The True Power of Community Voice:
A Study of Participatory Communication within International Development
Maryna Taran
A Capstone Project
Presented to the Faculty of the School of Communication in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Public Communication
Supervisor: Prof. Lauren Feldman
April, 2011
1
COPYRIGHT
Maryna Taran
2011
2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In completing this study I would like to thank Professor Lauren Feldman for her
encouragement and guidance throughout the process; Professor Maria Ivancin for tremendous
understanding, priceless advice and endless empathy; Professors Sol Hart and Rhonda
Zaharna for their genuine support and valuable input.
I would also like to thank all the experts who have agreed to interview and have shared their
knowledge and expertise with me: Anahi Ayala Iacucci, Paolo Mefalopulos and Sergio
Jellinek. It has been a real honor having the chance to interview you despite your busy
schedules.
And a special thank you to the World Bank ComGAP expert Anthony Lambino without
whom I could not have gotten past the first section of this research.
Thank you to my family, Andrii, Viktoriia and Alex, who have shared my anxiety and
excitement throughout this Endeavour, and to my friends, Meri, Radhika, Nicola and
Rosemari, who always listened, advised and stayed by my side.
3
ABSTRACT
Application of horizontal communication approaches to international development aid
efforts has caused a revolutionary change in the way development projects are carried out at
the ground level. It has also shifted the public’s attitude in favor of development agencies that
were viewed mainly as large bureaucracies without a human face. In the face of this shift, the
focus is finally drawn away from the aid workers and towards the previously silent publics.
Along the lines of this transformation, the objective of this paper is to assess
participatory communication approaches within the sphere of international development. The
research explores procedural justice by examining differences between expert opinion and
public opinion. It also seeks to answer the question of whether or not the use of participatory
communication leads to a significant change in the way development projects are designed
and implemented. The variety of arguments is operationalized based on three key constructs:
the notion of voice, trust and power of the audience. The research builds upon a series of
“case stories” and expert interviews that illustrate successes and failures of participatory
approaches.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 4 ROLE OF COMMUNITIES IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: SEARCHING AND LISTENING LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION ROLE OF DIFFUSION THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY THE POWER OF THE CROWD PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AS A TOOL FOR INCREASING EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECTS DEFINITION OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AS SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND PROJECT EFFICIENCY NOTION OF “VOICE” IN DECISION-­‐MAKING PROCESSES NOTION OF “TRUST” IN DECISION-­‐MAKING PROCESSES POWER: VOTING RIGHTS AND ULTIMATE DECISION MAKING VERSUS FORMATIVE RESEARCH HIERARCHICAL AND SENDER-­‐ORIENTED AUDIENCE AS SENDER HORIZONTAL AND PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION MODELS: APPROXIMATING DIALOGUE ROLES OF EXPERT OPINION VERSUS LAY PUBLIC OPINION SUMMARY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4 6 8 10 12 14 15 17 17 18 18 20 20 20 22 23 METHODOLOGY 25 CASE STUDIES 27 USHAHIDI: THE PLATFORM AND THE PEOPLE USHAHIDI IN HAITI STOP STOCK-­‐OUTS: USING USHAHIDI TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL MEDICINES IN SUB-­‐SAHARAN AFRICA TRADITIONAL PARTICIPATORY TOOLSET BUMBUNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN POST-­‐CONFLICT SIERRA LEONE BANGLADESH SANGLAP: A POLITICAL DISCUSSION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 27 31 IMPLEMENTING A CAMPAIGN 47 RESEARCH COUNTRY PROFILE INFRASTRUCTURE OBJECTIVES TA MESSAGE DESIRED OUTCOME PROGRAMMING MEDIA CAMPAIGN OUTLINE AND TIMELINE LAUNCH EVENT/ END OF CAMPAIGN EVENT EVALUATION 47 47 48 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 54 54 IMPLICATIONS AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 56 LIMITATIONS 57 BIBLIOGRAPHY 59 34 38 38 42 5
There is no development without communication – Silvia Balit (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations)
INTRODUCTION
Through the years, the field of international development underwent a series of
changes in the way the developed world viewed the developing nations and implemented its
programs. The role of communication within the development field also changed throughout
the different time periods. Communication prior to the 1950s was regarded as a mere tool for
diffusion of Western ideas, but as more and more development experts began advocating
participatory approaches, two-way dialogue became an integral component of development
projects. In recent years, there has been a notable shift back to the public relations function of
aid agencies due to “industrialization” of the development field. Throughout all of these
stages, communication has been a complementary asset for development professionals. Now,
practitioners are suggesting that “it is not good communication that makes good
development; it is good development that breeds good communication”(Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Research and Extension Division. 2007), (Quarry and
Ramírez 2009).
Thus, despite the shift to an “industrialized” role for communication, certain
international development agencies, like the World Bank, are finding participatory
communication a risky, yet integral and potent asset that is essential as an outcome of good
development. As defined by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) in its first seminar on participatory communication, participatory
communication is “the social process in which groups with common interests jointly
construct a message oriented to the improvement of their existential situation and to the
change of the unjust social structure” (Mody 1991). Although consensus regarding a singular
1
definition of participatory communication does not exist, “at the heart of this concept, [is] the
need for an exchange of information to contribute toward the resolution of a development
problem and improve the quality of life of a specific target group, as well as to implement
needs analysis and evaluation mechanisms within the communication process” (Bessette
1996). In general, development sets the stage for integrated communication; it shapes and
molds how development takes place, while the vertical dissemination of preexisting “howto’s” simply promotes a desired developmental outcome.
Previously, the paradigm in the development world was based on the assumption that
if populations within the developing world can be provided information on which the
developed Western societies function, a change will follow that will transform the local
communities into economically sustainable states. Contemporary theorists suggest another
approach to development: communication media (radio, video) and tools (dialogue between
people) should be used to help people develop a community-specific plan of action based on
their own discussion of their own predicament (Quarry and Ramírez 2009). Beyond these
traditional tools and media the recent rise in new technologies has provided a new platform
for giving voice to individual and niche communities. Now, the development organizations
have to find new ways to adopt and integrate these technologies into their toolset. However,
this paper argues that these technologies have neither established a new form of
communication nor changed the core structure of participatory communication – they have
simply added a new platform for active citizenship.
This paper consists of an extensive literature review and case study analysis of
participatory communication techniques. The literature review first presents (a) a brief
sample of communication issues facing development agencies, (b) the different roles of
communities in international development efforts and (c) the growing importance of
communication technology in participatory communication. The review of literature then
2
identifies the variety of models that assess the level of beneficiary participation in the
development efforts and introduces the notion of procedural justice in international
development projects. It then moves on to the issue of power, comparing the public’s
participation in terms of voting rights versus formative research participation. The review of
literature ends with an overview of new communication technologies.
The case studies present a comparison of the new media technological advancements
in participatory communication, and the traditional participatory communication techniques
as employed by large international development organizations, in particular the World Bank.
The study of technological tools provides an in-depth look at the technology use of Ushahidi,
a Kenyan platform for “information collection, visualization and interactive mapping”
(“Ushahidi”, n.d.), and how it has been applied most widely in Haiti, as a disaster relief
mechanism. Additionally, it examines how Ushahidi has been used in its native Kenya and
other Sub-Saharan countries to monitor medicine shortages. The study ends on a suggested
campaign employing both traditional methods of communication and Ushahidi in an antituberculosis campaign to be executed in response to Ukraine’s TB epidemic. Traditional
participatory tools are discussed in two case studies: the Bumbuna Hydroelectric project in
Sierra Leone and Bangladesh Sanglap BBC initiative. The first case study overviews the use
of communication-based assessment by the World Bank specialists while the second focuses
on examining a political discourse project aimed at democratizing political processes.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Role of communities in international development projects: Searching and Listening
There are currently three rationales for participatory communication: “(1) the native
population possesses relevant information regarding their own circumstances and are a
unique resource without which a development project might fail [thus, they often times have
conflicting roles with the experts]; (2) the native population has the fundamental human right
to contribute to the formation of its own advancement [the rights-based approach is a
common principle that provides a base for development efforts]; and (3) inclusion of the
native population will draw more support which will in turn facilitate the achievement of
common goals [which brings-in the notion of procedural justice]” (Quarry and Ramírez
2009).
In order for communication to function as a means for local communities to express
their needs, break social barriers and equalize existing power imbalances, communication
specialists need to shift their role from that of planners/senders of messages to that of
searchers or listeners, who listen before telling. While the former set overarching large goals
and focus on procedures and evaluation methods, the latter focus their attention on small
local-scale solvable specific problems as outlined by the impoverished populations. They
“have to be close to the customers at the bottom, rather than surveying the world form the
top” (Easterly 2006). Searchers evaluate success based on overall level of development
achieved within a particular population regardless of the degree of direct attribution to any
method and/or specific organization. Essentially, searchers, unlike planners, assess whether
or not their efforts have contributed to development of a particular community, or the
ultimate outcome, rather than assessing whether or not they followed the initial inputs that
were outlined in the agenda.
