Introduction
The goal of this
report is to analyze the strengths and limitations of participatory approaches
(PAR) to development communication. For our analysis, it is necessary to
provide a brief introduction of PAR and development communication.
This essay
starts with the introduction of PAR and development communication before going
on to discuss the diverse academic opinions on PAR. The essay also focuses on
the PARs strengths and limitations to development communication. The strengths
have been identified as follows:
l Deep
Understanding Based on Authentic Experiences
l Positive
Relationship Based on Equality in Research Roles
l Empowering
Participants
l Practicable
Approach to Promote Social Development
To elaborate on the
limitations of PAR, the essay discusses the following aspects:
l Outside
Specialist
l Lack
of Academic Standardization
l Great
Dependence on Researchers
l Paradox
in Power Redistribution
Brief introduction to Development Communication and
PAR
The term
“Development Communication” was first created in 1972 by Nora C. Quebra. He
defines it asThe art and science of human communication linked to a society's
planned transformation from a state of poverty to one of dynamic socio-economic
growth that makes for greater equity and the larger unfolding of individual
potential (Quebral, 2001, "). It is also a process of eliciting
positive
change in a community through effective exchange of information. Development
communication has great links with and relies on community and people
participation. This is also a distinctive feature of PAR, which involves
participation or collaboration between participants and the change agent.
The theory and
practice of development communication continues to evolve today, with different
approaches and perspectives unique to the varied development contexts the field
has grown in (Manyozo, 2006). Participatory approach as a recognized research
approach focuses on the effects of researchers’ actions or practice within a
community. This approach aims at improving the performance quality of the
community. The key ideas in PAR include participatory involvement, action,
change, and dialectic dialogue. The case study is also widely used as a
research method as part of PAR. PAR differs from traditional approaches to
research in that it involves direct participation while keeping the research
process highly dynamic. As Prozesky and Mouto (2002, 537) observe, PAR takes a
sharp break from what was previously considered as proper research in areas
such as the research process and the data collection methods
Diverse Academic Opinions on PAR
PAR conflicts
with what is generally considered normal social science because it places a strong
emphasis on the political dimension. This political nature of PAR has in many
cases been sharply criticized by scholars and analysts who tend to question its
level of objectivity. Moreover, some researchers, especially the quantitative
researchers criticize PAR for its lack of technical validity and lackluster
approach to methodology. PAR mainly concentrates on bringing intervention to
community and participants. In most cases, the participatory researchers have
been parts of the subject communities whose realities are being changed and
this gives immense credence to the assertions made by PAR’s critics. However,
Prozesky and Mouto (2002) continue to defend PAR by stating that it provides
the opportunity for new theories and more knowledge to be introduced into the
society. It promotes practical problem solving unlike some of the traditional
approaches to research.
Brown (1993)
further agrees with these assertions by observing that both Southern and
Northern traditions of PAR are concerned with knowledge in the form of answers
to specific problems and knowledge as a transformation of consciousness. Some
other analysts hold the belief that conducting PAR promotes practical
problem-solving and brings the improvement of actual situation of the community
and spreads knowledge and understanding. This assertion forms the basis for view
analysts take that it is worth to sacrifice some level of methodological and
technical rigor to achieve a greater good. Besides, participatory action
research has its own methodological and epistemological bases. Reason (1994)
reminds us that PAR is a methodology for an alternative system of knowledge
production. PAR constitutes an epistemological shift by emphasizing the
importance of “experiential knowing” (Reason, 1994)
Strengths of Participatory
approaches to Development Communication
PAR constitutes
epistemological shift by emphasizing the fundamental importance of experiential
knowing (Reason, 1994). Deep understanding based on authentic experiences in
PAR helps to generate better suggestions and strategies for the advancement of
society. And strategies are not only provided by researchers, but also the
participants. In PAR, researchers are not only the witness, but also the change
agents in researches. They participate in the research and get familiar with
people and the environment in the community, to gain deep understanding and
authentic experiences. During PAR, researchers gain unique knowledge about
participants’ system and culture based on their own experiences.
PAR provides new ways
of knowing. As Reason (1994) states, PAR articulates an “extended epistemology”
that involves the reclaiming of three broad ways of knowing- thinking, feeling,
and acting. In traditional researches, researchers cannot gain knowledge by the
means of feeling and acting. The study “Participatory Poverty Reduction in
China Transforming the interface between rural citizens and the state:
Experiences with participatory poverty reduction in China” serves as an example
to illustrate this point (insert reference). The study brings authentic
experiences of practitioners working at grassroots and shows a more convictive
conclusion about the poverty reduction in China. The experiences bring
first-hand data, which serve as the direct proof of poverty reduction in China.
