Policy-makers Perceptions' of Communication for Development: Two Surveys Twelve Years Apart

In this article, authors Colin Fraser and Sonia Restrepo Estrada reflect on their two studies on policy-makers’ perceptions of communication for development undertaken for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in 1994 and the World Bank in 2006. They focus on the seemingly deepening identity confusion that surfaced in naming the role and meaning of Communication for Development in their most recent survey as compared to the 1994 survey. In this article, they consider the name and the naming process, review advances and back-steps in establishing the field of Communication for Development, ask, "Whom should we be advocating?" and consider the training of professionals in the field.


Naming

Fraser and Restrepo Estrada acknowledge the breadth of Communication for Development approaches, but criticise the field for failing to communicate a definition of itself successfully and for complicating the issue with inventing new names for the discipline, or simply adding an 's' to the word communication. Even without the 's', authors cite problems with the term Communication for Development.



They also criticise the use of jargon instead of tailoring the message to the audience; in particular, they criticise the lack of precise language necessary for communication with technicians. Also, they state that Communication for Development needs to be distinguishable from public information/public relations (PR), possibly by rebranding.

Forward and Back

A backward step is represented in the article by the fact that two United Nations (UN) agencies that had reputable and pioneering programmes have dropped them. However, another major agency and a major foundation have become involved in the field, but a certain amount of lessons learned are being repeated. Thus, less progress is being made to achieve successful results, weakening the traction necessary to demonstrate effectiveness.


Advocating to Whom?

The authors state that, though the Rome World Conference of Communication for Development's general opinion was to advocate senior policy makers, they speculate that project designers - who are closer to the field and have more autonomy in inclusion of communication - might be another important group to approach. They add that the approach needs to "come down from general declarations of principle, be more prescriptive, and explain how it actually works in the field," including practical solutions that are effective and timely, meaning that the Communication for Development
specialists should learn the basic technical facts of the subject they are being asked to communicate about, including basic strategies and the technicalities of the projects inputs being promoted - in short, immersion in the intricacies of that subject.

Training of Professionals

In both surveys complaints were voiced about a lack of competent people in Communication for Development. However, according to Fraser and Restrepo Estrada, progress has occurred in establishing formal academic training in a number of universities around the world. However, in reflecting on successful people in the field, the authors conclude that there are common characteristics, among them, a strong sense of commitment to help the underprivileged, an ability to identify with them and see things from their perspective, and respect and humility when working with them. They have also had outstanding listening skills, enjoyed being with urban and rural economically poor, and been prepared to work in field conditions that were often far from comfortable, characteristics and preferences that do not necessarily come from university training.



Journalism and media specialists are, according to respondents, often recruited, but commonly lack competence in the development context and, also limiting, are perceived to be from institutional communication or PR areas, which are thought of as low prestige. There is, as stated here, a need for recruiting and hiring committees to develop recognition of the specialisation involved in Communication for Development. The authors suggest building rosters of specialists with their track records, especially of those in developing countries. An example of where untrained or unprepared staff negatively affects participation - a priority of those surveyed in the 2006 study - is the non-prioritisation of interpersonal/group communication skills for those running participatory discussions.

Separate from the survey questionnaire, but particularly relevant to the identity question, is the question asked of those most forthcoming in the interviews for the survey: "we asked what Communication for Development people should do to improve the recognition of their work and to gain its more general adoption." Opinions included the need for proof of effectiveness, also a theme of the 1994 survey, as well as advocacy. It was suggested that evaluators highlight the impact of lack of communication when projects do not succeed.



Also, "[t]here were many comments along the following lines: the need for a common conceptual understanding among communicators of what Communication for Development is. Reduce its broadness, tease out its important elements, and define them; work more closely with technical people and make practical proposals; not want to do communication for communication’s sake; and take advantage of the now generally accepted policies in favour of participation, bottom-up, and human-centred development. These policies are not always realized in practice, often because of poor or lacking communication processes; this opens an entry point for advocating our discipline."



In short, the 2006 survey showed an increase in awareness of the importance of Communication for Development, including increased understanding of its economic justification for inclusion in projects, and decreased demands for cost-benefit analyses; but, as detailed, there is a gap to mainstreaming Communication for Development in development work.