Three Challenges of Communication for Social Change

In this 6-page paper on communication for development, Alfonso Gumucio Dagron approaches his analysis of 3 challenges of communication from a Latin American perspective - communication as a participatory process resulting in "sustainable and appropriate social development and social change." Based on the Latin American development experience, he defines "sustainable" as meaning experiences that can continue on the strength of social actors in grassroots projects without external inputs, and "appropriate" as meaning that development results from "a process of social appropriation." The 3 challenges to communication for development discussed here are the challenge of using naming language accurately, the challenge of its focus as an academic discipline and field of practice, and, finally, the challenge of prioritising the discipline in large development agencies.

In his discussion of naming things, or word meaning, Gumucio hypothesises that much misunderstanding, e.g. disagreements, divergences, and the lack of dialogue with development organisations, is due to a lack of agreement on meanings for words such as "mass media" and "participation." Regarding the meaning of "communication", he prefers to "redeem the original root and etymology of the Latin word, communio, which means to share, participate, and strengthen collectively." In separating the process of dialogue and exchange represented by the word "communication" from the term "mass media", he suggests adopting the assumption that "mass media" deals with information and dissemination. Further defining "communication" as a process, he recommends distinguishing tools or instruments of communication (e.g., radio, internet) and messages (e.g., articles, programmes) from the processes of communication (e.g., dialogue, debate). In short, "communication is a two-way or multiple-way horizontal process of dialogue and interaction, whereas, information is only dissemination or diffusion."

Additionally, the author clarifies the confusion between “communications” (with an “s” at the end) and “communication" as follows:

• The plural of communication refers to “a system (as of telephones) for communicating..."
• Whereas without the “s” communication is “a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behaviour”.

Gumucio challenges the academic field of communication to separate the disciplinary focus on commercial mass media from the focus on communication for development according to the distinction that the field of information and public relations is distinct from the study of communication as a process, which includes communication for social change. He claims that while more than 2,000 universities offer journalism oriented towards mass media, less than twenty offer training for communication for development. This gap between development organisations and universities he sees as the reason "why development organisations maintain a conservative and reductive vision of communication, limited - in the best scenario - to dissemination of information through campaigns, and in the worst scenario, conceived as an instrument of visibility and auto promotion."

On the challenge of legitimisation of the field, the author seeks to have communication for development and social change elevated on the agenda of development organisations. Here, he cites the need for better educated communication strategists to replace journalism-trained public relations officers. He does not seek to replace the grassroots communicators, but to open to them, for participation, the higher levels of organisational support. He selects 3 indicators of institutional support:

1. the institutional and programmatic budget percentage allocated to communication (not to information or public relations);
2. the level of posts created for communication specialists (not for public relation officers); and
3. the decision to develop communication policies and strategies.

In conclusion, Gumucio calls for more accountability in development organisations to adopt strategic and comprehensive approaches to communication for development using a paradigm of horizontal, participatory communication for social change that would positively influence governments to uphold legislative protections of the right to communicate.

Click here to access the full article online.