The Main Discussion was structured around a series of three sequential reflections inspired by the book. A summary of the main contributions was made at the end of each reflection and shared with the participants jointly with the questions and brief note from the moderator to introduce the next reflection. Moderated the discussions and prepared the introduction and summary notes in collaboration with the FAO Communication for Development Group.
The Main Discussion was structured as follows:
Reflection 1 focused on eight included in the book presenting different initiatives in varying development contexts and from different areas around the globe. Participants were asked to review these with the following question in mind:
- Do you think it is possible to develop successful communication strategies for all of these experiences using one theoretical approach?
Reflection 2 focused on the theory and change principles from the book combined with the experiences, and than presented in very brief schematic form. Participants were asked to review all or some of them and reflect on:
- Do you think these theoretical perspectives complement each other? How and in what ways?
Reflection 3 focused on the approach and structure of the book itself as well as the usefulness of the online forum and the need for further collaboration and cooperation. Participants were asked to review the introduction[4] considering the approach of the manual in light of the discussion and reflect on:
- Will this book be useful to you in your work and where do you think it will be most effectively used: i.e. in the field, in short training programmes, in university courses etc.?
And
- What has the discussion told you about emerging needs and issues in the field and the kinds of further collaboration and cooperation that can help address these needs?
Grasping the substance of the 80 contributions made during this portion of the on-line forum can only be done by reading the full set of contributions. There were so many substantive and thoughtful comments made about issues that require full debate and discussion themselves that this forum should be seen as a small step in a much needed, much larger and ongoing communication process. To provide a ‘shorthand’ taste of the full discussion we have incorporated the final summary of the discussion below.
The first reflection began with a focus on whether a single theoretical approach was possible or even desirable. For many of the contributors the answer was no:
I personally do not believe that there can be a valid single theoretical model or recipe for a participatory process or communication approach to natural resource management. The best solutions will always foresee a mix of communication models, functions and approaches...
At the same time there are certain guiding principles which have now been identified through lessons learned...
At the same time there are certain guiding principles which have now been identified through lessons learned...
Several shared guidelines and common principles learned and distilled from many years of experience. To list just a few:
Start communicating, early in the life of a project or programme, with all the parties involved.
All the activities under the consultation and communication process should:
contribute to the social, environmental, and financial sustainability of the initiative,
be flexible and adapt to local needs and conditions,
promote the participation of the stakeholders throughout the life of the initiative, and
be conducted in a transparent and open manner.
Offer concrete solutions and use realistic technologies.
Move forward at the pace of the community.
Facilitate horizontal communication within the communities in which people are working.
Accompany the process with a communication plan involving other stakeholders (NGOs, other villages, timber companies, etc.) and local or national authorities.
Others noted:
A common theory will only get into the way. There are however some common principles which can serve us well in international and cross cultural projects but we need to make sure that all parties understand each other well and that terms are clearly defined.
I want to say natural resource communication strategies should be a mixture of evolution and revolution. Gradual thinks must be better than before, but participants should go through a ‘catharsis’ - the communication program should change the individual and social perceptions as a result of the communication program. From this viewpoint, guidelines are more appropriate than theoretical recipes...
Development is so context driven. It requires flexibility, flexibility, and more flexibility. What is really needed is a careful understanding of each situation, some common sense, and some reflection throughout the process. Perhaps not finding a common theory is good in that it forces us all to keep thinking on what is appropriate, rather than following what theory says.
However, there was also a strand of the discussion that recognised the importance of theory as a way to both represent lessons and shine light on issues that are not obvious. Theory should be flexible, and if built on the principles and guidelines learned from many years of NRM, communication should provide a cohesive and persuasive framework:
There are many different experiences, cultures and natural resource problems and issues, and there obviously is no "one size fits all" approach to anything, but I do think that in the field of development and participatory communication today - based on the experience of the past 40 years - we do have more than just general guiding principles for our work...While I agree that a single theoretical approach might not be possible, I feel quite strongly that guiding principles alone are not strong enough.
Theory is useful when it distils our thoughts and enables us to become more honed in practice. Our experiences when observed in theory can allow us to think and act more clearly...there is a productive dynamic between experience and theory. I will take theory very seriously especially if this is articulated by individuals or groups drawing on their lessons, insights and reflections from experiences and real engagement with peoples and communities.
Do you think it is possible to develop successful communication strategies for all of these experiences using one theoretical approach? First, yes it is possible. While some have said that it is not but rather we should generate a set of guiding principles, I believe we can use these same guiding principles to build a theoretical approach/theory...Practice should inform theory and of course, theory should modify practice.
Some came back to this relation between theory and practise at the end of the forum:
Theory is a framework, an instrument of analysis, it provides depth to the process of thinking through the issues of development. Theory feeds practice and experience feeds theory. The problem, really, is the tendency to immediately translate theory into models and toolboxes.
We come to a country with our theories and ideas of how things ought to be, our young inexperienced minds produce programs that just don’t fit the context. When doing development be sure you make a clear and thorough assessment of the people’s assets even thinking beyond your ability to theirs."
Regarding the gap between theory and practise it seems rather a statement of the obvious. By definition, theory is what it is and practise is to stay down to earth. What is urgent/indispensable is a framework that allows structuring experience and "theorizing practise". This is required to strengthen the foundations and raise communication for natural resource management at the level of a real discipline.
