Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Disciplines in the Field of Communication for

Development and Social Change
Rico Lie1 & Jan Servaes2
1 Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation, Wageningen University, Netherlands
2 Department of Media and Communication, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

This article provides an overview of subdisciplines in the field of Communication for Devel-
opment and Social Change. Different subdisciplines of communication science are ana-
lyzed to assess their connection to the field. Building on these subdisciplines the article
reviews health communication, agricultural extension and rural communication, and envi-
ronmental communication as practice-based subdisciplines of Communication for Devel-
opment and Social Change. By assessing the current development and communication
approaches within the different subdisciplines, the article aims to better understand the
current state-of-the-art of the field and identify future imperatives.

Keywords: Communication, Development, Social Change, Sustainability, Subdisciplines.

doi:10.1111/comt.12065

The history of Communication for Development and Social Change or whatever other
name is preferred is well documented (see, for instance, Manyozo, 2012; McAnany,
2012; Servaes & Lie, 2013; Wilkins, Tufte, & Obregon, 2014). Most of the available
historical accounts make a distinction between the modernization paradigm, the
dependency paradigm, and the multiciplicty paradigm, resulting in two ideal-typical
communication models on a continuum: top–down diffusion versus bottom–up par-
ticipation (see, for instance, Melkote & Steeves, 2001; Servaes, 1999; Waisbord, 2001).
They address the (r)evolution of thinking and the development of theory by framing
it within these paradigms. Ogan et al. (2009) also framed their meta-analysis of the
presence of development communication in academic communication journals in the
context of paradigmatic thinking in the field. Morris (2003) did a comparative analysis
of the diffusion models and participatory models in development communication.
This text takes a different approach. It aims to frame the current state-of-the-art
of the field from a development practice-based and communication science
discipline-based perspective by examining subdisciplines of Communication for
Development and Social Change1 . The subdisciplines that we discuss are more or

Corresponding author: Rico Lie; e-mail: Rico.Lie@wur.nl

244 Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association

R. Lie & J. Servaes Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change

less established within the discipline of communication science and have at the
same time established a community of interest within the field of Communication
for Development and Social Change. We make a distinction between nonthematic
subdisciplines, which cover a domain within communication science (strategic
communication, participatory communication, crisis communication, risk commu-
nication, development journalism and international communication, and online
media and Internet studies) and thematic subdisciplines, which cover a life science
theme in the development sector. The thematic subdisciplines are (a) health commu-
nication, (b) agricultural extension and rural communication, and (c) environmental
communication (including climate change communication). We especially focus on
agricultural extension and rural communication and environmental communication,
while only briefly addressing health communication. Health communication is
the most developed subdiscipline and has already been addressed in many other
publications that fall under the heading of Communication for Development. As
Ogan et al. reported in their 2009 publication, much of the research done in this
field relates to HIV/AIDS under the methodological rubric of social marketing or
behavioral change communication (BCC; see also Malikhao, 2012).

Subdisciplines
This section reviews the subdisciplines within communication science that relate
to development communication or in some way address development communi-
cation within their scope. Subdisciplines cover a communication domain within
communication science. The subdisciplines discussed are: strategic communication,
participatory communication, crisis communication, risk communication, develop-
ment journalism and international communication, and online media and Internet
studies. It is interesting to note that the subdiscipline of political communication has
not, or only in a very marginal way, engaged with development communication. The
same seems to be true for the subdiscipline of intercultural communication. This is
remarkable because these two subdisciplines could obviously engage very well with
development communication.

Strategic communication and participatory communication

Strategic communication deals with the organizational planning of communication
and relates to persuasive communication, marketing, and public relations. Strategic
communication is planned communication with a strategic, intentional goal. Being
strategic means thinking in terms of executing a stakeholder analysis, a risk analysis, a
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis, setting objectives,
identifying target audiences, developing key messages, and designing an effective
communication plan. The social psychological line within communication science
has always been strong within the subdiscipline of strategic communication. Some
key books are Lewis (2011), Mahoney (2012), and Paul (2011). Strategic communi-
cation in the field of development communication is often applied in the thematic

Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association 245

Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change R. Lie & J. Servaes

subdiscipline of health communication (see later under health communication), but

is not restricted to this subdiscipline only.
Participatory communication had and still has a strong presence in development
communication (for an overview see, for instance, Srampickal, 2006). Especially in
the 1980s and 1990s, when participation became the buzz word in the development
sector, participatory communication established itself as a subdiscipline of communi-
cation science. It is often associated with the new multiplicity paradigm and builds on
widely formulated critiques on linear, top–down, diffusionist and modernist perspec-
tives on the one hand, and the thinking of Latin American scholars such as Augusto
Boal, Jesús Martín-Barbero, Luis Ramiro Beltrán, and Paolo Freire on the other hand
(see, for instance, Barranquero, 2011; Huesca, 2002). Several books carry participa-
tory communication explicitly in the title (e.g., Bessette, 2004; Servaes, Jacobson, &
White, 1996). Different UN agencies have been active in advocating a participatory
communication approach (see, for instance, Mefalopulos & Kamlongera, 2004; Tufte
& Mefalopulos, 2009). The International Association for Media and Communication
Research (IAMCR) has a section on participatory communication, which has since its
inception always demonstrated a strong connection to the field of Communication for
Development and Social Change.

Crisis communication and risk communication

Crisis communication and risk communication are often linked and can be character-
ized as: “The study of how government agencies and organizations assess and manage
risk and crisis situations, and how they communicate the nature of a crisis to stake-
holders and members of the public” (PDE Office, 2011). According to this defini-
tion, it involves (a) assessment and management of risk and crisis situations, and (b)
communication with the public. Crisis communication and risk communication have
both become established subdisciplines of communication science. They address all
assessments, managements, and communications related to unexpected events that
could have negative impacts (see, for instance, Coombs & Holladay, 2012; Lundgren
& McMakin, 2013).
In the development sector crises and risks often refer to natural disasters, such as
earth quakes, hurricanes, floods, and tsunamis on the one hand, and health issues,
such as those related to HIV/AIDS, Ebola, avian flu, and foodborne illnesses, on the
other hand. Organizations, including governments, are increasingly recognizing the
importance of crisis and risk communication. Crisis and risk communication have
close connections with the thematic subdisciplines of communication for develop-
ment, especially with environmental communication and health communication.
Issues that are being dealt with within this subdiscipline are global warming and
related climate risks such as water scarcity, droughts, intense rainfall, river floods,
and early warning systems. Information and communications technologies (ICTs)
can play an important role in disaster risk reduction, in building and increasing
resilience and in improving early warning systems (see, for instance, Pearson, 2012;
Wächter et al., 2012).

246 Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association

R. Lie & J. Servaes Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change

(Development) Journalism and international communication

Journalism is a long established subdiscipline of communication science. Journalism
has several connections to sustainable development and social change. Journalists
deliver news to the public by making it public. In this sense it relates to the second
part of the definition of crisis and risk communication given above. In the same man-
ner, journalism has a strong connection to health communication and environmental
communication (see below). Normative and critical journalism studies take position
in how journalism ought to work in democratic societies and what role journalists
play in societal change processes.
In the context of the global South, journalism is often referred to as development
journalism, an addition to the four normative theories of the press (Hachten & Scot-
ton, 2007). While it was looked upon as overtly supportive of government policies
and hence accused of self-censorship, nowadays development journalism often takes
more critical, independent, and community-based stands. It exposes poverty world-
wide and helps to research the causes, and how to address poverty in developing
nations. Development journalists pay attention to issues that are overlooked or under-
represented by other media and by the international political community (Dixit, 2010;
Servaes, 2015).
International communication, according to the term itself, deals with commu-
nication that crosses international borders (see, for instance, Thussu, 2014). It is
sometimes explicitly connected to intercultural communication (Gudykunst &
Mody, 2001) or to development communication (Mody, 2003), but in the majority
of the cases this subdiscipline is mainly concerned with international media, global
(tele-)communication infrastructures, international communication governance,
policy making, and the political economy of global communication. In this sense
it mainly deals with development communication by addressing questions of com-
munication infrastructures and telecommunications in or in relation to developing
countries. It also addresses policy issues and the regulation of information flows in
the global South.