4
In order for searchers to be successful in the field they rely on three core
principles/coordinates:
context,
champions,
and
the
different
communication
functions/objectives as posed by the development agencies.
Context is “multidimensional and all encompassing” (Quarry and Ramírez 2009). It
examines psychographic and socio-demographic factors of the populations. For example,
various aspects of the existing communities play a huge role in informing the development
plan, including the established social structures and relationships within the community, as
well as the region’s geography, culture and history. When evaluating context, communication
practitioners also assess all stakeholders that will be potentially involved in the project,
including small interest groups, political structures, the media and possible funders. All of
these factors are interconnected, and by conducting a type of “organizational audit” through
means of participatory communication, practitioners are able to build a targeted situationspecific approach (Quarry and Ramírez 2009). It then places development efforts within a
discrete setting and provides a background for moving forward. The contextual analysis is
further integrated into project design. At the same time, it is important for the understanding
of the context to be coming from within the community, a concept that is further developed in
assessing the differences between expert and public opinion.
The principle of champions refers to “individuals/organizations with a sincere respect
for the views of the people with whom they work and with people’s ability to solve many of
their own problems” (Quarry and Ramírez 2009). Champions must already be emerged in the
local communities within a specific context so that they acquire the necessary level of
familiarity with the situation, a level of trust and credibility with the local population and
have built-up a level of engagement to be able to act when the time is right. Champions
provide unique solutions within a specific context as well as align developmental principles
that were successful in other communities with the local context to suit their own conditions.
5
The main function of the development communications practitioners becomes
connecting the champions with the developmental agencies and the population at large to
establish an interpersonal face-to-face dialogue between all stakeholders. It is suggested by
critics that development communication has little or no application beyond face-to-face
communication, however as delineated by Quarry and Ramírez it “happens to be the best
communication method around”.
In order to go beyond interpersonal communication and create the dialogue on a
greater scale, the interest of the impoverished needs to be matched with a relevant
technology/medium for communication and made available to them in a way that they could
see, test and modify it. Participatory communicators empower the voices of the local
populations and champions, as well as bridge the divide between stakeholders via creating
video/photo testimonies representative of each group and then sharing these messages,
involving communities in local radio and entertainment communication (theatre and
television performances).
Levels of Participation
Community participation, regardless of its medium, can be classified into a variety of
typologies suggested by international development scholars. These typologies rank
participation according to levels of influence that the communities have the power to exert on
the development projects. In Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture Jules Pretty
suggested one of the most widely used typologies, which subdivides participation into seven
levels based on the activities and public’s engagement within the development project, listed
below.
Table 1. Typology of participation (Pretty et.al., 1995)
Typology
Characteristics of Each Type
1. Passive
Participation
People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is a
unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without listening
to people’s responses. The information being shared belongs only to external
6
professionals
2. Participation in
Information Giving
People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers using
questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to
influence proceedings, as the findings of the research are neither shared nor checked for
accuracy.
3. Participation by
Consultation
People participate by being consulted, and external people listen to views. These
external professionals define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in the
light of people’s responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any share in
decision-making, and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people’s
views.
4. Participation for
Material Incentives
People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash
or other material incentives. Much on-farm research falls into this category, as farmers
provide the fields but are not involved in the experimentation of the process of learning.
It is very common to see this called participation, people have no stake in prolonging
activities when the incentives end.
5.Functional
Participation
People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the
project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiated social
organisation. Such involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or
planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be
dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent.
6. Interactive
Participation
People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and formation of new
local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve
interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of
systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control over local
decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices.
7.Self-Mobilisation
People participate by taking initiatives independently of external institutions to change
systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical
advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated
mobilisation and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable
distribution of wealth and power.
True participation, specifically participatory communication beyond the grounds of
pseudo-participation, begins on level six where the participants are seen as integral equal
partners in the bilateral dialogue. This level of participation then creates further
empowerment and cooperation among the stakeholders through active citizen control,
delegated power and partnerships (Deshler and Sock, 1985). It is the level of participation
where platforms begin to play an important role.
Paulo Mefalopulos and Thomas Tufte in their Participatory Communication Practical
Guide suggest a similar, yet shorter Typology of Participation:
Table 2. Typology of participation (Mefalopulos and Tufte, 2009)
Typology
Characteristics of Each Type
Passive
Participation
The least participatory of the four approaches. Primary stakeholders of a project participate
by being informed about what is going to happen or has already happened. People’s
feedback is minimal or non- existent, and their participation is assessed through methods
7
Participation by
Consultation
Participation by
Collaboration
Empowerment
Participation
like head counting and contribution to the discussion (sometimes referred to as
participation by information).
An extractive process, whereby stakeholders provide answers to questions posed by outside
researchers or experts. Input is not limited to meetings but can be provided at different
points in time. In the final analysis, however, this consultative process keeps all the
decision- making power in the hands of external professionals who are under no obligation
to incorporate stakeholders’ input.
Forms groups of primary stakeholders to participate in the discussion and analysis of
predetermined objectives set by the project. This level of participation does not usually
result in dramatic changes in what should be accomplished, which is often already
determined. It does, however, require an active involvement in the decision-making process
about how to achieve it. This incorporates a component of horizontal communication and
capacity building among all stakeholders—a joint collaborative effort. Even if initially
dependent on outside facilitators and experts, with time collaborative participation has the
potential to evolve into an independent form of participation.
Where primary stakeholders are capable and willing to initiate the process and take part in
the analysis. This leads to joint decision making about what should be achieved and how.
While outsiders are equal partners in the development effort, the primary stakeholders are
primus inter pares, i.e., they are equal partners with a significant say in decisions
concerning their lives. Dialogue identifies and analyzes critical issues, and an exchange of
knowledge and experiences leads to solutions. Ownership and control of the process rest in
the hands of the primary stakeholders.
Role of Diffusion
Traditionally, diffusion has been regarded as a unilateral communication practice that
is often contrasted with participatory communication in its inclusion of stakeholders.
However, the definition of diffusion theory, as presented by Everett Rogers in Diffusion of
Innovations, says: “diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through
certain channel over time among the members of a social system” (Rogers, 1994). This
definition outlines the four main elements of diffusion: innovation, communication channels,
time and the social system.
Oftentimes, developing communities have a culture where marginalized groups, such
as ethnic minorities and women, are excluded from the public discourse. Thus, inclusive
participatory communication becomes an innovation that requires formal diffusion through
dialogue and opinion leaders.
8
Figure 1: Rogers’ theory of diffusion of innovations
Source: http://www.mitsue.co.jp/english/case/concept/02.html
Diffusion begins to take off once an innovation is adopted by opinion leaders. The
diffusion curve has an S-shape with a clear take-off area and a point after which it levels-off
(See Figure 1). It is also known that “More effective communication occurs when two or
more individuals are homophilous. When they share common meanings, a mutual subcultural
language, and are alike in personal and social characteristics” (Rogers, 1994). Thus, for
participatory communication to take root with a community it heavily relies on local
champions who will spread the principles of participation.
On the other hand, “diffusion can be used to promote adoption of a certain behavior
and you would use participatory assessment [research] to find-out how to do it best within a
local setting” (Mefalopulos P., personal communication, 04/07/11). Thus, even though
diffusion and participatory communication oftentimes are thought of as opposing types of
communication they can in fact be used as complementary techniques within a development
communication setting. Experts at times characterize participatory communication as going
beyond being either one-way or two-way – rather being pluralistic – which may mean
9
integration of both models under one general umbrella (Jellinek S., personal communication,
04/08/11).
The Growing Importance of Communication Technology
In Education, the practice of freedom, Paulo Freire, one of the founding fathers of
participatory communication, examined the notion of participation as a form of empowering
grassroots control by the beneficiaries over the development process. He believed that
inclusive dialogue would spread a sense of control among all stakeholders, influencing their
actions. This notion was then taken further by Guy Bessette who suggested that participatory
communication is, in fact, a tool that can be used among other purposes for the development
experts to become “‘technisized’ – obtaining the necessary tools to put to concrete use the
solutions provided by the community” (Bessette 1996). Among the emerging forms of
participatory communication that most prominently are used to technisize aid workers with
the right toolset are emerging information communication technologies, or ICT.
