Talk:Development communication/Archive 1

Comment on the major revisions
Glad to see some major work on this article, but I think that the removal of all mention ofNora C. Quebral et al was too extreme. My impression is that she has contributed to developing a particular perspective on development communication, and is recognized for her contributions in the field especially in Asia. In fact, that perspective, focusing as it does on "communication capabilities and resources of people, communities, institutions, and other participants in the development process" (from the UPLB/CDC site) seems to enlarge the field of development communication. From that perspective, one might argue that the ideas of Freire are not so much an alternative to development communication as a potential source of new thinking in a branch of development communication. --A12n23:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with A12n, although, as a student of that particular branch of DevCom, I am probably somewhat biased. :-) On another note, would others agree with me that the explanation of Development Communication here should be less technical?  This is, after all, a general reference site rather intended for a general audience.  If we took the "simply said" approach, I think we could avoid having to adapt the article every time someone from a different school of thought.Alternativity 04:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nora C. Quebral has been restored but could someone please summarize her contribution? There is a biography of her here http://www.glocaltimes.k3.mah.se/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=47&issueID=5 The main point seems to be an emphasis on participatory communication but that point is made by everyone in the field. Is there a feminist contributuon to development communication? The field always seems to address men as farmers and women as home makers. 17 June 2007

I used that article to come up with a Nora C. Quebral page, (may I assume you're A12n?). But I'm not sure how to merge it with this article, which I still believe should be simplified, and at the same time expanded. I notice it seems to STOP after the 1970s? The field has certainly grown a lot since then. Or at least, there's a lot of literature from the Philippines/Los Baños school that has not been represented here at all. I will try to add more, but I'm very busy right now, so it may take a while. Doing this will require me digging through all my Quebral, Librero, Jamias, and Flor references, but if anyone else here has acess to those references, go right on ahead. :-D Alternativity 18:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Communication for/in development
It would be interesting to have a mention of how other formulations of "communication" and "developnment" - such as "communication for development" and "communication in development" -relate to "development communication." --A12n 23:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have, long back, fiddled with the working definition of development communication and when I'm visiting this article after some years, I find that the present definition has changed quite a bit.It is simple and straight, but it is restrictive. How can we say, dev.comm. is just communication for "social" development? It includes economic development as much, and maybe other facets of dignified living. Then, it is not always "advocacy" or "FOR DEVELOPMENT" aspect, but reporting, discussion, feedback and other forms of communication, so all communication "IN" the areas of social and economic development need to be included.Manojpandeyindia (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Time for major revisions
I may be stirring a hornet's nest here, but I seriously think it's time for major revisions on this page.

In the first place, its phrasing is, in my view, unnecessarily confusing when you think of the fact that DevCom, simply, is the use of communication to promote development - communication for development. Do we really need to make the definition in the lead paragraph so technical?

Secondly, the history shown here reflects only one school of Development Communication, with some of the field's luminaries like Quebral and Freire suddenly reduced to the role of critics when, in fact, they pioneered independent schools of development communication in their own contexts.

Thirdly, the outline has become very disorganized, with a very confusing flow from one subtopic to another.

And finally, we really really really need to cite our sources more systematically, and we really need to fix those dead links.

I'm working on some changes myself, starting with a parallel history of the various schools of Development Communication. I'm going to be looking at ways to simplify the lead paragraph soon.

I'd love to hear suggestions for how we can further improve this article, so... er... who's with me? Hehe.Alternativity (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

History of field
I'm temporarily moving this here in favor of a more inclusive history of the field, but I hope to integrate this further into the Bretton Woods School Discussion.Alternativity (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

History of field

One of the earliest advocates of development communication is Daniel Lerner in the classic work The Passing of Traditional Societies (1958). He coined the expression the "revolution of rising expectations." He believed that mass media could promote empathy with the modern world and facilitate change from a traditional society to a modern consumer democracy. The assumptions behind this model have been criticized and it has been shown that his work was actually based on audience research for the Voice of America broadcasts during the Cold War.

Another important influence is Wilbur Schramm who wrote a widely read book Mass Media and National Development (1964). Schramm set targets for developing nations to meet: newspapers, radio sets, cinema seats and TV sets per 1,000 population. This was part of the UN Decade of Development in the 1960s. This top-down approach is widely criticized on the grounds that each nation should set its own goals. It also focuses on national media and gives little attention to local or community media. Schramm's later work focused on small media such as community radio.

The field shifted with the work of Everett Rogers on The Diffusion of Innovations (1962). Rogers looked more closely at specific development projects and the adoption of new technology and ideas among target populations. He called this the diffusion of innovations. Modern projects tend to continue this emphasis on specific goals in fields such as agricultural extension and health education. Rogers later criticized his own work in a famous article published in 1976, but much work continues this tradition.

One alternative approach to development communication is the work of Paulo Freire. In his most famous book Pedagogy of the Oppressed he stresses dialogue with communities about their actual needs rather than one-way communication by educators.

In the 1970s researchers and activists in the Third World struggled with the relevance of development communication. They often criticized its basic assumptions. Among these is Nora C. Quebral, who is recognized for having initiated the proposal to put up what would become the UPLB College of Development Communication. She has also written about issues of training people in development communication.

Criticisms of Development Communication
I am moving the original text for this section here, then integrating this discussion into the Bretton Woods school, since Beltran and Gamucio Dagron themselves do Communication for Social Change and their objections seem to be oriented towards the western models of DevCom. Also The original text contains opinion, which I will try to fix. Alternativity(talk) 10:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Development Communication

The idea of development communication has been criticized, especially by Latin American researchers such as Luis Ramiro Beltan and Alfonso Gumucio Dagron. It tends to locate the problem in the underdeveloped nation rather than its unequal relations with powerful economies. There is also an assumption that Western models of industrial capitalism are appropriate for all parts of the world. Many projects for development communication fail to address the real underlying problems in poor countries such as lack of access to land, agricultural credits and fair market prices for products. Such problems cannot be solved by education or communication alone but require fundamental social change.

comment on rewrite
I'm not sure that the rewrite improves matters. It is good to debate the influence of different schools of thought (though I wonder if there is some conflict of interest or institutional affiliation underlying the changes made) but I think the extensive changes make this a more confusing and less useful article. For example, the opening paragraph doesn't explain what "development" means. It can also mean child development, or speech development. Also in many books I have read on development communication I have never yet seen the concept of "Breton Woods" development communication. It is an interesting idea, but this is an encyclopedia not a place for new interpretations or arguments. I'm disappointed that a useful basic article has been made worse rather than improved. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Emmawriter (talk •contribs) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I also add [infact, repeat]that by playing with the opening definition of this wiki on development communication, the editor has done more harm than good. The working definition has to be simple, modern and all-encompassing. To limit dc for 'social' communication and towards 'social' goals is limiting. Development relating to humans, in any case, is not just 'social'; it has economic, cultural and other dimensions. Manojpandeyindia(talk) 06:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)