In traditional
communication researches, researchers do research design, data gathering and
data analysis without participating in the community. On one hand, researchers
stand outside the community to have a whole perspective of the research
problem. On the other hand, researchers stand by to record the real situation
about the community and research subjects. Traditional paradigms keep
researchers out of the local affairs. Researches bring objective attitude with
the disregard of the researcher’s personal opinions.. Development communication
utilizes existent communication tools and applicable theories to generate
strategies for the advancement of society. PAR serves as a paradigm and approach
to get involved in the community and spark off a change process. In 1994 the
FAO project, Communication for Development in Southern Africa, was a pioneer in
supporting and enhancing development projects and programs through the use of
participatory communication approaches.
2)
Positive
Relationship Based on Equality in Research Roles
In participatory action
research, research subjects are seen as equal partners in the project. They can
participate in the research and have an equal conversation and dialogue with
researchers in the research process. PAR offers a new paradigm that can provide
a balance of power between researchers and research subjects. PAR insists on
developing a subject-subject relationship, which underlying commitment to
social equity and redistributing power (Reason 1994).
Participants are
involved in several stages in the research process: problem formulation,
initial design of the project, implementing the project, reaching the final
conclusion, and generating problem solutions. In these stages, participants are
not passively being watched and analyzed. At some point, they are the designers
and implementers of the project.
The equality of
research roles mobilizes participants’ initiative and enthusiasm. Participants
treat this research more like a problem solving process, which has close
relationship with their own life quality and living environment. This positive
attitude pushes research forward. Besides, as Rahman (1988) states,
participates should be encouraged to form new organizations by means of
self-mobilization. This is a democratization motive can be a supplement to
traditional research. In the traditional communication research, researchers
are outsiders to the community and cannot get deeply involved with the research subjects. However,
in PAR, all aspects of research work are less important than participation or
collaboration between participants and the change agent (Prozesky and Mouton,
2002).. Participation implies that members of the subject of study are
integrated in the research by participating fully and actively in the research
process from its outset and throughout most or all of its phases.
In PAR, change
agent supports participants to improve self-awareness, think critically and
learn to make their own researches. And at the same time, researchers bring
several aspects of knowledge to participants to help them know more about
equality principle and situations about the outside world. With these efforts,
PAR empowers the communities and emancipates participants to promote the social
development. Some scholars such as Sarri and Sarri (1992); and Chesler (1991)
define PAR as a methodological approach to development of consciousness. To
obtain its object, PAR has the necessity to improve participants’
self-awareness. The improvement of participants’ self-awareness is also
directly linked to the promotion of participants’ collective social inquiries.
Critical
thinking is the process or method of thinking that questions assumptions. Critical
thinking is necessary for participants to form self-awareness. In PAR, it is
the change agent’s responsibility to emancipate participants’ minds for
critical questioning, reflection and inquiry. In addition, PAR focuses on the
development of “freedom and democracy” (Reason, 1994). With critical thinking
ability, participants can decide better whether a claim is true, false, or
sometimes true and sometimes false, or partly true and partly false. It is a
necessary characteristic for participants to find the current problems and
understand the problems better. PAR is also an approach to education
(Sarri and Sarri, 1992). The learning process is an inseparable part of PAR. To
help participants understand the social problems existing in the community,
such as poverty and low quality of social service, change agents have the
necessity to spread essential knowledge.
Besides, participants,
as the subjects of research control and own many aspects of the research
activity. Research techniques are also popularized in the process of PAR.
Participants gain basic research knowledge in the contact with change agents.
The basic research ability is useful for participants to social investigation
and analysis. Different aspects of knowledge play important part in the
critical thinking ability forming process and consciousness development.
4)
Practicable
Approach to Promote Social Development
The ultimate
objective of development communication is to promote social development. Based
on participation, PAR provides a practicable approach to reach this goal. PAR compares
itself not only with research as “science-making” instrument, but also as a
“methodology for productive work (False-Borda, 1988). PAR promotes practical
problem-solving during the research process.