The second reflection looked at the extent to which existing communication theories were complimentary or contradictory. Interestingly, many felt that they were both contradictory and complimentary and that seemingly opposing approaches could be used depending on the context and audience:
I believe most of them mention, more or less, similar change stages but from different perspectives: top-down (expert centred) or bottom-up (people centred). I would therefore say that theories that share the same perspective can be complimentary to each other.
The theoretical perspectives presented in FAO’s manual complement each other in that all combined, they highlight the basic ingredients, essential components, vital links of any responsible communication strategy. They also highlight different combinations of approaches, tactics and steps that can lead to success, taking into account the human factor, local knowledge and know-how, socio- economic conditions, cultural landscape, policy environment and also ideological fashion at the global level (e.g. the green revolution in the experience of organic product marketing).
I agree with Rawya that the different theories outlined in the manual are not necessarily complementary, unless they share the same perspective. Some approach change with top down, expert centred transmission of knowledge and information (as pointed out by Rawya, three of them), while the others are people centred and participatory. A good example is the two models outlined in the Sri Lanka - Internet Radio case: the Aristotelian model and the Buddhist model. The Aristotelian model could be considered more suitable for advocacy with policy makers, while the Buddhist model is definitely a participatory and community oriented model. Thus, the audience and the objective of the communication exercise will determine the selection of a model to follow.
Dialogue based or horizontal communication approach is best particularly in the natural resource management related work, though, this approach is increasingly being considered falling in the domain of social organization or social resource management; however, communication support through vertical tools like, brochures, posters, hoardings even large media like radio, TV, seminars, internet etc would be vital to foster an over arching impact to smoothen and solidify a social organization initiative aimed at natural resource management.
Another strand that emerged in this reflection related to the above discussion but focused on the need for skilled communication professionals - people with the knowledge and experience to choose between various theories and approaches and relate these to context and needs:
Professionals are crucial in this process and training, professional training (including training of trainers and at the community level) is vitally important, particularly, as Silvia says, if communication is to become an integral component of successful development efforts.
Unless you are a professional communication for development specialist, it is not easy to select appropriate models or fundamentals to apply, especially in complex situations. And, as Guy has pointed out, to have the capacity to adapt to the results of experiments and modify approaches as you proceed. Thus, training of communication professionals is essential if communication is to become an integral component of successful development efforts, and appropriate models and fundamentals/ principles are to be applied. Professional communication specialists are also needed if we are to solve the problem of advocating with policy makers for the need to include communication as an essential component from the beginning of NRM initiatives.
This topic was referred to again in some of the closing remarks at the end of the discussion:
We really need to establish the field of communication for development and social change as something distinct and separate from the current studies of journalism, public relations and comunicacion empresarial.
...there is a gap between those communication professionals who practise in the field and those situated in head offices and research organizations. Workshops are probably an okay way to bridge this gap. The best way is for the researchers to go to the project/small geographical area level. Theory sounds very good on paper but fails a lot when it comes to implementation. A lot of good feeling and common sense is often more useful.
In the final reflection many sought to pull together various threads of the discussion and to focus once again on the practical needs of communicators in the field. So far as the book itself was concerned some of the things said were:
For something coming from as far and high as Rome and Washington, it is reasonably down to earth, carrying many practical case studies and lessons from diverse geographic regions and various socio-economic context. A couple of studies from India and China would have been more democratic... The book has enough meat for the academic circles to examine and further reflect on concepts, we the communication workers can administer all relevant ideas fitting into our work and mandate!
I think this manual will be very useful in university courses that involve active hands on projects. I will definitely share the concept of this book with fellow researchers in ICTs and e-governance.
This book can be a powerful tool in training programs at field and academic levels everywhere, and would be great to renew it periodically with other valuable experiences in a permanent feedback process.
The resource book will be greatly enhanced if you manage to capture the most substantial contributions that have been made around the issue of common principles (Richardson, Ramirez, Balit, among others). Case studies are fine, however I believe there should be a whole chapter that expands the principles.
Other aspects of the discussion that continued to echo through to the end were:
The need for further communication and network building:
I look forward to the growth of more effective networks that link artists, social and environmental activists, educators and policy makers.
This forum created great networking opportunities. I myself am able now to directly contact several of the participants in the forum for consultations and potential joint activities.
The need to place NRM communication within wider contexts that impact on the ability to sustainably manage resources:
Communities (particularly poor and marginalized ones) do want to conserve their natural belongings and manage their resources however, factors beyond their control, e.g climate change and poverty, does not allow them to do so. They do listen and agree with our speeches on the ‘value of conserving the trees for sustainability and aesthetics etc.’ but cannot afford to agree on not cutting the tree, unless matching alternatives energy or fuel wood is provided to them. Here our Communication Strategy may require to target the people who controls the resources and who can facilitate and make decisions on provision of alternative energy, hydro, wind, solar, gas and coal, even oil. the poor communities would come all along.
The above synthesis were presented only to provide a glimpse into the main themes and some sense of the depth and substance of the reflections generated. We hope that it provides enough to entice the reader to go through the full contributions below and draw their own ideas and inspiration from the complete discussion.
| [4] http://www.comminit.com/stfaocommnrm/sld-8151.html |