The current challenge with the information technologies is that they are now often
times being perceived, just as participatory communication as a whole, as an end in itself, or
some sort of a revolutionary new way of communicating, which on its own causes change.
On the contrary, the use of ICT is best characterized through a more holistic view of the
contextual setting, communication processes and public’s participation. In other words,
“better organizational capacity through communication technology is not the product of a
single system, but rather multiple, overlapping and reinforcing systems” (Livingston 2011).
What does need to be credited to the use of new technological platforms for people’s
voices is that the “information technology has changed who can gain access to and deliver
information. Now, everyone in a network can simultaneously share information. As a result,
the organizational structure involved in nearly every human endeavor … is being
transformed” (Livingston 2011). In an example discussed in detail in the case studies section
10
of the paper, Ushahidi platforms allow for rural populations in Kenya to share information
about access to medication. Ushahidi has given them access to the public sphere that has
traditionally been limited to medical practitioners, suppliers and funding institutions.
Another success of innovation technologies is that they have been able to affect the
demand side of governance, another large implication of participatory culture. Technology
has given a voice to the local, previously powerless, impoverished communities. Thus, ICT
has been successful in setting a platform for the local population to engage in the
communication process, add pressure upon and demand accountability from the government
officials.
“With mobile phones [as well as other new technologies], aid agencies can directly
contact schools and villagers to ensure that aid is appropriately disbursed. In addition,
mobile phones make it easier for villagers to learn that they are entitled to receive a
certain amount of aid, increasing their capacity to demand that aid. Mobile phones
also diminish the power of local officials to extract bribes by better connecting
individuals with alternative officials [as will be further demonstrated in the Ushahidi
case study] or with villagers who can provide information regarding alternative
channels, reducing a given official’s sole discretion over the supply of services,
permits or licenses” (Snow Bailard 2009).
However, there is a growing debate in the community as to the access to the
technology due to the digital divide, as well as the real implications of new technology use.
One of the key advocates for participatory communication, Alfonso Gumucio Dagron,
suggests that
“the comparative advantages of the Internet look good on paper; however, the
challenges in making the Internet a useful tool in places where safe water is
unavailable, let alone electricity, are large. Wireless technologies and the convergence
with community radio and video, are already signaling the way. But technology alone
may not be the answer if culture and identity are not at the heart of the discussion”
(Dagron 2001).
Scholars of the digital divide have suggested that access to information technologies,
such as the Internet, is ultimately rooted in: “(1) informacy, (2) usage skills, and (3)
information skills. These additional elements have also been defined as technology literacy
(elements 1 and 2) and information literacy (element 3). Technology literacy refers to one’s
11
ability and attitude to search for relevant information, translate it to one’s own situation, and
implement the necessary actions” (Steyaert, 2002).
What many proponents of the information technology revolution often fail to see is
that these three key properties of information technology use are not necessarily inherent to
the indigenous local cultures of the communities whose voices they are trying to hear. Thus
arises the question whether or not the approach is truly participatory. Dagron’s take on it is
that “When new technologies are introduced to a different social setting, what is transferred is
not only technology itself, but also the social use of it, a set of assumptions and practices that
emerged from another context and other needs” (Dagron, 2001). By inflicting specific
assumptions and practices upon the local communities development specialists may be
already changing the personal narratives that are being voiced on these platforms. It is
currently difficult to assess whether these changes have a positive or negative impact on the
level of participation involved in the project.
The power of the crowd
Adaptive local technology, where accessible, can thus offer a technological “fix” to
numerous questions posed by the development setting. This fix is known by many names
depending on the specifics of the situation in which it is being used. The names range from
simply collective intelligence, a term coined by Levy in 1997, to crowdvoicing, to
crowdsourcing to crowdseeding. Collective intelligence, the first and most broadly
overarching term used to identify participatory practices in the digital realm, is defined as a
“form of universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time,
and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills” (Lévy, 1997 [1995]). Crowdvoicing
refers to “the capture of group knowledge and opinions within a community and its
dissemination to a broader audience. [For example] through SMS, phone calls, mobile phone
clip recordings, and PC-based audio, community members can [thus] contribute content and
12
have their voice heard on [community] radio stations” (Heeks, 2010). Creators of the term
crowdsourcing define it as
“represent[ing] the act of a company or institution taking a function once performed
by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network of
people in the form of an open call. This can take the form of peer-production (when
the job is performed collaboratively), but is also often undertaken by sole individuals.
The crucial prerequisite is the use of the open call format and the large network of
potential laborers” (Howe et al, 2006).
Other scholars have since broadened the use of the term to include “distribution of
problem-solving to ‘crowds,’ to members of the general public that are tied together in a
network. Rather than relying solely on institutionally based expert analysis, problems are
addressed using social networks created by Internet or cellular telephony, [with the] ‘crowd’
[still] as the source of solutions” (Livingston, 2011).
Similar to all of the above models, the term “crowdseeding” uses the same collective
intelligence principle, however, in a more intrusive manner. Thus, “crowdseeding [is]
strategically planned placement of mobiles with selected individuals and the establishment of
long-term relationships with each user” (Livingston, 2011). The users who are provided
mobile devices to have their voices heard receive special training on their usage and know
what exactly and in what format needs to be heard from them as a “crowd” in terms of
intelligence. An argument against crowdseeding as a truly horizontal approach to
communication can be that by providing these users with additional knowledge experts are
already altering their narratives. The experts who are gathering this knowledge are also acting
as middlemen, replacing the traditional bureaucratic officials with development officers or
technological platform managers.
Traditionally, regardless of the terminology, all of these solutions were used by
businesses to develop better business solutions without having to incur extensive salary costs.
They used up-and-coming artists, talented amateurs and simply people with time and
resources to develop ideas, evaluate campaigns and do raw data research and analysis.
13
International development experts closely followed suit and began using the same principles
as a mean of community participation leveraging on beneficiary knowledge and skills,
simultaneously empowering them to develop new skills and engage in the public sphere.
The advantages of using crowd-generated knowledge seem at times dubious and
overly optimistic. The argument against such criticism is best presented by James Surowiecki
in his work on the “wisdom of crowds” where he writes: “Ask a hundred people to answer a
question or solve a problem, and the average answer will often be at least as good as the
answer of the smartest member. With most things, the average is mediocrity. With decisionmaking, it’s often excellence. You could say it’s as if we’ve been programmed to be
collectively smart” (Surowiecki, 2004). Another criticism of crowdsourced information is
that it may be inaccurate and requires additional resources for its verification. Crowdsourced
data may be imperfect, but in a crisis it may prove to be indispensable .
Most commonly used tools for crowdsourced information in the developing world are
mobile telephones, or a similar crowdseeded mobile device, that then transfer all the data to
some sort of an online platform where all of the information is collected and assembled in a
coherent and germane manner.
Procedural justice as a tool for increasing efficiency and sustainability of projects
Despite its application in the field by a number of organizations and practitioners, the
concept of participatory communication is often-times viewed in terms of a tool for
procedural justice that creates a sense of caring and humanizing around a particular issue,
without fully integrating the public’s decisions as inputs of the project. A key characteristic
of participatory communication is a stronger and more evident focus on the process and the
parties involved in it rather than a final outcome of the developmental effort. This
characteristic of participatory communication is outlined by Quarry and Ramírez: “if people
are dealt with in a humane manner it is the humane manner that matters more than the money
14
–people who live in poverty need money, but above all they need humane gestures” (Quarry
and Ramírez 2009). In other words, the notion of procedural justice suggests that
development agencies may simply involve the publics in the process rather than have them
provide an actual say in the design of a specific project. For the publics this may be enough to
garner their support.
There are ultimately two conceptual ways of examining the issue: the first, by
viewing participation through the prism of the value created by humanizing the
developmental experience within each individual community; and second, through the lens of
procedural justice, as a mechanism that “accommodates participants’ voices but not their
influence” (Sampson 1993). Furthermore, certain theorists suggest that organizations may
create a “pseudoparticipation” that intentionally is developed to garner support for a decision
that was previously made within an expert group and has no participatory grounding (Cohen
1985). The organization thus “has a particular goal in mind and uses the group discussion as a
means of inducing acceptance of the goal” (Pateman 1970).
Beyond these false and largely unethical manipulations of public opinion, procedural
justice as such can and does apply within true participatory communication to further its
integration within the community and in essence draw upon additional support for the efforts
from community members.
Definition of procedural justice
Procedural justice relates to the “fairness of interactional decision-making process”
(Bies & Moag, 1986 as stated in Tuite 2008). People are ultimately more concerned with
the fairness and control of the decision-making process and their level of involvement in it
than the final outcome. Furthermore, their perception of the fairness and favorability of the
outcome is oftentimes more interdependent upon their perceived involvement than the
intrinsic attitude toward the outcome or the final decision (Thibaut and Walker 1975). A
15
significant effect of procedural justice is due to the concept of people behaving as social
beings whose behavior is influenced by group opinions and determined by the commitment a
person feels toward the group of which he or she is a part (Tuite 2008).
