W

Copyright
IE by

Paolo Mefalopulos
EV
2003
PR
The Dissertation Committee for Paolo Mefalopulos certifies that this is the
approved version of the following dissertation:

Theory and Practice of Participatory Communication:

The case of the FAO Project “Communication for Development

in Southern Africa”

W
IE Committee:
EV
Joseph Straubhaar, Co-Supervisor

Karin Wilkins, Co-Supervisor

PR

John Downing

Antonio Ugalde

Kamran Ali
 Theory and Practice of Participatory Communication:

The case of the FAO Project “Communication for Development

in Southern Africa”

by

W
Paolo Mefalopulos, B.A., M.A.

IE
Dissertation
EV

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin

PR

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin

December, 2003
 UMI Number: 3122760

W
IE
EV
PR

________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 3122760
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
____________________________________________________________

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 Dedication

To Teodoro and my whole family in Greece, in Italy and in the rest of the world

W
IE
EV
PR
 Acknowledgements

It is impossible to acknowledge all the people who contributed to the

successful completion of this study. The first note of appreciation should go to my

son, Teodoro, for giving me the inspiration to carry on when the strengths and

motivations seemed to fade away. I would like to thank Karin Wilkins for

assisting me closely througho ut the whole process, especially in reviewing and

editing my research well beyond what was expected. A special thank to Joseph

W
Straubhaar for his longtime friendship and insights that challenged my thinking

even before beginning this study. I am also grateful to Kamran Ali and Antonio
IE
Ugalde who have stimulated me to reflect, even more critically than I intended to,

on a number of issues in this study. Finally, I would like to thank John Downing,
EV

a valuable source of knowledge and wisdom both at an academic and personal

level.
PR

I would also like to thank the institutions that have assisted me in this

research and in particular FAO, with its Communication for Development Group.

A full list of people I am indebted to at FAO would be too long. Therefore, I will

only mention a few, in alphabetical order, Mario Acunzo, Laura DeClementi,

JeanPierre Ilboudo, Ester Zulberti, but I omit many others that helped in this

study. I am also particularly grateful to Chris Kamlongera, the Director of the

SADC Centre of Communication for Development, for his assistance in this study

and his friendship. My appreciation goes to all the participants, consultants,

general staff and rural villagers of Southern Africa, who have been involved with

v
the FAO Project and its Action Programme for Communication Skills

Development, based in Harare, Zimbabwe.

My thoughts go also to all those who have lost their life due to the kind of

activities described in my study. The strongest embrace goes to two good friends,

whose dedication for their work has taken them away prematurely: Moreno, a

friend truly committed to participation and communication, as well as to life, and

Ilaria, the sweetest smile in the world of communication and information.

Achieving this result would not have been possible without the assistance of my

W
family and friends, who have been an indispensable support through the toughest

times of these last years. In this respect, a big thanks goes to Maripau, the woman
IE
who has been close to me through the final part of this endeavor and made my life

change for the better.

EV
Finally, I hope this study will constitute a contribution, even if a tiny one,

towards the construction of a new, more equitable development paradigm leading

to change and I would like to dedicate it to all those who dare imagine a better
PR

and more just world and are willing to act upon these beliefs.

vi
 Theory and Practice of Participatory Communication:

The case of the FAO Project “Communication for Development

in Southern Africa”

Publication No._____________

W
Paolo Mefalopulos, Ph.D.
IE
The University of Texas at Austin, 2003
EV
Supervisors: Joseph Straubhaar and Karin Wilkins

Participatory communication is increasingly being considered a key

PR

component of development projects around the world. Therefore, the purpose of

my research has been to conduct an in-depth review and comparison on how

participatory communication has been conceived theoretically, in the literature,

and practically, in a project dedicated to this approach. I carried out the

investigation through a case study analysis of a project named "Communication

for Development in Southern Africa," which was funded by the Italian

Government and implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO), one of the major international organizations in this field.

This project started its operations in Harare, Zimbabwe, in 1994, and its main

vii
purpose was to promote the adoption of participatory communication approaches

by other development projects through training and advising activities.

