Part 1: So is this new and does it matter (from the Background Paper for Communication for Development Roundtable)

The chief criticism levelled at these arguments in particular, and Communication for Social Change (CSC) advocates in general, is that they are saying little that is new. Specific criticisms tend to fall into four areas.

First, that participatory, people centred communication has been at the core of most mainstream communication thinking and practice for many years, and most development communication initiatives aim first and foremost to empower people to make informed choices. In this context, argue the critics, much of what CSC proponents are arguing is a reiteration of much of what has gone before.

Second, that some of these arguments are creating artificial boundaries between different approaches and schools of thought in communication. Good communication interventions focus on an intelligent and locally appropriate mixes of behaviour change, social change, advocacy and other forms of communication. In focusing on moving away from "traditional" approaches to communication, CSC proponents are creating an unnecessary tension between different approaches to communication when what is needed (and, it is argued, already practiced) is a synthesis between a range of interventions.

Third, that while the UNAIDS and Rockefeller (and other similar) arguments have emerged largely from practitioners on the ground, and while there is along academic tradition of participatory communication literature, CSC arguments are weak when it comes to backing their arguments up with rigorous academic analysis, modelling and theory. Similarly, they are weak in providing effective evaluation methodologies which can demonstrate the impact of their work.

Fourth, that while many of the ideas in documents such as the UNAIDS Communication Framework are strong in terms of principle, they are difficult to translate into practice on the ground, particularly within the setting of large institutions.

Proponents of Communication for Social Change acknowledge some of these criticisms. Nevertheless, they argue, while there is a rich and mainstream tradition of participatory communication, particularly in the field of HIV/AIDS this is not being applied. They point to a number of factors in response to criticisms made of them.

First, that both the UNAIDS and Rockefeller processes were centred on largely southern based, grassroots and civil society focused and driven debates. These processes appear to have revealed widespread perceptions on the ground that HIV/AIDS communication initiatives in developing countries are significantly driven by institutional and external agencies operating according to their own assessment of what needs to be done, rather than supporting and working within a framework of genuinely internally driven debates and agendas around HIV/AIDS.

In this sense, they appear to have revealed a substantial "disconnect" between funding and some international agencies, and indigenous organisations working on the ground. These organisations, these processes suggest, perceive that mainstream communication interventions are often highly vertical, and are constructed through a process through which they feel they are sometimes partners, and in which they are sometimes involved, but over which they feel they have little control.

Second, that while participatory communication is indeed mainstream thinking among communication theorists and practitioners, systematically putting these principles into practice on the ground continues to be extremely difficult. Participatory and social change communications tends to work on long time horizons, to be difficult to evaluate in terms of impact and difficult for donors to support.

For these reasons, most financial support tends to be channelled to interventions, such as social marketing programmes, with short time horizons, and with clear and quantitative evaluation mechanisms. Many proponents of Communication for Social Change argue that these channels of communications are generally marginal and peripheral add ons to otherwise vertical and behaviour change oriented programmes, while they should provide the core and foundation of all other interventions.

Third, that in challenging the perceived emphasis on behaviour change interventions, it is not intended to create a false dichotomy between the various different approaches, but there is a strong argument that unless developing country societies and communities are setting and driving the underlying processes of change that are necessary to confront this epidemic, and unless support is provided for the creation of environments where that can happen, future progress in tackling HIV/AIDS is unlikely to be sustainable. They argue that developing countries, both in terms of government and civil society, still find themselves in a position where they are responding to rather than shaping the international response to HIV/AIDS.

Fourth, that while theory and academic rigour are weak points in terms of communication for social change interventions, there is increasing interest in learning from and adapting the rigorous thinking that goes into much behaviour change oriented interventions to communication for social change thinking.

Fifth, they argue that Communication for Social Change, while poorly defined, is not only suggesting the incorporation of more participatory techniques in existing project programming, but a major change in approach which involves institutions surrendering their agendas.

Sixth, they argue that many communication initiatives are overly focused on the symptoms of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, rather than the underlying causes. While high rates of sexual transmission are undeniably the principal driver for rapid spread of the virus, and changing sexual behaviour is necessary to contain the pandemic, behaviour change is unlikely to be achieved without addressing the underlying causes of these behaviours. Issues of inequality, prejudice, the status of women, the responsibility of men, marginalisation and disempowerment, community and social cohesion, poverty and many other social and political factors are fundamental drivers of the pandemic. Addressing these issues is also fundamentally about using and fostering communications in society.

And finally, they argue that the dispute is not necessarily an either/or issue and that clearly there is huge value in many behaviour change and social marketing interventions. Nevertheless, they argue that unless these are implemented within a broader social and political context then there are major limitations in terms of sustainability and impact.

A mosaic of approaches

This paper has chosen to highlight just a few of these key debates in the HIV/AIDS communication field. There are many others, and in the fields of behaviour change, social change, advocacy and other communications approaches, there have been many developments, not to mention leading organisations, which have not been covered here and which will be discussed further at the roundtable.

One which should be mentioned, given the agenda of the round table is advocacy communications. One example of this comes from UNFPA's work on gender. Both in its work on HIV/AIDS in Africa and in changing alienating gender relations in reproductive and sexual health and rights, UNFPA's approach is to create a balance between advocacy communication, to create a positive cultural milieu for safe sexual and gender formation promoting equity and empowerment, and behaviour change communication, to change individual behaviour. Both are required to empower women and men and build equal partnerships between them. In both HIV/AIDS prevention and the change of harmful men's gender roles, more, rather than less advocacy is needed.

Such advocacy has to take place at a number of levels: targeting men in their role as traditional or community leaders to collectively take the lead to change cultural ideas about masculinity; partnering religious leaders with population professionals to advocate safer sex and facilitate adolescent sexual and reproductive health programmes; promoting new male gender roles, such as involvement in child care and supporting safe motherhood; working with men as perpetrators of domestic violence and not just treating women as survivors; building networks and coalitions between male groups; changing media stereotypes and creating a debate on the roles and responsibilities of men.