Based on the precepts of procedural justice, theorists have developed a psychological
control model that explains why procedural justice has its effect on the population.
According to the model, the feelings of fairness and desirability are shaped by “the
distribution of control between the participants and the third party” (Thibaut and Walker
1975; Tyler 1989). The theory presents “two types of control: process control and decision
control. Process control refers to participants' control over the presentation of evidence;
decision control refers to participants' control over the actual decisions made” (Tyler 1989).
Through a series of experiments, theorists were able to show evidence, which suggests that
“process control is usually more important than decision control, and process control is
important even if it is not linked to decision control” (Tyler 1989).
The control model has since been supplemented by the group-value model. The basic
assumption of the group-value model is that “people value membership in social groups; that
is, group identification is psychologically rewarding. People want to belong to social groups
and to establish and maintain the social bonds that exist within groups” (Tyler 1989). This
theory identifies that people are more concerned about developing a lasting relationship with
the third party (the champions in the context of development communication efforts), as well
as following in line with the attitudes and ideas of the social group to which they belong. It is
an important feature of procedural justice as it applies to participatory communication.
Participatory communication seeks to take into account the individual views of each member
of the community involved in the developmental efforts within a specific context. Thus, no
opinion is produced and judged on its own, but rather a type of “group think” and social
context identification.
16
Within the framework of the group-value model there are three key constructs: “the
neutrality of the decision-making procedure, trust in the third party, and evidence about social
standing. It is predicted that these three group-value issues will have an effect on reactions to
experiences that is independent of the influence of outcome favorability or the distribution of
control”. (Tyler 1989) The neutrality of the decision-making procedure mainly accounts for
lack of bias on behalf of communicators, which participatory communication seeks to avoid.
Trust in the third party relates to the concept of champions being trusted by the society and
being emerged in the local communities. Evidence about social standing in essence is an
integral part of participatory communication as it empowers the beneficiaries solidifying the
social standing.
Procedural justice as solution for sustainability and project efficiency
Procedural justice is closely linked to the success of participatory communication
because “the more the individual contributes to the design and implementation of the project,
the more responsible he or she will feel for its outcome” (McPhail 2009). Procedural justice
is built upon the idea that when individuals become involved in the process control of the
decision-making, have the ability to voice their perception, then they feel more engaged with
the project regardless of the ultimate decisions reached by the development agencies. A key
difference between true participatory communication and one-way communication flow is
that one-way communication uses the audience for formative research and evaluation at best
(Thibaut and Walker 1975). Participatory communication, on the other hand, “by its nature,
rejects analytical scientific method inherent in Western evaluation methods for an inclusive
acceptance of individual opinions” (McPhail 2009).
Notion of “voice” in decision-making processes
Along with transparency and openness, voice is a key construct of both participatory
communication and the notion of procedural justice. The dialogic view of communication
17
suggests that “by allowing people to bring problems to them, authorities reaffirm people's
social standing and their right to call on the organization for help” (Stiglitz 2002).
Participatory communication experts also state that “the opportunity to address authorities is
only valuable if people believe that what they say has been considered by the authorities
when a decision is being made” (Tyler 1989). By integrating public opinion and culture into
the developmental process, communication experts affirm the social standing of the
individual members of the society and provide a sense of empowerment. Theorists suggest
that the two ultimate courses an individual may take within a development setting is either
exit, abandoning the development arena, or voice, participating in the developmental process.
Notion of “trust” in decision-making processes
In order for the model of participatory communication to succeed it requires
“listening, respect and trust” between the local population, communication experts and most
importantly champions (McPhail 2009). Trust “involves the belief that the intentions of third
parties are benevolent, that they desire to treat people in a fair and reasonable way” (Tyler
1989). The behavior of champions and the level of credence that they manage to attain
among the local population is especially important because current interactions allow people
to predict the future (Heider, 1958 as presented in (Tyler 1989).
Power: voting rights and ultimate decision making versus formative research
As mentioned above, previous models of development communication are based on
the idea that development is a unilinear, mainly economic-oriented evolutionary process that
is defined “in terms of observable quantifiable differences between so-called rich and poor
countries on the one hand and traditional and modern societies on the one hand”. (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Research and Extension Division. 2007)
Communication within these earlier stages centered around diffusion of ideas, which reflect
the worldview of modern, “rich,” and often Western countries.
18
The current vision of participatory communication is based on the idea of a
multiplicity approach, which emphasizes cultural identity and multidimensionality of each
distinct regional and national entity. Its common starting point examines the changes that
need to occur based on the local viewpoint of the community. This concept of multiplicity of
cultures and the idea that development should be done with collaboration of all stakeholders
is based on the assumption that no nation is completely autonomous in its development and
that no nation’s development is solely reliant upon external factors. “Every society is
dependent in one way or another, both in form and in degree” (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Research and Extension Division. 2007). The
participatory model of development communication then “incorporates the concepts in the
framework of multiplicity. It stresses the importance of cultural identity of local communities
and of democratization and participation at all levels – international, national, local and
individual. It points to a strategy, not merely inclusive of, but largely emanating from, the
traditional ‘receivers’” (Servaes and Malikhao 2005).
This approach provides not only a say in the development process, but also supports
the voting rights of the individual members by taking into account cultural identity of local
communities. Thus, development communicators no longer create a need for dissemination of
information, they now satisfy a need that emerges from the people themselves by providing
them with information about the existing tools and ways in which they can voice those needs
and satisfy them.
Previously, the “object audience, [thus] become[s] subject participant in the message.
To control the message is to enjoy power, an unusual enough experience for most of those
involved, and one, which generates the self-confidence that goes beyond media and
encourages people to attempt control of their lives as a whole” (Mody 1991). The ultimate
principle governing the idea of participatory communication is that “the more empowered an
19
individual feels about a venture, the more he or she will want to work towards the common
goal” (McPhail 2009).
Hierarchical and sender-oriented
Traditionally, governments have focused on a top-down hierarchical approach that
focused on disseminating knowledge and based their developmental practices on a principle
of “what we know they should do” (McPhail 2009).
“‘Directed’ participatory communication is used by governmental development
projects, commercial marketing agencies and others to help achieve their preestablished goals. The current governmental system in the developing world utilizes
messages to communicate between know-it-all developmental experts in capital cities
[and] supposedly ignorant peasants and slum dwellers who are perceived to need
development. This top-down structure of development initiative and its parallel
centralizes media system reflect the national power structure: the source of
development initiatives is at the top, the receivers wait at the bottom quietly,
socialized into the ‘culture of silence’. …. They are objects of humanitarianism, just
like they were victims of feudalism, colonization, and underdevelopment” (Mody
1991).
Audience as sender
Despite
its
seeming
drawbacks,
a
hierarchical
sender-oriented
model
of
communication does, at times, incorporate communication where audience ultimately
becomes the sender of messages for the purposes of feedback or formative research. The
power of listening in this case relates back to assessment of the environmental context via
“appraising, learning, recognizing and appreciating all dimensions [in order to make wellinformed decisions” (Quarry and Ramírez 2009). Horizontal and participatory communication models: Approximating dialogue
In order for essential communication to take place, developmental agencies ought to
differentiate between “extension” or outreach initiatives as the one-way transmission of
information and “communication” as the two-way exchange of varied perspectives leading to
“conscientization’ …. [that is] acknowledgement, awareness and handling of the inherent
power differential and possible disenfranchisement between the organization and the native
20
population” by both parties (Freire 1976; McPhail 2009). The precept that populations ought
to be involved in a two-way exchange of communication, leading to “reciprocity of thought,”
is further supported by the change in the role of communication employed by developmental
agencies. Since development communication practitioners moved beyond dissemination of
messages projected by the developed world and have begun to examine different cultures and
environments in terms of specific contextual factors, the value of knowledge and ideas spread
to the developing world has significantly decreased. Thus, “it should be the foremost priority
on the development agenda to develop the capacity for social dialogue. To solve the world’s
most pressing problems, people do not need more volumes of information and knowledge –
they need to acquire the capacity to talk to each other across boundaries of culture, religion
and language” (Hamelink 2002).
It is important to have dialogue occur among all stakeholders within and between all
groups (Mody 1991):
•
Within groups of people with homogeneous needs
•
Between groups of people with different needs
•
Between the public and planners claiming to meet their needs
It is by fostering dialogue between and within these three stakeholder groups that the
developmental communicators have the ability to “delve into the point of view of native
people in their own terms, looking at their culture, and issues they consider relevant” (Quarry
and Ramírez 2009).