This dissertation, after reviewing the literature on the subject, explores

how the FAO Project originated and how participatory communication principles

were conceived and applied throughout the process, in each phase of the project

cycle. The only phase not specifically addressed, for reasons explained later in

this study, is the evaluation phase. One of the main intent ions of the study has

been to gain relevant insight about the operationalization of participatory

W
communication, i.e. understanding what happens when the theoretical conception

is applied in real life situations. Key questions that emerged are discussed
IE
throughout the study.

In its conclusions, after proposing the basis for a revisited model, this
EV
dissertation argues that participatory communication, thanks to its horizontal and

people-based connotations, has the potential to support “another development,”

capable of addressing specific needs and priorities relevant to people and at the
PR

same time assisting in their empowerment. While not constituting an alternative

paradigm per se, participatory communication is an approach capable of

facilitating people’s involvement in the decision- making process. It is a necessary

component, consistent with a democratic vision of international development,

needed to increase projects sustainability and ensure genuine ownership by the so-

called “beneficiaries.”

viii
 Table of Contents

List of Tables .......................................................................................................... xi

List of Figures........................................................................................................ xii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1

1.1 Study Rationale ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Contents of the Dissertation ................................................................... 11

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 14

2.1 Historical Overview on International Development ............................... 14

W
2.2 Development and the Role of Communication: Main Theoretical
Approaches .......................................................................................... 21
2.3 Globalization and the Boundaries of Development ................................ 54
IE
2.4 Communication for Development .......................................................... 66

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................. 90

EV
3.1 Research Approach................................................................................. 90
3.2 Approach to Data Collection................................................................ 103

Chapter 4: FAO AND THE PROJECT “COMMUNICATION FOR

DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHERN AFRICA”.......................................... 110
PR

4.1 FAO Overview ..................................................................................... 110

4.2 The Role of Communication in FAO ................................................... 116
4.3 The Project “Communication for Development in Southern Africa”.. 128

Chapter 5: PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN THE PROJECT

CYCLE ....................................................................................................... 154
5.1 Participatory Communication in the Identification of the
Area/Sector of Intervention Phase ..................................................... 157
5.2 Participatory Communication in the Research/Needs’ Assessment
Phase .................................................................................................. 166
5.3 Participatory Communication in the Formulation Phase...................... 170
5.4 Participatory Communication in the Planning Phase ........................... 181

ix
 5.5 Participatory Communication in the Implementation Phase ................ 190
5.6 Issues in Monitoring and Evaluation.................................................... 209
5.7 Results .................................................................................................. 221

Chapter 6: CONCLUSIONS AND USABLE INSIGHTS .................................. 231

6.1 Analysis and Synthesis of Study Findings ........................................... 231
6.2 Reflections on Models of Participatory Communication..................... 240
6.3 Valuable Insights and Recommendations ............................................ 248
6.4 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 258

Appendix A: Cover Letter for the Participant in the Research ........................... 268

W
Appendix B: Interview Guide Sample ................................................................ 271

REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 274

IE
FAO PROJECT-RELATED DOCUMENTATION............................................ 287

VITA.................................................................................................................... 294
EV
PR

x
 List of Tables

Table 3.1: Phases of the Project Cycle ............................................................... 102

Table 5.1: How PRCA is Unique and Different .................................................. 206

W
IE
EV
PR

xi
 List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Johari’s Windows.................................................................................. 6

Figure 6.1: Working Model of Communication for Development ...................... 246

W
IE
EV
PR

xii
 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

The history of development can be traced back many centuries, perhaps to

the beginning of human history (Worsley, 1984). However, the current western

conception of international development is usually traced to soon after World War

II, when President Truman in his inaugural speech stated: “We must embark on a

bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and

W
industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped

areas” (Esteva, 1992: 6). This statement marked a more systematic and visible
IE
attempt to divide the world into rich and poor, modern and traditional, developed

and underdeveloped countries. Since then, the course of development has been
EV
widely criticized by a number of scholars and practitioners who have often

compared it to an attempt to “modernize” or “Westernize” the world (Escobar

1995, Esteva 1992).

PR

1.1 STUDY R ATIONALE

More than fifty years after Truman’s speech and following considerable

investments in human, material and financial resources aimed at helping “Third

World” countries, developments efforts have been marked by major failures.

There have been only few significant improvements in the lives of poor people of

most developing countries (Bradshaw & Wallace, 1996; Jaffee, 1998; Raimondi

& Antonelli, 2001). The lack of participation in the decision- making process of

the so-called beneficiaries of development projects and programs has been

1
identified as one of the main reasons for these failures (Fraser & Villet 1994,

Chambers, 1997). As discussed in the next chapter, this prompted a new focus in

development in order to take into account people’s participation.