Generating solutions
to problems and applying research outcomes are necessary stages in the PAR
process. During these stages, the roles of researchers are only to spark of a
process that participants then take their own course. Participants of local
community are encouraged to change the current situation of the community. PAR
ends up with a social action which is implemented by participants themselves
based on their own perceptions on reality (Rahnema, 1990). Change agents serve
as an assistant role, supporting these people to undertake the action by means
of self-mobilization.
PAR is
considered to be “inquiry as empowerment” (Reason 1994), through
which key component of community transformations and social justice can be
achieved. Community Participation is a voluntary involvement, with the
community being equipped with basic knowledge and training. Several
methodologies are used to promote people’s participation and they can include peer
education, community mapping and participatory rural appraisal. The
participating people bring influences on other people in the community, thus
enlarge the communication effects and promote the social development.
Limitations of
Participatory approaches to Development Communication
Although PAR has
several strengths to development communication that can promote social
development, it still has its limitations.
PAR is committed
to work for grassroots groups, communities and social classes, such as those
are poor, underprivileged or socially and economically exploited. Those persons
who are vulnerable to subjugation by the dominant culture are also appropriate for a PAR project
(Reason, 1994). Although the PAR approach seems like it is exclusive of elites,
it is most frequently taken by persons coming from the well-educated class. A
professional researcher serves as a specialist coming from the outside of the
community. The distinction in identity is an obstructive factor for a
participatory research. According to Huizer (1984), PAR should be carried out
by scholars from those areas or countries where there are socio-economic or
political issues to be addressed.
Different
environment and educational backgrounds have different external manifestations
on people’s languages, body languages and other manners. It is difficult for a
specialist to get well involved in a local community or area, especially if
it’s a specialist who comes from a different country or socio-cultural
background. In some cases, the change agent is not accepted by the local people
due to the perceived differences. This point can best be illustrated by drawing
from the experiences in the Henan province in China. A researcher had come from
Belgium to do a participatory research in Henan “AIDS Village”; an area well
known for its high rates of infection with HIV. The local people had refused to
participate in the research and even turned hostile towards the researcher
(insert reference)..
To ensure the
effectiveness of research, PAR should be carried out by scholars from local
areas or countries. Besides, the change agent should also be independent of
macro-social organizations. This is due to the fact that dependent change agents
cause biases on the understanding of the various issues hence leading to a
subjective conclusion. It’s therefore necessary to ensure that the identity of
the change agent is considered carefully before conducting a PAR research. This
is crucial in eliminating any undue influences on the research process and on
the conclusions drawn.
2)
Lack
of Academic Standardization
PAR is rated as
the third paradigm in the methodology of social sciences beside quantitative
and qualitative approaches. It is significantly different from the traditionally accepted methods and
philosophies of conducting research. The research practice remains largely
disjointed despite efforts by scholars to standardize it. PAR has been
criticized for lacking methodological rigor and technical validity. These two
crucial aspects are considered to be the pillars of academic research. Some
scholars assert that there are ways to create academic standards for PAR using
the adoption of qualitative research design. McNiff and Whitehead (2009)
proposed the “Seven I's” methods be used to evaluate PAR work in an attempt to
introduce some level of standardization of the practice.
One of the
criticisms that have been leveled against PAR is that it still uses the
traditional research techniques such as participant observation and
unstructured interviewing (Prozesky and Mouton, 2002).
3)
Great
Dependence on Researchers
PAR has great
dependence on researchers’ thoughts and perceptions on the phenomena under
investigation and this introduces the undesirable quality of subjectivity of
the findings and conclusions (insert reference). Participation is a necessary
part and a distinctive feature of PAR. But the level and method of
participation is difficult to measure. This implies that the researcher has the
free hand in determining the participation levels based on their own judgments.
Researcher’s action and its influences may cause over intervention
to a local community or area thus brings the community or areas negative
effects, such as damage on the local culture and social order.
PAR is also an
approach for promoting research education and it contributes significantly to
the process of knowledge diffusion. However, there is no standard on the content,
degree and pattern of knowledge diffusion or education. Some of the crucial
considerations in regard to the education of the participants include the mode
of educating participants; and the kind of knowledge that participants need in
order to participate in the research to make the process meaningful. These are
mainly variable considerations whose specifics depend on the nature of the
research and the amount of knowledge already at the disposal of the
participants. Different researchers hold
different ideas on how to spread knowledge and which aspects of knowledge to
spread depending on the specific circumstances. So the PAR depends greatly on
the researcher’s own understanding of the research, and of the subject under
study.