Despite its obvious benefits the seeming drawback of dialogue is its lack of short-term
and certain outcomes. This is turn reduces the accountability of development organizations
by lessening the possible level of immediate evaluation for the success of development
communication efforts, which ultimately “conflicts with the spirit of modern achievementoriented societies” (Hamelink 2002).
21
Roles of expert opinion versus lay public opinion
Considering that “participatory communication [based on the principles of procedural
justice], is a basic right of all people to be heard, to speak for themselves and not be
represented or reworded by another party,” it then becomes the role of communication
experts to act as co-collaborators and facilitators to ensure and protect these rights (McPhail
2009). They ought to empower the third-world nations by providing the local population with
the necessary tools to express their needs as they see them. By developing a relationship with
key stakeholders that is grounded upon the principles of participation communication, experts
can encourage the communities to voice their own needs and provide them with the means to
do so through radio forums, discussion groups, workshops, and town councils.
On the other hand, communication experts need to ensure that there is also someone
else listening to these voices. Listening needs to be purposeful by providing the local
communities with the tools that enable listening as well as telling (for example, by bridging
the gap between policy makers and the local community and presenting the messages of the
population at large to the power-wielding stakeholders and community champions). Thus,
each development response would be tailored to meet the needs expressed by the community
(McPhail 2009).
Since communication experts ought to “delve into the point of view of native people
on their own terms, looking at their culture, and issues that they consider relevant,” they need
to be sufficiently aware of the context for communication. Furthermore, they should be as
fluent as possible in terms of understanding of the local culture, mindset and language of the
community within which they communicate. While certain cross-over of cultures is
inevitable and necessary for the “populace to participate in an effective manner,” the use of
translators and interpreters will significantly reduce the efficiency of communication and
relationship-building, and furthermore will violate “one of the core precepts of participatory
22
communication” (to speak for themselves and not be represented or reworded by another
party) (McPhail 2009).
Summary and Research Questions
This context provides insight into the advantages and possible setbacks in applying
participatory communication in the field of international development. It outlines the
importance of searching and listening by development experts, as well as provides a brief
overview of the different levels of participation and participatory communication. It then also
discusses the concept of procedural justice, in the form of fairness and control of the
decision-making process and the public’s level of involvement in it. People feel a greater
need for being involved in the process of the decision-making than in necessarily having their
voice be incorporated in the outcome. So, once they are given a sense of voice and once they
are able to break through the digital divide using appropriate local technologies they feel
better about the development projects carried out by development organizations in the local
community.
Also, based on presented evidence, for participatory communication to take place and
be effective it relies on three core factors: context, champions, and the specific
communication functions/objectives posed by the development agencies.
This literature review highlights an important gap in our understanding of
communication within international development. Therefore, this study attempts to answer
the following research questions: (1) How appropriate is the use of dialogic participatory
methods of communication for project implementation by large international development
organizations? (2) Which stages of the project cycle require greater application of
participatory communication? (3) How has the use of information and communication
technologies for development (ICT4D) changed the way organizations use participatory
communication? (4) In which cases have participatory communication approaches been most
23
successful? And, lastly (5) How can a combination of traditional participatory
communication techniques and ICT4D technologies be applied within a specific development
project?
24
METHODOLOGY
In examining these questions, the research employed a qualitative methodology,
relying on a number of case studies, as well as several interviews with experts in the fields of
participatory communication and ICT4D. Expert interviews were semi-structured with the
intent of acquiring a fuller understanding of the ground-level application of participatory
communication theories. The intent of the expert interviews was “to reconstruct the
knowledge of experts” (Belting 2008). The pool of experts selected for the interviews was a
convenience sample acquired through a personal network and does not constitute a
representative sample of the field.
The selected experts, however, all have established a level of expertise through their
professional qualifications and thus have a high level of credibility. Two of the four
interviews conducted throughout the course of research were carried-out in person and two
were done over the Internet using online communication software Skype due to the
geographic disposition of the experts at the time of the study.
The study of Ushahidi as a success story of information communication technologies
was based on mainly self-reported examples/testimonies taken from mass media sources and
the Ushahidi blogs. The novelty of the Ushahidi platform and rather limited academic
research in this area narrowed the number of sources used for case studies to mostly
qualitative information without significant statistical findings. The case study used focused
on application of Ushahidi platform during emergency relief efforts in post-Earthquake Haiti
in 2010. The importance of case study findings was greatly supported by an expert interview
with Anahi Ayala Iacucci, a consultant in the sphere of crisis mapping who has worked on a
number of crowdsourced campaigns and is currently part of a consultant team employed by
the World Bank in a crowdsourcing project in Brazil.
25
The main themes of the expert interview in this case focused on: understanding the
successes and technicalities of Ushahidi use, i.e. the amount of time it takes to establish the
necessary base for Ushahidi’s success; getting past the digital divide; getting publics to
participate in Ushahidi; verifying reported information; as well as understanding the main
difficulties in running crowdsourcing campaigns, particularly Ushahidi.
The case studies reviewed to assess the use of traditional participatory communication
methods by international development organizations were chosen based on a review of
relevant literature and an understanding of their relevance to the subject area. The paper
limits this part of the research to two case studies focusing on participatory governance
accountability techniques in Bangladesh carried out in 2005 and a communication-based
assessment within Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone. Expert
interviews to supplement the case studies included two current World Bank communication
experts and one of the founders of the World Bank’s currently defunct Development
Communication unit.
The interview questions were centered around five key areas: what makes
participatory communication effective in some cases and ineffective in others; how do you
evaluate the success of participatory communication efforts; at which stage in the project
cycle is participatory communication most crucial; the role of diffusion as an initial pull
factor for civic participation; and the future of participatory communication with respect to
ICT4D.
26
CASE STUDIES
Ushahidi: the platform and the people
Background on Ushahidi
One of the most successful examples of effective crowdsourcing is a Kenyan platform
for “information collection, visualization and interactive mapping” (“Ushahidi.com”, n.d.).
Ushahidi, which stands for “testimony” in Swahili, was developed by Kenyan Diaspora,
comprised of Kenyans who evacuated the country, during a Kenyan election crisis in 2007.
After the country’s presidential election was plagued by electoral manipulations, and ethnic
and tribal conflict, a number of massive protests and violence between Kenyans and the
police broke out. The conflict, heated by longstanding ethnic tensions, moved beyond violent
demonstrations, leading to ethnic crimes, looting and numerous killings in a number of
Kenyan cities. There was a need to not only inform the international community of what was
happening in Kenya, but also simply monitor the protests and protect the Kenyan people.
At the time, Kenya already had a partial web presence and a say in the public sphere
through the use of personal blogs. However, the power of these blogs limited the voices that
were sharing the stories to those with a computer and an Internet connection. This, in turn,
also limited the public’s ability to share information and collaborate on the peer production of
it. On January 3, 2008, after some of the most violent outbreaks had already occurred, Ory
Okolloh posted a blog entry asking whether there was anyone with skills and interest in
developing a “mashup [which is] a blending of two Internet applications to relay information
in a visually compelling way” (Goldstein and Rotich, 2010). The platform would use Google
map satellite images to pin-point where exactly the violence and destruction was taking
place. David Kobia and Erik Hersman, both technology experts in Kenya, answered the call
and developed a platform of satellite images of Kenya with user-generated content, including
video, photo and written testimony (Goldstein and Rotich, 2010). Using “multiple source data
27
streaming so that information can be gathered via SMS, email, twitter and web sources,” the
platform functioned as a one-stop public forum for all Kenyans. It minimized the effects of
the digital divide because it opened up access to Internet-based dialogue using a number of
inputs, including locally-available mobile technology (“Ushahidi.com”, n.d.).
Ushahidi was able to change the communication process from a vertical dissemination
of ideas to a horizontal flow of information, switching the role of audiences to that of publics.
In a manifesto of the people to the media Jay Rosen explains the shift from audiences to
publics by saying:
“The people formerly known as the audience are those who were on the receiving end
of a media system that ran one way, in a broadcasting pattern, with high entry fees
and a few firms competing to speak very loudly while the rest of the population
listened in isolation from one another— and who today are not in a situation like that
at all….There’s a new balance of power between [media] and us. The people formerly
known as the audience are simply the public made realer, less fictional, more able,
less predictable” (Rosen, 2006).