Online media and Internet studies

ICTs have always played an important role in the development and communication
debate. The discussion moved from “old media” (newspapers, radio, TV, film) over
“new media” (satellite broadcasting, video, telecenters, computers, etc.) to nowadays
“online media” (especially mobile telephones, social media, and the Internet) as the
subject of discussion. Like in the past, one can find a variety of opinions expressed
on their relevance and importance. In today’s world, the discussion on technology
often breaks down in opposites: new versus old media, online versus offline, technol-
ogy versus human interaction. It is no surprise that the outcome is often tipped in
favor of the former (Curran, Fenton, & Freedman, 2012; Servaes, 2014). The Human
Development Report (UNDP, 2001) problematized the relationship from the perspec-
tive of human development. De Bruijn, Nyamnjoh, and Brinkman (2009) were one of
the first to study how mobile phones condition change and identity formation in a

Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association 247

Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change R. Lie & J. Servaes

changing African context in general and with country studies of Cameroon, Sudan,
and Ghana.
These discourses have incessantly reiterated the dichotomy between the “informa-
tion haves” and “information have-nots” (Van Dijk, 2012). In assuming that bridging
the divide would be the end of inequality, such conventional digital divide accounts
often “close their eyes to sociologically rooted individual and systemic indicators that
should be considered when defining divides” (Tatsou, 2011).
However, development organizations and industries seem to be slowly moving
away from the “access” and supply-bias of these discourses, and warming up to
more “participatory” and demand-needs. For instance, the United Nations Develop-
ment Programme’s (UNDP, 2012) report “Mobile technologies and empowerment:
Enhancing human development through participation and innovation” relinquishes
the digital divide problematic. Partly, this has to do with their claim that tech-
nology diffusion, speared by the mobile phone, has reached the world’s poorest
populations, supposedly creating more cross-country convergences than divides
in “a new wave of democratization of access to innovative information and com-
munication channels, propelled by state-of-the-art technologies and diminishing
barriers to entry” (UNDP, 2012, p. 8). But more strikingly, the report critiques the
technological determinist assumption that “access equals participation” and social
change. It states that “In the 1990s, closing that divide became the main target of
most development initiatives, essentially focusing on access to ICTs and overlooking
other critical and underlying development goals” (UNDP, 2012, p. 12). Waiving
decontextualized approaches that consider technology merely a “thing,” the report
argues that “alone, mobile phones will neither pull people out of poverty, nor propel
democratic governance. They must be part and parcel of broader development
agendas.”
The caveat is that social media is best for encouraging small steps—as Langley and
van den Broek (2010) of TNO research in Rotterdam found—online initiatives that
call for a significant change in lifestyle will have trouble recruiting large numbers of
participants. So, social media campaigns are not the panacea for the world. However,
these digital initiatives may impart proenvironmental and other social values and help
shape consumer preference for greener or alternative lifestyles. In other words, social
media on their own will not necessarily save the planet. But they might just encourage
a more sustainable future.
However, “while many people have exaggerated and confused its (the Inter-
net) real impact and significance, there is little doubt that it is a development
that has to be understood, protected, and valued. The time has come to demand
an Internet that is run for the benefit of the public without discrimination by
market and state; the pursuit of this demand is urgent and needs to take place
nationally and supranationally, offline and online, in social movements and
social media and in all the networks to which we belong” (Curran et al., 2012,
pp. 184–185).

248 Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association

R. Lie & J. Servaes Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change

Thematic subdisciplines
This section addresses thematic subdisciplines that can be distinguished within the
field of Communication for Development and Social Change. Thematic subdisciplines
cover a life science theme. The thematic subdisciplines are (a) health communication,
(b) agricultural extension and rural communication, and (c) environmental commu-
nication (including climate change communication).

Health communication
The subdiscipline of health communication seems to have a close link with social mar-
keting and with the discipline of social psychology within the social sciences. While
Rogers’ theory of diffusions of innovation had, and to a certain extent still has a dom-
inant presence within the subdiscipline of agricultural extension, it is the theory of
planned behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) that has a similar position within health
communication. Other popular theories are the health belief model (Rosenstock, 1974)
and the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Behavioral change
is the dominant form of change that is focused on here. Research on social change
gets less attention. Health promotion is sometimes used to refer to the branch within
health communication that studies the persuasive use of communication messages
and media to promote public health.
Ideas gathered within the containers of information, education, and communica-
tion (IEC) and knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) have been dominant within
the subdiscipline of health communication. The primary focus on social psychol-
ogy and behavioral change implies that a particular type of vocabulary is used in
this subdiscipline. Scholars often refer to concepts such as communication strategies,
communication campaigns, social marketing and mobilization, persuasive commu-
nication, and awareness raising. Risk communication holds an important position
within this thematic subdiscipline, as it does within environmental communication.
Different from extension and rural agricultural communication, health communica-
tion has a firm place within communication science.