Since the 1990s, participation has become one of the buzzwords of

development. In order to occur effectively and genuinely participation must be

characterized by a horizontal flow of communication, which should be based

primarily on dialogue (Bohm 1996, Freire 1997). For this reason, the field of

“Communication for Development” is undergoing a number of changes in order

W
to adopt new models that will take into account people’s right to participate in

decision- making processes concerning their lives. If indeed the lack of

IE
participation is a major reason for the failures of development efforts,

communication must be part of the equation in turning things around. This

EV
research stud ies the application of participatory communication in one of the first

projects of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

specifically dedicated to promote and apply such approaches to the development

PR

field.

Participation and communication are terms that have been hard to define

and have been used in a number of ways both in theory and in practice. By

investigating how they have been conceived and applied in a development project

I intend to investigate the main issues relevant to their use. Even though

participatory methods have been in use for some time, only recently have they

been widely acknowledged as a crucial component, if not a universal right in

itself, of development practices (Coldevin and FAO, 2001).

2
 Most, if not all, international agencies are now incorporating participatory

approaches on their development projects since “participation has become the

dominating ideology in contemporary thinking in both non-governmental

organizations and governmental/inter- governmental agencies.” (Hussein, 1995:

170). A similar crucial relevance is also ascribed to communication, considered

an indispensable element for guaranteeing the success and sustainability of

development projects. Its relevance has been openly acknowledged in a number of

international conferences such as the Earth Summit in 1992, the Internationa l

W
Conference on Population and Development in 1994, the World Summit in 1995,

the World Food Summit in 1996 and many others.

IE
However, the development literature and project documentation indicate

that participation and communication are two concepts highly praised but poorly
EV
applied, or applied ambiguously in a number of different ways. There is no

consistent definition or operationalization of the term participation, neither in

theory nor in practice (Pretty, 1995). This allows the labeling of projects as
PR

participatory even when they contain a very limited and partial involvement of the

local people, the so-called beneficiaries. Communication, on the other hand, is not

only defined in a number of different ways, but it is also usually conceived as an

add-on component, often incorporated in development projects at a later phase of

the project cycle. In this way, communication tends to be used more as a curative

approach rather than as a strategic tool, thus losing much of its effectiveness.

Participatory communication is a term that denotes the theory and

practices of communication used to involve people in the decision- making of the

3
development process. It intends to return to the roots of its meaning, which,

similarly to the term community, originate from the Latin word communis, i.e.

common (Mody, 1991). Therefore, the purpose of communication should be to

make something common, or to share. It implies the sharing of meanings,

perceptions, worldviews or knowledge. In this context, sharing implies an

equitable division of what is being shared, which is why communication should

almost be naturally associated with a balanced, two-way flow of information.

Instead the ramifications of the power structures in society and the emergence of

W
mass media have often reduced the conception of communication to a one-way,

top-down, flow of information, from a single source to many outlets.

IE
Participatory communication reflects an attempt to reverse the above

model, building a new one where meanings, interpretations and decis ions are the
EV
result of collaboration and consensus among all stakeholders. This does not mean

that it is a revolutionary approach, as it is still in many ways within the parameters

of modernity. Nevertheless, it constitutes a step towards giving grassroots

PR

communities a gradually increasing role in the decision- making process of

development efforts. A role that should not be assigned to them by outsiders, but

that should be achieved through an awareness raising process, if empowerment

has to occur.

Despite the differences in the conception of participatory communication,

there is a wide consensus in the literature on the subject, validated also by my

own personal experiences, that the lack of, or the inappropriate use of,

participation and communication are among the main causes of project failure

4
(Anyaegbunam et al., 1998; Ascroft and Masilela, 1994). As mentioned above,

from the mid-1970s the concept of participation has been gaining an increasing

recognition and the role of communication is praised in most international fora as

the key element for the success of any development project. However, despite the

general acknowledgement of the relevance of the se two key concepts, no dramatic

change appears to have happened in the outcome of development projects.