Since that initial switch from audience to public happened in Kenya, Ushahidi went
on to become an open-source non-profit organization that reacts to crisis situations
worldwide. It has been credited to be “revolutionary to the human rights campaigns in the
same way that Wikipedia is revolutionary for encyclopedias: [as] tools that allow cooperation
on a massive scale.” (Goldstein and Rotich, 2010)
To explain further how it works, the public provides information about a specific
crisis event or situation on the ground by sending text messages, emails or twitter messages
to a specific phone number, twitter account or email address designated by the
moderators/developers of the program. The moderators/developers receive and review this
information via an Ushahidi web server through the “tech hub.” They look for validation of
the testimony to decrease the possibility of false reporting. The incoming testimonies that
prove to be true are documented and mapped with any incoming pictures added to the post
(see Figure 2).
28
Figure 2 SMS reporting through Ushahidi
Source: Ushahidi blog
As seen from the above algorithm of events, Ushahidi requires a number of
participants/users, as well as developers/moderators who can champion for the cause and
modify the original Ushahidi code to fit the appropriate location and cause. Thus, there are
three stakeholders for the platforms:
• Deployers (whether a group of citizen volunteers, an individual organization, or a multiagency partnership)
• Users (generating and/or actively using the content)
• Viewers (passive consumers of the shared information, similar to viewers of broadcast
media) (George, 2012)
In the context of development the importance of the effort depends on both local
participation and the power of the champions, or deployers (often-times these are local
NGOs) that need to take the Ushahidi open/source code and adapt it to the local context.
They need to promote the use of Ushahidi among the active publics, so that they would start
29
generating content for the platform. These champions would also need to establish all the
necessary connections with the local mobile service providers, purchase a domain name, as
well as simply find people willing to sift through all the incoming data, map it, oftentimes
translate it and turn it into actionable information.
In fact, all these, seemingly secondary activities like outreach, training, translation
and so forth are more essential for Ushahidi’s success than mere technical adaptation of the
platform. The champions need to understand that using technology to map out people’s
voices will make up roughly 10% of the effort, but in order for people to begin voicing their
opinion and for their voices to actually matter, the deployers will need to accommodate for
another 90% (See Figure 3). Specifically, it is the role of the champions/deployers to
understand “when and how to use [Ushahidi], how to integrate with local systems, how to
make it meaningful in the context of operations” (“Iacucci blog”, 2011).
Figure 3 Allocation of Time: Deploying Ushahidi
Source: Ushahidi blog
Success of Ushahidi is also in large part attributed to the appropriateness of
technology for a specific setting. Firoze Manji, a critic of the ICT4D movement ascribes the
success of Ushahidi to the power of the local people and the local context by saying:
30
“[Ushahidi’s] success has been a function not so much of the technology, but more
importantly of the fact that the initiative came from those who have an intimate
connection with the human rights and other social activists who trust Ushahidi and
with whom they have a common agenda. In other words, this initiative has worked
because of the underlying social relations ... or put it another way, the technology was
essentially a manifestation of those underlying social relations” (Manji, 2008).
Once again the champions, social context and the objectives of the initiative are seen
as the ultimate driving forces for the project.
Ushahidi in Haiti
After a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti in January of 2010, causing over 230,000
casualties and overwhelming infrastructural destruction, international aid agencies focused
extensive relief efforts to provide emergency assistance (“Ushahidi.com”, n.d.).
With
complete lack of mobile telephony, limited electricity and lack of access to any other forms
of communication the international relief agents had no way of knowing where their help was
needed most. Therefore, efforts to provide the appropriate assistance the Haitians required
were largely disjointed. Since “traditional disaster-response system employed by relief actors
in Haiti….lacked the ability to aggregate and prioritize data that came from outside sources,
making it difficult to benefit from valuable information coming from the Haitian
community,” the teams needed a new system for communicating within the local context
(“Ushahidi.com”, n.d.).
Volunteer groups of communication technology experts began championing the cause
of using Ushahidi to bring all of this information together. They adapted the open source
software to Haiti’s context, and registered a domain “haiti.ushahidi.com.” Since cell phone
towers were among the first pieces of infrastructure repaired in Haiti, they focused on
utilizing primarily mobile text messages to get information from the local population. The
relief agencies partnered with “Digicel, one of Haiti's leading telecom companies, [which]
agreed to offer a free short code (4636) for SMS texts in service of the relief efforts. The
four-digit code enabled cell phone users to send free messages to central information centers
31
about missing persons and emergency needs. SMS messages and direct reports from Haitian
citizens began to flow within four days of the quake” (Nelson, 2011). Thus, Ushahidi allowed
for “reports about trapped persons, medical emergencies, and specific needs, such as food,
water, and shelter, to be received and plotted on maps that were updated in real time by an
international group of volunteers” (“Ushahidi.com”, n.d.). All of this information was open to
public access and was used in determining “how, when, and where to direct resources”
(“Ushahidi.com”, n.d.). The platform leveraged great success in terms of generating
participation – within a month after the disaster “a total of 38,000 texts had been sent in, and
17,000 were deemed "useful" for search and rescue teams and aid groups” (Nelson, 2011).
Below is a screencap of the Ushahidi map of emergencies reported in the region from January
12, 2010 to April 12, 2010.
Figure 4. Ushahidi Haiti map
Source: http://haiti.ushahidi.com/
Despite its success the platform is not a flawless panacea for citizen participation. A
major criticism of Ushahidi is its methods for verifying and triaging the large numbers of
local testimonies. Haiti needed to employ a number of international volunteers who were
responsible for either personally verifying the texts that were streaming in or waiting for
other reports to confirm the same message. The way different organizations choose which
verification protocol to use depends on “the organization/group managing the platform,
32
which is always a different one [and] sometimes on the political context, but mostly on the
internal policy of the organization or their political spectrum”, says crisis mapping expert
Anahi Ayala Iacucci (A. A. Iacucci, personal communication, 04/05/2011).
Another one of the big obstacles to utilizing Ushahidi in Haiti was the number of
stakeholders that relied on the platform for access to information. The “lack of pre-existing
connections between the large government and international institutions and the new tech
activists” required all parties to adapt their protocol and project procedures to a new set of
guidelines that would be acceptable to all (Nelson, 2011). For example, “the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) …. has strict rules of confidentiality, which has allowed
it to play a uniquely useful role in conflicted and tense situations, while the open source
community's hallmarks are spontaneity and transparency” (Nelson, 2011).
The Haiti campaign had a significant advantage over other Ushahidi efforts worldwide
in that it was part of an actionable effort in that relief agents immediately acted upon the
information gathered from the local population. One of the biggest difficulties that organizations using Ushahidi for crowdsourcing projects face globally is “the ability of
international organizations to manage the public’s expectations and understand that
crowdsourcing is a dialogue and a relationship that you create with your audience in a kind of
way so that you have responsibility and there must be accountability for what you do” (A. A.
Iacucci, personal communication, 04/05/2011). Ushahidi in Haiti was not just a
communication effort – it was part of a larger organizational objective.
In other cases “if you ask to people to report to you they will expect you to act on what
they report, and if you don't have the capacity to respond than this is a problem” (A. A.
Iacucci, personal communication, 04/05/2011). International relief agents in Haiti were “clear
on what [they could] do and how [they] will utilize the information they receive without
raising excessive expectations.” It can be a difficult task, because oftentimes if the 33
limitations of the crowdsoucing project as being more about awareness and advocacy are communicated to the general public it may affect participation rates since people expect to have a tangible immediate outcome (A. A.
Iacucci, personal communication, 04/05/2011).
Thus, going back to the initial factors necessary for successful participatory
communication, Ushahidi employed local champions in the form of tech experts and local
mobile company Digicel, adapted the platform to the local context and aligned it with the
specific communication functions/objectives posed by the development agencies.
Stop stock-outs: Using Ushahidi to Improve Access to Essential Medicines in Sub-Saharan
Africa
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines essential medicines as “those that satisfy the
priority health care needs of the population....Essential medicines are intended to be available
within the context of functioning health systems at all times, in adequate amounts, in the
appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality, and at a price the individual and the
community can afford” (“WHO.int”, n.d). Shortages and stock-outs of medicines that were
deemed essential by the World Health Organization are a pressing issue in sub-Saharan
Africa. The medicines most commonly absent from the pharmacy shelves are used to treat
illnesses such as tuberculosis, malaria, HIV/AIDS, pneumonia, diarrhea, diabetes and
hypertension – all are among the leading causes of death in the region (“stopstockouts.org”
n.d.). These stock-outs mostly affect poor populations living in remote rural areas or city
slums. The populations who require the medication and cannot afford to pay for them at
private clinics seek out the help of local healers or remain untreated. Governments in a
number of African countries that are affected by the stock-outs, however, refuse to admit to
the problem or even recognize that it exists. People needed to take it upon themselves to
34
communicate about the problem to both their governments and the international development
community.