Agricultural extension and rural communication

Agricultural extension is one of the oldest subdisciplines of development communi-
cation. It has a particular history within development communication, which started
with centralizing concepts such as diffusions of innovations (Rogers, 1962) and
knowledge and technology transfer (see, for instance, Chambers, Pacey, & Thrupp,
1989; Hancock, 1984). In the 1960s, 1970s, and through the 1980s it was generally
agreed upon that “proper extension” would directly and immediately profit the
increase of crop yields for farmers. Rogers (1962) and later Van den Ban and Hawkins
(1988) provided the leading textbooks. Extension was perceived in those early days
in terms of mechanistic, linear knowledge transfer. That thinking is behind us. In the
1970s, 1980s, and through the 1990s, the FAO has played a key role in changing this
thinking. The FAO was the first UN specialized agency—besides UNESCO, which

Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association 249

Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change R. Lie & J. Servaes

has a mandate for communication—to give communication a central and deciding

place in development interventions.
The subdiscipline has moved on to the study of agricultural knowledge and infor-
mation systems (AKIS) (FAO & World Bank, 2000; Röling, 1989) and agricultural
innovation systems (Klerkx, Aarts, & Leeuwis, 2010) and adopted farmer field schools
(FFS) as a new methodology to better fit the new thinking. Today we seem to have
taken still another step by a renewed and adjusted focus on communication and (agri-
cultural) innovation (see, for instance, Leeuwis & Aarts, 2011 for a theoretical rethink-
ing of communication in the field of innovations), and on knowledge and brokering
in complex systems and the role of champions (see, for instance, Klerkx & Aarts,
2013; Klerkx, Hal, & Leeuwis, 2009; Quarry & Ramírez, 2009). Innovations are now
seen as an assimilation of technical innovations and new social and organizational
arrangements. This new thinking and focus has consequences for how we approach
communication in the agricultural and rural sector. According to Leeuwis and Aarts
(2011), networks, power and social learning are the key issues in this new thinking
about agricultural and rural communication.
Knowledge (Management) for Development is an often used term in this subdisci-
pline. But, what is the difference between Knowledge for Development and Commu-
nication for Development? First of all, we think that both fields have followed different
historical paths to mature. Knowledge for Development seems to ground in the work
and thinking of Robert Chambers, whereas Communication for Development goes
further back and seems to root in the work and thinking of Daniel Lerner and Wilbur
Schramm. Knowledge sharing is—of course—close to the concept of communica-
tion.
Second, Knowledge for Development traditionally has a more microlevel orienta-
tion by focusing, for instance on multistakeholder platforms, processes of facilitation,
monitoring and evaluation, extension services, farmer field schools, participatory
rural appraisals, and impact assessments. These areas of knowledge sharing man-
agement are traditionally more framed within the container of Knowledge for
Development. Communication for Development has a microlevel and macrolevel
orientation when focusing on (mass) media and communication and information
infrastructures. Communication for Development not only addresses the above
mentioned microprocesses, but larger-scale communication processes as well.
Third, Knowledge for Development, more than Communication for Develop-
ment, often makes the direct connection to learning. This area of learning ranges
from establishing educational and capacity building environments, “training of
trainers” (ToT)-activities, vocational education and training (VET) to adult learn-
ing and addressing theories of learning, such as social learning and transformative
learning. In many processes of human development, social learning is seen as an
important key process. Hence, social learning is intrinsically linked to knowledge
and communication. Social learning and transformative learning are two important
theories about how people learn. They directly connect to communication and play
an important role in sustainable development and social change.