The ambivalent way in which concepts such as participation and

communication are being defined and used in development is also reflected in the

W
way participatory communication approaches are implemented in the field. This

makes it difficult to provide a consistent assessment of the effectiveness of these

IE
kinds of approaches. That is why in my study I intend to investigate first how

participatory communication has been conceived, defined and understood by the

EV
relevant stakeholders and then consider how it has been applied in the various

phases of the project cycle. The selected project, due to its specific and innovative

nature, should provide significant insights into most of these issues.

PR

It is expected that if participatory communication could be used and

applied in a genuine and consistent way, decisions that have been traditionally

taken by outsiders (i.e. foreign experts) can gradually be made by insiders (i.e.

local communities) with the collaboration of other stakeholders. To achieve this

end, participation and communication are necessary tools, which to be meaningful

would need to incorporate the notion and practices of empowerment. Participation

cannot be reduced to people’s involvement in the implementation of projects, but

it should start from the very beginning. If people do not have the power to decide

5
their priority needs and problems there can be no true participation. Similarly,

there cannot be an open and balanced flow of information, unless all parties share

a similar amount of decision- making power in the communication process.

Figure 1.1: Johari’s Windows

Window 1: Open Knowledge Window 2: Our Hidden Knowledge

What they know What they do not know

What we know What we know

W
Window 3: Their Hidden Knowledge Window 4: The Blind Spot

What they know

IE What they do not know
What we do not know What we do not know
EV

The Johari’s Window shown in Fig 1.1 (Anyaegbunam et al., 1998) helps

to illustrate the collaborative effort illustrated above. This illustration starts by

PR

acknowledging that both insiders and outsiders share something in common (e.g.

language, certain understandings and perceptions of the situation) and that

common knowledge constitutes the starting point. The next two quadrants refer to

the specific knowledge of each group. The outsider experts, with their university

degrees, their international experiences, etc., surely have some knowledge that the

insiders do not have. However, the latter, having lived in those places for

generations have an in-depth knowledge and a deep understanding of the

implications of the issues at stake that can hardly be matched by outsiders.

Therefore, starting from common grounds, both insiders and outsiders must work

6
together, combining their knowledge and experiences to deal with the last

quadrant: wha t neither of them knows. The unknown area represents a major

problem or need to be addressed and solved.

The Johari’s Window is a visually clear representation of the kind of

dialogue that communication should facilitate. Dialogue is to participatory

communication what media are to mass communication. Bohm (1996) and Freire

(1997) are two of the main scholars who extensively discussed the importance of

dialogue in human life. They both consider dialogue a necessary activity of

W
human conditions. They both agree that dialogue can not be performed between

antagonist parties and can only be achieved between people who do not try to
IE
prevail on each other. Bohm (1996) discusses the difference between discussion

and dialogue. The former is a “ping-pong game,” where people are contrasting
EV
ideas trying to score points and win the game. The latter, instead, does not expect

anybody to win, or better ‘everybody wins if anybody wins’. According to Bohm,

dialogue presupposes an attitude where nobody will try to prevail or win. This is
PR

consistent with Freire’s conception (1997: 70) stating that “Dialogue cannot exist

in the absence of a profound love for the world and for the people.”

Both scholars, when discussing dialogue, ascribe a great importance to the

word itself, considered to be at the basis of dialogue. Bohm (1996) goes back to

the Greek roots of the term to indicate its origin: through (i.e. dia) and word (i.e.

logos) in the sense of meaning of the word. Hence, he considers dialogue as an

exchange of meanings through words flowing among individuals, eventually

leading to understanding. For Freire (1997), the word contains two dimensions:

7
reflection and action. For him, there is no true word that is not at the same time

praxis, i.e. action. Hence, to speak true words is an act of transforming the world.

Given the importance of words, I select carefully the terms I use to

describe aspects of development. I prefer to use the word “stakeholders” rather

than the label “target group” or “target audience,” which has ordinarily been used

to describe groups intended to be reached by media, and are now often used to

indicate selected groups of people towards which development efforts are

directed. But what could be less participatory, and a reflection of a dominant

W
structure, than a target, something to hit either with ideas or bombs?

The term “beneficiaries,” denotes a strong passive connotation and has

IE
also been used in a similar context, even though, as one villager during one of my

field trips in Namibia once noticed, the biggest beneficiaries of these efforts so far
EV
seems to be the international experts. Both of the above terms reflect a vertical,

paternalistic conception of people. Instead of these two terms, or of the vague

term “people,” I prefer to use stakeholders (primary stakeholders being the ones
PR

having the biggest interest in the intervention) or interaction groups, which

emphasize the active role that should be played by the ones involved in the

decision- making process.