Champions within a local NGO organized Stop Stock-Outs campaign with the goal of
“ensur[ing] access to essential medicines by using Ushahidi and Frontline SMS to map the
availability of essential medicines at public health facilities in several African countries”
(Okolloh, 2009). The efforts aimed at advocating policy change among the governments and
health departments of Kenya, Uganda, Malawi and Zambia to end stock-outs by: “(1)
providing financial and operational autonomy to the national medicines procurement and
supply agency; (2) giving representation of civil society on the board of the national
medicines procurement and supply agency; (3) ending corruption in the medicine supply
chain to stop theft and diversion of essential medicines; (4) providing a dedicated budget line
for essential medicines; (5) living up to commitments to spend 15% of national budgets on
health care; (6) providing free essential medicines at all public health institutions”
(“StopStockouts.com”, n.d).
At the pilot stages of the project health care activists in Kenya, Uganda, Malawi and
Zambia started surveying clinics in their respective countries, checking stock levels of
essential medicines, including: First-line anti-malarials, Zinc 20mg tablet, Penicilin First-line
ARVs, Metronidazole 200mg tablet, Ciproflaxicin, Amoxicillin suspension, Ceftriaxone,
Cotrimoxazole suspension, ORS – Diarrhea” (Banks, 2009).
The process of how the information was gathered, verified and plotted on the map
was largely similar to the general process used by Ushahidi platforms with slight adaptation
to the context of the project: “activists report their results via structured, coded SMS – ‘x,y,z’
– where the first number represents their country code (Kenya, Malawi, Uganda or Zambia),
the second their district or city, and the third the medicine which they found to be out of
stock. These messages are received by a phone connected to a computer running
35
FrontlineSMS, which then runs an automatic script which validates the data before it is sent
over the internet to a Ushahidi-powered website” (Banks, 2009). Messages sent-out by the
public were “firstly checked by staff at Health Action International (HAI Africa) before being
posted up on the map” (Banks 2009).
Figure 5. Ushahidi results from a “pill-check week” that launched the campaign
The larger dots represent greater number of stockouts
Source:http://stopstockouts.org/
After the pilot phase was completed and initial results were plotted on the Ushahidi
map of the region, the champions started an outreach campaign to have the patients that are
visiting public health facilities send text messages about any stock-outs that they experience
in the local facility (Okolloh, 2009) The campaign used “traditional media e.g. TV and radio
stations to publicize their campaign. In contrast, most of the Ushahidi deployments to date
have mainly relied on online and viral marketing efforts” (Okolloh, 2009). The outreach
methods used in Ushahidi campaigns normally vary. Anahi Ayala Iacucci points-out that “the
way you advertise depends on the targeted population, you need again to see what is the most
easy and used media-communication channel among local people. Like radio stations, for
example, work very well in most poor countries, or TV, or mobile phones, or newspaper, and
then social media, but this is normally very much linked to what is available and used in the
country” (A. A. Iacucci, personal communication, 04/05/2011). The efforts used in the stop
36
stop-outs campaign were in large part dictated by the need to overcome the digital divide in
reaching the public.
The results of the campaign proved to be rather significant in the beginning with over
200 stock-outs reported in the four sub-Saharan countries over the first four days of the
campaign (“stopstockouts.org”, n.d.). However, with limited outreach and passing of time
less and less messages were sent and uploaded onto the map. Overall the campaign generated
295 reports (see Figure 5). As a result of the public’s crowdsourced efforts the issue received
media exposure, but is yet to see significant policy change.
37
Traditional Participatory Toolset
Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone
The culture of traditional, rather than technological, participatory communication has
been built around an idea of development experts seeking to become the active listeners and
dialogue facilitators by directly entering the communities and engaging with the local
population. To achieve the greatest success, participatory communication should be applied
throughout the development project cycle (See Figure 6).
12. Monitoring and evaluation
11. Implement
10. Define
Business Plan
13. Apply lessons learned to
improve performance
1. Communications Context and
Diagnostic
9. Define risk and how to
manage it
2. Define
stakeholders/audiences
8. Establish Learning
System
3. Audience Analysis
7. Establish Impact and
Performance indicators
4. Determine desired change in KABP
5. Establish Hierarchy of Objectives
(Goal, Purposes and key deliverables)
6. Define Key Messages as
one deliver
Figure 6: Building Strategy in Development Communication
Source: Sergio Jellinek, World Bank, Latin America and the Caribbean
However, due to budgetary and other constraints it at times is used only at one or two
stages of the project. In these cases it is important to know when it is most crucial to rely on
participatory communication, says a World Bank expert (A. G. Lambino II, personal
communication, 02/19/2011). When asked what that stage would be, experts usually agree
that it is in fact the preliminary stages that would either “involve stakeholders in participatory
strategy design of the project” or research the conditions using assessment (S. Jellinek,
personal communication, 04/08/11; P. Mefalopulos, personal communication, 04/07/11). One
38
of the most widely used participatory communication tools that provide for this objective is
the participatory communication-based assessment.
The communication-based assessment (CBA) is conducted in the form of
participatory communication analysis of the current context in the community using
communication methods and tools. “When carrying out a CBA …. specialists study the
cultural, political, and social context; identify and interview opinion leaders and relevant
stakeholders; assess risks (such as opposition and potential conflict); seek solutions; and,
finally, define the objectives to support the intended change” (Mefalopulos and World Bank.
2008). The use of Communication-Based Assessment enhances further understanding and
builds participatory relationships with the community, while improving the general
development project design and increasing likelihood of sustainability. Ultimately, CBA
focuses on assessing 4 key areas: governmental and political risk analysis; stakeholder
analysis; media communication research environment, and local capacity; and social and
participatory communication analysis (Mitchell and Chaman-Ruiz 2007).
Thus, the assessment is used by international organizations to ensure for “communitydriven development, where communities decide what kind of projects and priorities are
necessary. When, for example, investing into infrastructure, the priorities should come from
the view point of the local community” (S. Jellinek, personal interview, 04/08/11). The
communication-based assessment thus “identifies the political, social, and cultural
environment of the project, and assesses the position of project stakeholders in terms of their
respective: level of information; perceptions and concerns; attitudes; practices and behaviors;
and interests” (Mazzei and Scuppa 2006).
A success story for communication-based assessment is the Bumbuna Hydroelectric
Project in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone (BHP) funded by the World Bank, the Government of
Italy and the African Development Bank.
39
The BHP is “a multi-phase hydropower complex located on the upper reaches of the
Seli River (also called Rokel River) in the Tonkolili District Sierra Leone,
approximately 200 km northeast of the city of Freetown. The objective of the BHP is
to provide adequate and reliable energy supply to the western area of Sierra Leone,
including the capital, Freetown, to meet current demands at the lowest possible cost,
and in a sustainable manner” (Mazzei and Scuppa 2006).
Development of the BHP played a crucial role in infrastructural and economic
development of the region as it was meant to serve as “the cornerstone of the power sector
strategy, [with the aim] to interconnect provincial towns in the remote northern province and
displace high-cost fossil fuel generation based on imported oil” (Mazzei and Scuppa 2006).
As a result of a civil war in Sierra Leone that plagued the region from 1997 to 2002,
the BHP, construction of which started in the beginning of 1990’s, could not be completed in
a timely and efficient manner. In post-conflict Sierra Leone, the overall power-generating
infrastructure was dependent upon “Kingtom thermal generating station, which.…was
capable of meeting less than 5 percent of the estimated power demand. As a result, a rotation
system was established that supplied electricity to Freetown customers for only a few hours
every three to seven days. Most towns in the interior of the country were largely or entirely
without power supply” (Mazzei and Scuppa 2006).
Conducting communication-based assessment was the first step within the process of
reviving the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project. At this stage the objectives of the assessment
were to
“ensure that: (i) adequate and timely information was provided to project-affected ….
stakeholders …. who have legitimate interests in the project at the national level; (ii)
these stakeholders are given sufficient opportunity to voice their opinions and
concerns;
(iii) poor and vulnerable groups are given an opportunity to voice their
opinions as legitimate stakeholders; and (iv) their concerns are factored into [further
assessments and initiatives associated with the project]” (“Project Appraisal”, 2005)
In conducting the assessment the World Bank Development Communication team
focused on interpersonal communication and organized:
“over 30 in-depth interviews and consultations with selected players, including
ministry officials, Members of Parliament, local government authorities, traditional
40
tribal authorities, religious groups, civil society associations, universities, other
development agencies, local and national media, communication professionals in
Sierra Leone, as well as a direct sampling of project affected people at the site, and
residents of Freetown” (Mazzei and Scuppa 2006).