250 Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association

R. Lie & J. Servaes Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change

Environmental communication
Environmental communication addresses all interactions of humans with the envi-
ronment and is a relatively new subdiscipline within communication science. Envi-
ronmental communication not only involves the management of the environment, but
also the study of public opinion and perceptions (Cox, 2013). As within the other two
subdisciplines, communication is often closely associated with education. Environ-
mental communication and environmental education sometimes overlap, especially
when the terms are used outside academic circles in the public domain.
The subdiscipline of environmental communication seems to be dominated by the
issue of climate change, which has been on the agenda for a few years now. Climate
change communication even seems to become a field in itself (Kelly, 2012; Lyytimäki
et al., 2013; Servaes, 2013a, 2013b). Different from agricultural extension, but maybe
similar to areas within health communication, environmental communication, espe-
cially climate change communication, often focuses on public engagement and pub-
lic opinion (see, for instance, http://www.climatechangecommunication.org) and risk
(see, for instance, AfricaAdapt, Stockholm Environment Institute., n.d.). Agricultural
communication is often far more concerned with specific target group communica-
tion activities. Communication theories used in the areas of public environmental
communication and public health communication overlap. In this context environ-
mental communication also has a close link with journalism.
In the development sector it is often stressed that again the poor are among those
who feel the consequences of climate change the most. This also applies to other areas
within environmental communication such as energy security, biodiversity, defor-
estation, overexploitation of natural resources, and extreme weather conditions. It is
often in this context that environmental communication is linked to sustainability.
Communication for sustainable development emphasizes the sustainability aspects of
interactions; human–human and human–nature. Since the Brundtland report Our
Common Future (1987) and the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992), sustainable development is now on many agen-
das. A balance must be sought between economic growth, social equity, and the natu-
ral environment. Manfred Max-Neef (1991) and the Dag Hammerskjold Foundation
call this a transdisciplinary model for human-scale development with self-reliance
among human beings, nature, and technology; the personal and the social; the micro
and the macro; planning and autonomy; and the state and civil society as central to
empower groups and social actors: “The fundamental issue is to enable people from
their many small and heterogeneous spaces to set up, sustain and develop their own
projects” (Max-Neef, 1991, p. 85).
Natural resource management is the area that deals with the organization, the
control and administration of water, land, animals, and plants. Sustainable natural
resource management seeks a balance between economic growth and the quality of
life and the environment. Adaptive management includes issues such as information
and knowledge management, monitoring and evaluation, and risk management. Inte-
grated natural resource management (INRM) brings adaptive management together

Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association 251

Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change R. Lie & J. Servaes

with participatory planning and community participation and firmly grounds it in

sustainability. Community-based development, comanagement, and stakeholder
analysis are other processes of importance to INRM.
Natural resource management is often related to issues of stakeholder groups, mul-
tistakeholder actions and processes of social learning and thus to communication (see,
for instance, Muro & Jeffrey, 2008; Röling, 1994; Schuslera, Decker, & Pfeffer, 2003).
Of late, investigators of natural resource management have started using theories and
models from social network analysis to argue for the importance of communication
and network structure (Bodin, Crona, & Ernstson, 2006; Chang, Allen, Dawson, &
Madsen, 2012; Newman & Dale, 2005). Network analysis promises to be a productive
approach “because interpersonal communication is a natural and appealing example
of a social network relation” (De Nooy, 2013, p. 44).

Discussion and conclusion

The field of Communication for Development and Social Change is active and
dynamic. The field matured, settled in subdisciplines and found accommodation
in different fields and areas of development and social change. Mainstream-
ing communication for development seems to happen by firmly grounding the
field of Communication for Development and Social Change in thematic and
nonthematic subdisciplines of communication science. These subdisciplines
provide a foundation by underpinning the work of development communi-
cation professionals and academics and giving them a solid basis from which
to work.
The foci and debates in the field have shifted and broadened. In its drive for rele-
vance and impact, issues related to complexity, hybridity of cultures, (post)modernity,
multiculturalism, sustainability, transdisciplinarity, leadership, learning, and partici-
pation are being reassessed instead of their previous concern with “modernization,”
“synchronization,” and “cultural imperialism.” With these “new” discussions, the
debates have also shifted from an emphasis on homogeneity toward an emphasis on
differences. With this shift toward differences and localities there is also an increased
interest in the link between the global and the local and in how the global is per-
ceived in the local. Therefore, the field is no longer focused on local versus global,
national versus international levels of analysis. In the current world state, global-
ization and localization are seen as interlinked processes and this marks a radical
change in thinking about change and development. It could integrate macrotheory
and microtheory. Therefore, John Thompson (1995) argues that the relation between
structured patterns of global communication, on the one hand, and the local con-
ditions under which media products are consumed, on the other hand, can best be
understand as the axis of globalized diffusion and localized appropriation: “While
communication and information are increasingly diffused on a global scale, these
symbolic materials are always received by individuals who are situated in specific
spatial-temporal locales. The appropriation of media products is always a localized

