The Drum Beat 367 - Assessing Communication for Empowerment

***

This Drum Beat is one of a series of commentary and analysis pieces. James Deane, Managing Director of Strategy for the Communication for Social Change (CFSC) Consortium, outlines some key elements of a recent practical guidance note he developed in collaboration with and for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Bureau for Development Policy Democratic Governance Group. "Communication for Empowerment: Developing Media Strategies in Support of Vulnerable Groups" focuses on the role that media can play in empowering vulnerable and marginalised groups. The Note explains "communication for empowerment" and its importance to poverty reduction. It identifies trends in the media, and highlights opportunities and challenges. James examines here the information and communication audits suggested within this guidance note, identifying the main elements of these audits and promoting the importance of these.

We continue to feature a range of critical analysis commentaries of the communication for change field. These appear regularly on the first Monday of most months and are meant to inspire dialogue throughout the month. Though we cannot guarantee to feature your commentary, as we have a limited number of issues to be published each year, if you wish to contribute please contact Deborah Heimann dheimann@comminit.com Many thanks!

***

UNDP Oslo Governance Centre Communication for Empowerment Initiative: Developing Media and Communication Strategies in Support of Vulnerable Groups.

This piece focuses on communication and people. It begins with four simple questions:

1. How much is known about what people living in rural areas in the poorest countries need and want in terms of information on issues that shape their lives?
2. How much is known about what opportunities they have to communicate their perspective into public debate?
3. To what extent is the media providing relevant information to such people, and providing opportunities to air people's perspectives in forms that people say they need?
4. How can development strategies better address these gaps?

We know a good deal (although in my opinion not enough) about how the media has changed in many countries over the last decade, but we know far less about how these changes have impacted on people's lives, and particularly on the lives of people living in poverty.

It is these questions which lie at the heart of a new initiative by the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, implemented with the Communication for Social Change Consortium, entitled "Communication for Empowerment: developing media strategies in support of vulnerable groups."

In March this year, the UNDP Democratic Governance Group published a practical guidance note on this issue which recommends that media strategies that are designed to empower people should be developed from a strong understanding of what people's information and communication needs are. Click here to access the guidance note in PDF format.

The guide proposes carrying out or supporting a series of "information and communication audits". There is already a good deal of research available on the media landscapes of many countries, and the audits would build on these. The audits themselves, however, are designed to focus less on what media exist and more on understanding people's information needs and communication opportunities - particularly how these have changed in recent years as media environments have changed, and they are designed to enable multi stakeholder responses to these challenges.

Ultimately, it is hoped that this exercise will contribute (along with other efforts, such as those by UNESCO) to such questions becoming more embedded in the tools used to determine national development strategies, such as the Common Country Assessment and UN Development Assistance Frameworks.

SOME ASSUMPTIONS

Several assumptions underpin this work.

The first is that the structure, content, reach and scope of the media in most developing countries have undergone a profound transformation over the last decade. Such changes include widespread liberalisation of media, a resulting profusion of new media actors (print, television and particularly radio) and a dependence on advertising and to a lesser extent donor/development support or sponsorship for funding. A more detailed summary of recent communication trends (community media, decline of state broadcasters, upsurge in public debate, the interaction with new technologies such as mobile telephony, etc.) can be found in Table 3.1 [PDF] (pps. 18-20 of Media development trends: complex and contradictory).

The second assumption is that these changes have principally taken place in cities, rather than the countryside. Most new radio stations are FM stations with limited reach beyond the cities; television is available to those who have access to electricity and who speak the language of often majority language television broadcasting. All media are operating in an increasingly competitive and advertising dependent market, with an overall tendency to cover issues most relevant to an urban, consumer audience. The incentives for investing in journalism that covers vulnerable groups - particularly in rural areas - are often small. The disincentives are often very great (this is not a glamorous area of journalism; it involves expense and effort to get out of the cities, it does not generally increase market share and the risks in uncovering unpalatable stories are often great).

The third is that the portrait of media who have traditionally catered to rural or marginalised populations is a confused one. On the one hand there is an upsurge of new community media, particularly community radio, although the true extent, reach, sustainability, rootedness and impact of this sector is uneven and poorly researched. On the other, most state or former state broadcasters are often in crisis as they are forced to compete in an increasingly competitive market. Liberalisation may be forcing some former state broadcasters to become more democratic and plural in their coverage and less dominated by ruling government elites (although this is often not the case). Competition may also, though, be forcing state broadcasters to cut transmission capacity, thus reducing access to vulnerable groups, to cut language programming that is not the elite or majority language, and to cut agricultural, health and other programming designed specifically for rural populations. This may or may not be compensated by specific donor or development initiatives aimed at informing rural audiences.

The fourth assumption is that, quite apart from the great generalisations that are inevitable when working across more than even one country, let alone dozens, we don't really know any of this with any certainty. We don't know because the information and communication needs of rural and marginalised groups in most of the poorest countries are so poorly researched and understood.

