance between technology and people empowerment. Neither one by itself can go it alone. PDC can be a tool to help people zero in on their problems and apply the technology they wish, given an adequate array to choose from and the capability to make the choice.
  
  
• Still on the subject of balance, the trend seems to be for development communication as art and language to break new ground in areas where development communication as social science has only ventured peripherally. This is a welcome move for which some caveats may be offered. Unilateral answers have never worked before and there is no reason to believe that they will now. Development is a multifaceted pursuit and PDC practitioners must integrate within it as many facets as are feasible. On another note, anecdotal case studies without backup systematic investigation could lead us back to equating PDC with its channels, whether mechanical or personal, rather than with it as process.
  
  
• Communicators have been accused of talking only to themselves. Should PDC professionals not also discuss overlapping concerns with researchers, practitioners and administrators involved in natural resource management? Many development professionals still operate within the old researcher–extension worker–farmer paradigm of technology transfer, perhaps because they have not been exposed to newer ones. PDC could facilitate that type of dialogue not only through mediated communication, but also at meetings in venues that NRM researchers, practitioners and administrators are familiar with.
  
  
• With the present state of world finances, many countries, including developed ones, can no longer support one-on-one intensive, but expensive, extension systems, potentially leaving the field to commercial companies. What alternatives does the richness of information and communication technology have to offer to small farmers with dissimilar needs? Isang Bagsak has piloted a possible community-based resource. More experiments like this are essential when done systematically and with an eye to their fiscal viability for poor countries.
  
  
• Is participatory development communication a means or an end, or both? Is Isang Bagsak meant to achieve better NRM in a community, or is it a way for researchers and community residents to internalize PDC? Or are both objectives valid? The answer will dictate what indicators should be used to gauge the success of projects such as Isang Bagsak.
  
  
• Finally, PDC can be institutionalized in two ways: in policy to ensure its adoption by field practitioners, and in theory to ensure its continuing viability and validity through research conducted by students and academics. Both will enrich communication for development as practice and as a field of study.

Conclusions

Participatory development communication, in its several variations across countries, is a young but dynamic field that is nurtured by many disciplines. At the same time, its unique window to human development allows it to pioneer new concepts and practices that other fields can emulate. It has come quite a way in the span of 30-odd years. Like science and art, it can contribute much more as long as its advocates, with their own kind of tools and expertise, hold fast to their vision of equality and social justice for all, and freedom for everyone to develop their potential.

Notes

¹ In the US, land grant colleges are a set of state and territorial institutions of higher learning that receive federal support for integrated programmes of agriculture teaching, research and extension for agriculture, food and environmental systems.

² Isang Bagsak is a learning and networking programme that aims to improve communication and participation among natural resource researchers, practitioners, communities and other stakeholders, and to provide communication support to development initiatives in helping communities overcome poverty.

Document(s) 12 of 39