252 Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association

R. Lie & J. Servaes Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change

phenomenon, in the sense that it always involves specific individuals who are situated
in particular social-historical contexts, and who draw on the resources available to
them in order to make sense of media messages and incorporate them into their lives.
And messages are often transformed in the process of appropriation as individuals
adapt them to the practical contexts of everyday life. The globalization of com-
munication has not eliminated the localized character of appropriation but rather
has created a new kind of symbolic axis in the modern world” (Thompson, 1995,
p. 174).
Human and environmental sustainability has become a central theme in develop-
ment and social change activities. Sustainable interventions are necessary to ensure a
world worth living in for future generations. Besides political-economic approaches,
we need sociocultural approaches to guarantee acceptable and integrated levels of sus-
tainability and to build resilience. Building resilient communities is a priority issue in
the field of Communication for Development and Social Change, “ … a move away
from environmentally unfriendly modernization, and an emphasis on local systems
that shift from solely Western-led development and focus on local culture and partic-
ipation are crucial to an understanding of sustainable development” (Servaes, Polk,
Shi, Reilly, & Yakupitijage, 2012, p. 117).
Moreover, it is essential to recognize that development problems are complex.
Complex or so-called wicked problems, such as the existence of climate change, conflict
and war, HIV/AIDS, and malaria, are problems that do not have one single solution
that is right or wrong, good or bad, or true or false. These are problems in which many
stakeholders are involved, all of them framing the problems and issues in a differ-
ent way. Therefore, solutions need to be negotiated, for instance in multistakeholder
platforms. “Such types of negotiating or “social dialogue” are promoted for concrete
purposes, such as, reclaiming indigenous knowledge or monitoring and evaluation,
but increasingly also from a rights-based perspective that all people have a right to be
heard” (Witteveen & Lie, 2012, p. 52).
In order to mainstream communication and strengthen theoretical development
in the field, there is a need for subdisciplines such as political communication and
intercultural communication to engage more explicitly with Communication for
Development and Social Change. At the same time there is a need for transdisci-
plinarity. We need to rethink and reorder the relationships between communication
academics, communication professionals (e.g., extension agents, health communica-
tion specialists, intermediaries, knowledge brokers, change agents, M&E specialists),
technical field specific professionals (technical ICT specialists, agronomists, medical
doctors), policy makers (international, national, intranational), civil society members
(e.g., NGOs, social movements, societal agents), and local people (e.g., farmers, fish-
ermen, households, audiences, clients). Linkages and dialogues need improvement.
There is a demand for building knowledge and communication networks and to
attach importance to stakeholder interactions and knowledge system approaches.
Climate change adaptation and livelihood adaptations require multistakeholder
actions and processes of social learning.

Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association 253

Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change R. Lie & J. Servaes

In this regard there is a need to theoretically connect communication to learning,

education, and knowledge exchange. Focusing on processes of transformative learn-
ing (Mezirow, 1978), social learning (Bandura, 1977), experiential learning (Kolb,
1984), reflexive learning, organizational learning, and double-loop learning (Argyris
& Schön, 1978) is essential to better understand processes of change by looking at
how people learn. For interventions to be successful, it seems necessary to invest in
double-loop (second order) learning. Double-loop learning involves learning about
methodologies and understanding why things are learnt and why certain knowledge is
needed. In this context we acknowledge, with Ingie Hovland, that we need a shift from
instrumental change to conceptual change. “The current focus is on instrumental
change through immediate and identifiable change in policies, and less on concep-
tual change in the way we see the world and the concepts we use to understand it”
(Hoveland, 2003, p. viii, 15–16).
We have come a long way in mainstreaming Communication for Development
and Social Change. The field has nurtured its own disciplinary groundings and the-
matic embeddings, has become more or less coherent, is recognized and acknowl-
edged within the wider community of scholars and professionals, and is establishing
its own historical roots in theory and practice. The field remains dynamic and has not
settled down in a static way, but on a solid ground it progresses and expands in critical
and creative ways.

Note
1 Substantive parts of this paper were published in an older and more extensive review
essay published as: Servaes and Lie (2015).

References
AfricaAdapt, Stockholm Environment Institute (n.d.). Risk communication guide for climate
change practitioners in Africa. Retrieved from http://www.africa-adapt.net/media/
resources/875/resource-guide-on-risk-communication-1.pdf
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.
Barranquero, A. (2011). Rediscovering the Latin American roots of participatory
communication for social change. London, England: University of Westminster.
Bessette, G. (2004). Involving the community: A guide to participatory development
communication. Penang, Malaysia: Southbound.
Bodin Ö., Crona, B., & Ernstson, H. (2006). Social networks in natural resource management:
What is there to learn from a structural perspective?. Ecology and Society, 11(2), r2.
[online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/resp2/
Chambers, R., Pacey, A., & Thrupp, L. A. (1989). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and
agricultural research. London, England: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Chang, C., Allen, J. C., Dawson, S. E., & Madsen, G. E. (2012). Network analysis as a method
for understanding the dynamics of natural resource management in rural communities.
Society & Natural Resources, 25(2), 203–208. doi:10.1080/08941920.2011.571753