Since PAR is
largely dependent on the researcher’s views on the participants and the issues
at hand, it tends to portray a subjective view hence rendering their
conclusions less reliable. Lapses in judgment based on the researchers’
experiences may significantly distort the research process and defeat the very
purpose of the study
4)
Paradox
in Power Redistribution
Power
redistribution is another form of power politics. A researcher, as an outsider with
high educational quality and more information strengths play important roles in
influencing local people’s thinking and action. The researcher, as a stronger
person, changes the mind and action of the weaker participants; especially in
cases that the researcher does not make them fully aware of the local situation
and subject of study. Development Communication aims to promote positive
changes in a community through effective exchange information. In PAR, research
subjects are often from the grassroots groups in the Third World. To help them
make the positive changes, researchers make efforts from many aspects. These
aspects include the spreading of knowledge, improving participants’
self-awareness and motivating participants to make changes by themselves. In
the process, grassroots groups are empowered with “people’s power” (Rahnema,
1990).
The political
empowerment brought by participation affects local power dynamics. Community
participation may be recognized for an externally motivated political act.
Robert Chambers points out the intrinsically political nature of PAR by
pointing out the relationship between the participants and the change agents
where the agents are viewed as stronger individuals with the intention to
change things for the weaker participants (Chambers, 1983).
At some point,
PAR plays the role of encouraging power redistribution. The rationale for the
redistribution of the local power and the mode of doing so are mainly based on
theoretical analysis. This may be counterproductive in the sense that theory is
often significantly different from observed realities. Besides, the researcher,
as an outsider with high educational quality and with superior information,
play important roles in influencing local people’s thinking and actions. This
is another form of power politics and it acknowledges the ability of the stronger
person to effect a change in the mindsets of the weaker one.
Conclusion
This essay has
tried to discuss PARs strengths and limitations to development communication. It
has been argued that PAR as a new paradigm that has developed during the past
three decades, has received diverse academic opinions. Some scholars criticize
it while others support it based on the strengths and limitations cited in the
paper.
This essay
combines the recent participatory researches and the academic opinions and
elaborates that PAR has strengths to development communication in several
aspects. First and foremost, it brings a deep understanding based on the
researcher’s authentic experiences. Secondly, in PAR, a positive relationship
based on equality in research roles is easily formed. Thirdly, grassroots marginalized
members of the community can get the opportunity to be gain empowerment. PAR is
also a practicable approach used to promote social development. The approach is
a productive way to make communication effects and promote the social
development.
Although PAR has
several strengths to development communication, it still has its limitations. The
essay elaborates the limitations of PAR in the following aspects. Firstly, PAR
approach seems like exclusive for elites where it is most frequently taken by
persons coming from the well-educated class. Secondly, PAR lacks of academic standardization,
and it has been criticized for lacking methodological rigor and technical
validity. Thirdly, PAR has great dependence on researchers’ thoughts and
action, thus it has higher levels of subjectivity and low reliability of
results. Finally, there is a paradox in power redistribution. Power redistribution
is another form of power politics and PAR plays a major role in bringing it
about.
References
Manyozo, L., 2006.
Manifesto for Development Communication. Asian
Journal of Communication(Please include volume, issue and page numbers in the
following format, Vol (Issue), pp. xx-xxx)
Prozesky, H., Mouto,
J., 2002. Development: Theory, Policy and
Practice. Oxford: Oxford UP
Wilkins, K.G., 2002.
Redeveloping Communication for Social
Change: Theory, Practice, and Power, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
McHale, J., 2003.
Communicating for change. Strategies for
social and political advocates, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Morris, N.,
2000. Bridging the gap: An examination of diffusion and participatory approach
in development communication (inadequate details. Please include publisher and
town of publishing).
McMillin, D., 2007.
The Politics of International Media
Research’, International Media Studies Malden. Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell
Publishing.
Wilkins, K.G.
Mody, B., 2001. Reshaping development communication: Developing communication
and communication development. Communication Theory (inadequate reference
details)
Jacobson, T.L., 2004.
Measuring communicative action for political and development participation. paper submitted to IAMCR, Porto Alegre,
Brazil.
Chambers, R., 2004.
Ideas for development: reflecting forwards, Institute of development studies, U. of Sussex.
No comments:
Post a Comment