Participatory Communication

This article is based on a presentation made at the “Assessing Participation in Communication Interventions” panel held as part of the activities of the Participatory Research Section of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) during the 2007 Conference in Paris. It focuses on the value of participatory communication and how such value can be demonstrated, and discusses the complexities of assessing participatory communication.

The author divides the assessment of participatory communication and its approaches and applications into two main modalities or modes: monologic - associated with the diffusion thread of communication approaches, characterised by mostly linear one-way models - and dialogic - associated with the participatory thread, based on two-way horizontal models. He states that monologic communication can be assessed by measuring changes in awareness, knowledge, attitude, and, ultimately, in behaviours, by establishing a baseline prior to a project and comparing it with project results, while taking into account other intervening factors. It is then important to systematically track or document all of the various project assessments to address reasons for success or for failure.


The author indicates that a consensus has emerged that there is a need to shift former development practices to the participatory approaches of the dialogic model "in order to build trust, ensure mutual understanding, explore different perspectives and identify the best course of action to successfully address a situation that needs to be changed." He refers to the World Bank’s Development Communication Division's (DevComm's) method of combining the monologic and dialogic modes, using the Communication-Based Assessment (CBA), which incorporates the Communication Needs Assessment (CNA) within its scope, and differentiates between the two: "Typically, the function of a communication needs assessment is to investigate all issues related to communication, such as the media environment, media laws and policies, information networks, communication needs and institutional capacities. Instead, a communication-based assessment uses communication methods and approaches to engage relevant stakeholders in the investigation of all issues considered important beyond the communication dimension.... CBA is a research approach that uses the dialogic and crosscutting nature of communication to investigate issues, giving local stakeholders an active role and a voice, necessary to prevent problems and to enhance project design."


The difficulty, as stated here, in using the outputs of the CBA as hard data, demonstrating the value of a participatory approach, is that those outputs become inputs for project design in order to pre-empt potential controversy, delay, and conflicts that cost time and imply a waste of resources. Thus, the question is: how can one measure what is avoided and what value it carries?

Three methods are recommended to assess the value of participatory communication in this context:

• "The first one, 'anecdotic evidence', refers to those instances where there is clear evidence (either due to a strong correlation or to a causal link) that problems, tensions and other obstacles have been solved thanks to communication.
• The second way, ...'impressionistic evidence', provides stakeholders with the opportunity to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a project’s accomplishments.... [S]uch an approach is possibly the one most in line with the participatory perspective, since it measures success as perceived by the ultimate 'beneficiaries.' In this way, concepts difficult to operationalize and evaluate within a strict scientific methodology, such as participation, transparency and empowerment, become more easily assessable as the stakeholders define them in ways that they considered suitable to the specific context.
• The third...way, 'the costs of non-communication evidence', highlights those instances where a project encountered problems or failed to achieve its objectives due to lack of dialogue with the stakeholders. Precise data about the amount of money and other resources wasted...are not always...available. Evaluating such costs requires that organizations commit to full transparency and acknowledge their mistakes.”

The author acknowledges that, though assessing the value of participatory communication as an instrument is challenging, "it is even more difficult not to acknowledge the many failures that can be ascribed to the lack of this vital type of communication...." He concludes that giving up the search for appropriate methods of assessment of participatory communication is inappropriate, as is negating the evidence of its value.