254 Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association

R. Lie & J. Servaes Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012). The handbook of crisis communication. Chichester,
England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cox, R. (2013). Environmental communication and the public sphere. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Curran, J., Fenton, N., & Freedman, D. (2012). Misunderstanding the internet. London,
England: Routledge.
De Bruijn, M., Nyamnjoh, F., & Brinkman, I. (Eds.) (2009). Mobile phones: The new talking
drums of everyday Africa. Leiden, The Netherlands: African Studies Centre.
De Nooy, W. (2013). Communication in natural resource management: Agreement between
and disagreement within stakeholder groups. Ecology and Society, 18(2), 44.
Dixit, K. (2010). Dateline earth: Journalism as if the planet mattered. Bangkok, Thailand: IPS
Asia Pacific.
FAO and World Bank (2000). Agricultural knowledge and information systems for rural
development (AKIS/RD). Strategic vision and guiding principles. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Mody, B. (2001). Handbook of international and intercultural
communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hachten, W., & Scotton, J. (2007). The world news prism. Global information in a satellite age
(Vol., 7th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hancock, A. (Ed.) (1984). Technology transfer and communication. Paris, France: United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Hoveland, I. (2003). Communication of research for poverty reduction: A literature review
(Working Paper 227, Overseas Development Institute). London, England: UK
Department for International Development (DFID).
Huesca, R. (2002). Tracing the history of participatory communication approaches to
development: A critical appraisal (Chapter 8). In J. Servaes (Ed.), Approaches to
development communication (pp. 1–36). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Kelly, M. R. (2012). Climate change communication research here and now: A reflection on
where we came from and where we are going. Applied Environmental Education &
Communication, 11(3–4), 117–118.
Klerkx, L., & Aarts, N. (2013). The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating
innovation networks: Conflicts and complementarities. Technovation, 33(6–7), 193–210.
Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Adaptive management in agricultural innovation
systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment.
Agricultural Systems, 103(6), 390–400. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.012
Klerkx, L., Hal, A., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: Are
innovation brokers the answer? Maastricht, The Netherlands: United Nations University,
MERIT.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Langley, D., & van den Broek, T. (2010, September). Exploring social media as a driver of
sustainable behaviour: Case analysis and policy implications. Paper presented at the
‘Internet Politics and Policy Conference,’ Oxford, England.
Leeuwis, C., & Aarts, N. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes:
Creating space for change in complex systems. The Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension, 17(1), 21–36.

Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association 255

Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change R. Lie & J. Servaes

Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication.

Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lundgren, R. E., & McMakin, A. H. (2013). Risk communication: A handbook for
communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lyytimäki, J., Nygrén, N. A., Ala-Ketola, U., Pellinen, S., Ruohomäki, V., & Inkinen, A.
(2013). Climate change communication by a research institute: Experiences, successes,
and challenges from a North European perspective. Applied Environmental Education &
Communication, 12(2), 118–129.
Mahoney, J. (2012). Strategic communication: Principles and practice. Melbourne, Australia:
Oxford University Press.
Malikhao, P. (2012). Sex in the village. culture, religion and HIV/AIDS in Thailand. Penang,
Malaysia: Southbound.
Manyozo, L. (2012). Media, communication and development: Three approaches. New Delhi,
India: Sage.
Max-Neef, M. (1991). Human scale development. Conception, application and further
reflections. New York, NY: The Apex Press.
McAnany, E. G. (2012). Saving the world: A brief history of communication for development
and social change. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Mefalopulos, P., & Kamlongera, C. (2004). Participatory communication strategy design: A
handbook. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Melkote, S. R., & Steeves, H. L. (2001). Communication for development in the third world:
Theory and practice for empowerment (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28, 100–110.
Mody, B. (2003). International and development communication: A 21st-century perspective.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morris, N. (2003). A comparative analysis of the diffusion and participatory models in
development communication. Communication Theory, 13(2), 225–248.
Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social
learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325–344.
Newman, L. L., & Dale, A. (2005). Network structure, diversity, and proactive resilience
building: A response to Tompkins and Adger. Ecology and Society, 10(1), r2. [online].
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/resp2/
Ogan, C. L., Bashir, M., Camaj, L., Luo, Y., Gaddie, B., Pennington, R., … Salih, M. (2009).
Development communication: The state of research in an era of ICTs and globalization.
International Communication Gazette, 71(8), 655–670.
Paul, C. (2011). Strategic communication: Origins, concepts, and current debates. Santa
Barbara, CA: Praeger.
PDE Office of Postsecondary and Higher Education Transfer and Articulation Oversight
Committee. (2011). Pennsylvania statewide program-to-program articulation agreement in
communication. Retrieved from http://www.pdf-repo.com/pdf_1a/145g2o2am951b
71a0f.html
Pearson, L. (2012). Early warning of disasters: Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://www.
scidev.net/global/communication/feature/early-warning-of-disasters-facts-and-figures-1.
html
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). From communication and persuasion: Central and
peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.