And the fifth is that this matters. It matters what information people have access to because access to information is essential to exercising informed democratic choices and in enabling people to make sense of the issues that confront them. And it matters whether people have the opportunity to have their perspectives and realities heard and reflected in the media, because if the media ignore or misreport the perspectives of people living in poverty, both public and policy debate becomes skewed to catering only for the interests of the urban "non-poor".

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION AUDITS

What the Guidance Note Proposes

The guidance note proposes rooting development policy in a better understanding of people's information and communication needs. It focuses particularly on "vulnerable groups" - people living in rural areas and those who are most marginalised. These may often constitute a majority of the population.

It proposes carrying out a series of Information and Communication Audits. These will build on existing data and research as well as carrying out new ones, and are designed to be carried out in partnership with and in support of national organisations. Significant analysis already exists on the media structure and landscape of most countries, but much less on the specific information needs and communication opportunities of people living in poverty.

Any strategy designed to meet the information and communication needs of people living in poverty must be informed by an understanding of what information and communication opportunities already exist, and what people's needs are.

An information and communication audit includes two parts:

1. Mapping the information needs of poor people (information audit)
2. Mapping the voice needs of poor people (communication audit)

The overarching principle is to focus on the needs of those most affected by development, and to bridge the gap between their needs and opportunities for access to information and communication...

METHODOLOGIES AND APPROACHES FOR UNDERTAKING THE AUDITS

Some of the information needed to answer the key questions in the information and communication audits might already be compiled and accessible, but because trends are fast moving and because this area is a comparatively neglected one, new research is likely to be needed.

Research can take two main forms:

• Ensuring that information and communication questions are included in existing UNDP data gathering and research processes (e.g. participatory assessment tools);
• Specific support to or commissioning of information and communication audits.

Audit methods will vary but are likely to involve a mix of quantitative and qualitative data including:

• Household surveys and other field work focused on covering people's access to and perspectives on the media;
• Central Statistical Offices and other government information on the profile of the media (e.g. statistical information on the density and diversity of the media);
• Networking and consulting with community based organisations (CBOs) on the information and communication needs of people living in poverty;
• Interviews with senior representatives of a sample of private and community broadcasters, including heads of programmes. Interviews can cover issues of ownership (private, community, religious), location (capital, other city, rural), language (majority/official, minority/local), size (large, small) and constraints and opportunities;
• Content analysis of selected media programmes (identified by the broadcasters as being "pro-poor" or "containing the voices of the poor") against "pro-poor" criteria...
• Small focus groups of selected audiences in the three locations with a specific emphasis on people living in poverty;
• Radio listening clubs, which can take many forms but which in this instance are supported to provide feedback and assessment of the value of media. Such clubs can be representative of the community as a whole, or from specific groups (e.g. women, or people with HIV);
• Independent media monitoring studies, and possibly involving support to independent media monitoring organizations to collect appropriate data and conduct content analysis (e.g. content analysis by the Media Institute of Southern Africa);
• Mapping of media initiatives specifically designed to foster perspectives of poor people (e.g. listeners' groups);
• Monitoring of legal and policy process, particularly on access to information.

Further details of the audit process and of how this analysis can be translated into effective action can be found in the guidance note.

Given the above summary and referenced guidance note, I'd like to focus on three questions:

1. Is there, as this analysis suggests, an extremely poor understanding of the information and communication needs, realities and opportunities of people living in poverty?
2. Is the communication and audit process a useful mechanism for developing a greater understanding of this issue and how could it be improved?
3. How can development programming - particularly in relation to the media - be better structured to meet these needs?

Thank you.

James Deane
Formerly Managing Director, Strategy - Communication for Social Change Consortium
James Deane has since moved to BBC World Service Trust
James.Deane@bbc.co.uk

***

Please participate in an Opinion Poll related to this commentary.

Understanding the information and communication needs of people living in economic poverty is vital for development progress.

Do you agree or disagree?

***

This issue of The Drum Beat is meant to inspire dialogue and conversation among the Drum Beat network.

A discussion will begin October 10. To read contributions, please click here.

***

RESULTS of past Pulse Poll

The Communication and Media for Development Manifesto helps to make arguments that will strengthen my work.

Do you agree or disagree?

Agree: 93.06%

Disagree: 4.17%

Unsure: 2.78%

Total number of participants = 72

***

This issue of The Drum Beat is an opinion piece and has been written and signed by the individual writer. The views expressed herein are the perspective of the writer and are not necessarily reflective of the views or opinions of The Communication Initiative or any of The Communication Initiative Partners.

***

The Drum Beat seeks to cover the full range of communication for development activities. Inclusion of an item does not imply endorsement or support by The Partners.


Please send material for The Drum Beat to the Editor - Deborah Heimann dheimann@comminit.com


To reproduce any portion of The Drum Beat, see our policy.


To subscribe, click here.