The latter term has been introduced by an innovative methodology

developed by the FAO project Communication for Development in Southern

Africa. 1 This project has supported the establishment of the Centre of

Communication for Development (the first of its kind in Southern Africa) based
1 “Communication for Development in Southern Africa” is a project implemented by the Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, which introduced an innovative methodology
known as Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal or PRCA.

8
in Harare under the auspices of the Southern Africa Development Community.

This Centre is still operating today, providing training and advice in participatory

communication to all development projects and programs that require its services.

One of the main achieveme nts of the FAO Project and the SADC Centre has been

the development of an innovative methodology known as Participatory Rural

Communication Appraisal, or PRCA. This methodology is currently being

adopted by an increasing number of development organizations and projects

around the world (among others, Colombia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia,

W
Nicaragua, the Philippines, Vietnam and Zambia). PRCA will be illustrated in

more details in the next chapters. IE

At this point the rationale guiding this study should be becoming clearer;

i.e. how is participatory communication being conceived and applied throughout

EV
the project-cycle within the current development framework. To explore this

issue, after an extensive literature review, I selected to investigate the FAO

Project “Communication for Development in Southern Africa,” due to some basic

PR

considerations. First of all, the nature of this project, which has been conceived

and designed specifically to promote the adoption of participatory communication

approaches in development efforts, makes it of a high significance in this field.

Communication in this project is not a means to achieve something but it is an

end in itself. The second factor is its relevance and recognition.

Coldevin (2001) illustrates the importance and validity of this kind of

approach promoted by the Project that has been singled out and mentioned as a

step in the right direction by a number of development organizations and

9
international bodies. Among them the Southern African Development Community

and the United Nations General Assembly, which made an open call to all

international agencies, bilateral donors and development institutions to provide

support to this kind of approach. 1 Another important reason is the fact that FAO

has played a pioneering role in the field of communication for development. FAO

established its own Development Support Communication Branch (DSC) in 1969,

which has formulated and implemented a number of projects adopting

participatory communication approaches.

W
Finally, as a participant myself on this project for almost four years I am

familiar with many of the relevant issues and have direct access to a number of
IE
sources. Hence, I can investigate and explore the way in which participatory

communication has been defined and used by the project “Communication for
EV
Development in Southern Africa,” based in Harare under SADC auspices,

implemented by FAO and funded by the Italian Government. Due to the

combined structure of the FAO Project and the SADC Centre for Communication
PR

for Development, which basically operated under a unified management, when I

refer to the project activities in the field, these often include the activities of the

SADC Centre.

Participatory communication is still a relatively new field, and much work

needs to be done in order to refine and improve its theories and practices. My

work hopes to be a small step in that direction. An in-depth study on this

particular project should provide a better understanding on how participatory

1 Resolution of the UN General Assembly (agenda Item 96), 11 November 1996.

10
communication is being conceived and implemented in development practices. It

should also allow assessing some of most critical aspects related to this issue,

highlighting how to improve the use of participatory communication. During the

study I also highlight some terms that, similarly to the ones discussed previously

(e.g. target audience, beneficiaries, etc.), are often used within a participatory

context, even if their semantic roots and their connotations are leaning more

towards a dominating, vertical conception of the world rather tha n a more

equitable, participatory one.

W
I am aware that my attempt to use alternative words to define concepts and

terms well-established in the current development discourse might be considered

IE
as unnecessarily ambitious and that I could be criticized as a generator of further

confusion. Nevertheless, I share a similar concern and sensitivity to the power of

EV
words as those of Bohm and Freire. I fully embrace the latter’s position that

words are an act of transforming the world and, hence, they need to be used

carefully. Thus, by attempting to substitute old terms with new, more appropriate
PR

ones, I hope to contribute towards transforming reality. Next is a brief

presentation of the other chapters.

1.2 CONTENTS OF THE D ISSERTATION

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter starts by providing a brief historical overview of the main

paradigms in the development literature. It then reviews the main body of

literature on communication for development and participatory communication,

highlighting the main issues and latest developments, including the growing

11