256 Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association

R. Lie & J. Servaes Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change

Quarry, W., & Ramírez, R. (2009). Communication for another development: Listening before
telling. London, England: Zed Books.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Röling, N. G. (1989). The agricultural research-technology transfer interface: A knowledge
system perspective. The Hague, The Netherlands: International Service for National
Agricultural Research.
Röling, N. G. (1994). Communication support for sustainable natural resource management.
Special issue: Knowledge is power? The use and abuse of information in development.
IDS Bulletin, 25(2), 125–133.
Rosenstock, I. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education
Monographs, 2(4), 328–335.
Schusler, T. M., Decker, D. J., & Pfeffer, M. J. (2003). Social learning for collaborative natural
resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 16(4), 309–326.
Servaes, J. (1999). Communication for development: One world, multiple cultures. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton.
Servaes, J. (2013a). Sustainable development and green communication. London, England:
Palgrave.
Servaes, J. (2013b). Sustainability, participation & culture in communication: Theory and
praxis. Bristol, England: Intellect.
Servaes, J. (Ed.) (2014). Technological determinism and social change: Communication in a
tech-mad world. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Servaes, J. (2015). Beyond modernization and the four theories of the press. In
L. Chin-Chuan (Ed.), Internationalizing “international communication”. Lansing:
University of Michigan Press.
Servaes, J., Jacobson, T. L., & White, S. A. (1996). Participatory communication for social
change. New Delhi, India: Sage.
Servaes, J., & Lie, R. (2013). Sustainable social change and communication. Communication
Research Trends, 32(4), 4–30.
Servaes, J., & Lie, R. (2015). New challenges for communication for sustainable development
and social change: A review essay. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 10(1), 124–148.
doi: 10.1080/17447143.2014.982655
Servaes, J., Polk, E., Shi, S., Reilly, D., & Yakupitijage, T. (2012). Sustainability testing for
development projects. Development in Practice, 22(1), 18–30.
Srampickal, S. J. (2006). Development and participatory communication. Communication
Research Trends, 25(2), 3–32.
Tatsou, P. (2011). Digital divides revisited: What is new about divides and their research?
Media, Culture & Society, 33(2), 317–331.
Thompson, J. (1995). The media and modernity. A social theory of the media. Cambridge,
England: Polity Press.
Thussu, D. K. (2014). International communication: Continuity and change. New York, NY:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Tufte, T., & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Paticipatory communication. A practical guide (World
Bank Working Paper No. 170). Washington DC: The World Bank.
United Nations Development Programme (2001). Human development report: Making new
technologies work for human development. New York, NY: UNDP.

Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association 257

Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change R. Lie & J. Servaes

United Nations Development Programme (2012). Mobile technologies and empowerment:

Enhancing human development through participation and innovation. New York, NY:
UNDP.
Van den Ban, A. W., & Hawkins, H. S. (1988). Agricultural extension. Harlow, England:
Longman Scientific & Technical.
Van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Wächter, J., Babeyko, A., Fleischer, J., Häner, R., Hammitzsch, M., Kloth, A., & Lendholt, M.
(2012). Development of tsunami early warning systems and future challenges. Natural
Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12(6), 1923–1935.
Waisbord, S. (2001). Family tree of theories, methodologies and strategies in development
communication. Retrieved from http://www.communicationforsocialchange.org/
pdf/familytree.pdf
Wilkins, K., Tufte, T., & Obregon, R. (Eds.) (2014). The handbook of development
communication and social change. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Witteveen, L., & Lie, R. (2012). Learning about “wicked” problems in the Global South.
Creating a film-based learning environment with “visual problem appraisal.”
MedieKultur. Journal of Media and Communication Research, 52, 81–99.

258 Communication Theory 25 (2015) 244–258 © 2015 International Communication Association