Another part of the assessment focused on evaluating the media environment of Sierra
Leone, which would be important in communicating with the local community, as well as a
further assessment of NGOs as potential partners in the communication efforts. These
assessments, carried-out in the form of dialogic consultations with all the stakeholders, were
aimed at reducing potential risks and ensuring local sustainability of the project. Thus, “each
step in [the communication strategy] design was [thoroughly discussed] with the national
implementing institution that will eventually manage and assume responsibility for project
communication activities” (Mazzei and Scuppa 2006).
The communication-based assessment was concluded to be largely successful. One of
the assessment’s clear outcomes was that
“stakeholders….clearly identified….opportunities linked to the completion of the
project, ranging from improved communications (mobile phones and radio station) to
potential social and health benefits linked to electricity, potential of increased job
opportunities, and better economic ‘integration’ of project with local settlements ….
return o f ‘out-migrants’, and beneficial impacts acting to enhance tourism potential of
the area and consequent economic growth …. Finally, all local, district and national
consultations have confirmed general community support for the project (“Project
Appraisal”, 2005).
In terms of local empowerment and future project implementation capacities, the
CBA “helped clarify rights and responsibilities of various stakeholders” (“Project Appraisal”
2005). The project as a whole relied most heavily on two core principles of participatory
communication: the local context and different communication functions of the development
organization. Through the communication-based assessment the World Bank communication
team was able to mitigate its risks in evaluating the local context and align the project with
further communication strategy.
It is also built on the notion of the local community
41
participating in the ultimate decision-making rather than in the formative research. In the case
of communication-based assessments the input generated through consultations affected the
way in which the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project was implemented with the support of the
local communities.
Bangladesh Sanglap: A Political Discussion Development Project
Apart from integrating communication into the project cycle, participatory
communication within international organizations also focuses on “advising and helping
establish a more pluralistic media environment, create development-oriented content and
increase journalistic capacities” (S. Jellinek, personal communication, 04/08/11).
Carried out by the BBC World Service Trust (BBC WST) and funded in part by the
United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), the Bangladesh Sanglap
was deemed a “national conversation about the country’s future” (Prosser, 2008). Sanglap,
meaning ‘dialogue’ in Bangla, was a political discussion development project launched in
November of 2005 in the form of a television program on Bangladesh national channel to
“encourage and facilitate a change in the country’s political culture, promoting a culture of
responsiveness and accountability among political representatives and providing access to
information on, and discussion of, governance issues” (Prosser, 2008).
Prior to starting the project the BBC WST carried out a national opinion poll called
the ”The Pulse of Bangladesh,” which “revealed that trust in government officials was lower
than that vested in religious leaders, intellectuals and the army” (BBC, n.d.). At the same
time, people’s interest in politics was strong. They wanted better access to politicians, and
there was a general feeling that the poor had no access at all…. [however] research showed
that politicians tended to speak in a language that few understood” (Prosser, 2008). People
lacked access to the public sphere where they would be able to engage in any sort of dialogue
with the government officials. They lacked access, adequate education and simply the feeling
42
of power and engagement with the decisions being made regarding the country’s future
development. With one-third of rural dwellers left without any access to media even vertical
communication was limited, but as was mentioned by “Sabir Mustafa, head of BBC Bengali
Services and editor of Bangladesh Sanglap: at present, political leaders are talking at each
other, but from their own ‘high platforms.’ The ordinary public becomes mere bystanders in
this debate” (Prosser, 2008).
The overarching idea for the way the project was ultimately carried out seemed rather
simple: “take a group of ordinary people, drawn from all sections of the community, and
place them in a room, face to face with those running or aspiring to run their country. Put a
seasoned journalist in charge of proceedings, and let the people ask questions on virtually any
topic of their choice. Then broadcast the event on national television and radio” (Prosser,
2008). The approach appears to be intuitive for people that are living in democratic society,
but for a country plagued by political instability this was a major breakthrough in the way the
government engaged with the public.
The project started in November 2005 with eight issue-based discussions from three
urban centers, Dhaka, Sylhet and Chittagong, attended by over 3,000 participants from
different regions of the country. The discussion focused on eight key areas: “justice,
corruption, education, health, local government, trade, security, and the institutions of state”
(Prosser, 2008). The project used mobile telephony for engaging participants in a discussion
with the panelists and relied on television and radio for broadcasting the discourse throughout
the country.
In the words of one of the panelists, Khushi Kabit, a coordinator of an NGO called
Nijera Kori, it “is extremely important that people get the chance to say what they want, what
they need, and explain about how they are trying to survive … and what exactly is required”
(Prosser, 2008). The reach of the debate expanded to international audiences that were able to
43
hear the voices of the Bangladesh public after BBC screened Bangladesh Sanglap in the
United Kingdom. This in turn increased the pressure on the politicians involved in the debate
to hold greater accountability in the eyes of the public.
The results of the project showed voter empowerment in that “the voters were made
to feel that they were important, that they had things to say and, most importantly, they could
hold their leaders accountable on a personal level. It was a great ‘empowering' feeling that no
doubt helped in enhancing the self esteem and confidence of the voters” (BBC, n.d.).
Research was an integral part of the project throughout its different stages with a baseline
nation-wide poll, as well as surveys and interviews among people who participated in the
Sanglap in different parts of the country. The outcomes research “suggested that people
believed they had been given a platform to challenge governments in ways never before
experienced. Of those surveyed, 92 percent believed that the programs helped raise the ‘voice
of the people,’ especially those from deprived backgrounds, and 78 percent thought that the
programs helped to ensure transparency and accountability” (Prosser, 2008).
Some of the reported changes that were perceived by the public after the Sanglap project was
well under way included “initiation of a culture of discussion, enhanced public demand and
media pressure” (Prosser, 2008). Quotes from participants included:
•
“we can ask questions directly to politicians … [which was] not possible before this.”
- young female radio listener in Sylhet
•
“we didn’t know that people like me can ask questions like this” Female, 32,
Bheramera, Kustia
Of course, like with all development initiatives, not all of the success and changes
brought about in the region can be credited to participatory communication. However, with
the use of horizontal communication models and procedural justice perceived, the publics all
drew in a sense of overall empowerment and ultimately succeeded in achieving the project
44
goal of affecting policy change and reforming governance to include greater public
involvement. Two examples of this quoted in the case study presented by David Prosser’s
2008 report in the World Bank’s Governance Reform publication clearly outline these
successes:
At Dhaka Sanglap in March 2007 panelists and audience condemned as ‘inhumane’ the
heavy-handed cleanup campaign that saw the eviction of street hawkers from the city’s
streets without any thought as to how they would make a living…. Following the
program, the cleanup was put on hold, with no further reports of evictions. The authorities
have established 25 new markets in which the hawkers can operate.
On another occasion, new emergency restrictions limiting a defendant’s right to bail were
criticized at a Sanglap as a “violation of human rights.” The strong feeling was echoed in
the press. Within days, the order was amended, and 482 people were released from jail.
Other experts have claimed that “this program has succeeded in encouraging active
citizen participation and mobilizing civil society…. Its legacy has been to engage citizens in
publicly demanding government accountability. (Byrne, Arnold & Nagano, 2010)
In order for the success of the program to be replicated within other projects it
requires four key elements in terms of civic participation:
1. Neutrality of the platform, which in the case of Bangladesh Sanglap was ensured by
BBC being responsible for most of the efforts
2. Constructive conversation as simply lively debate is not enough.
3. Authentic language in communication between the different stakeholders (a major
participatory communication principle discussed earlier in the literature review
section of the paper)
45
4. Investment into audience recruitment, as any participatory approach requires the
public’s engagement. This element greatly benefits from use of local champions and
diffusion, which will increase participation and engagement rates.
46
IMPLEMENTING A CAMPAIGN
The presented above findings demonstrate that the choice of participatory
communication tools, both technological and traditional, positively affect international
development projects if they are adapted to the local context and aligned with the project
goal. Stakeholder participation is equally, if not more, important in process outcomes as in
final decision outcomes. Tools need to, however, remain secondary to the people in
democratizing communication flow. The findings discussed suggest possible strategies for
implementing a development project within a local setting regardless of whether the
development project is centered around democratizing media environment, developing large
infrastructural projects or advocating health reforms. Participatory approaches contribute in
large to advocacy issues. However, based on the Stop Stock-outs campaign it can be seen that
the Ushahidi and participatory communication is not an ultimate solution. In order for
people’s voices to have an effect leading to policy change the efforts have to be highly
publicized and supported by specific further actions. Communication should only be a
component within an international development project and is not an end in itself. This will
provide for higher success rates in advocating policy change and implementing projects.
Below is an example of an international development campaign that incorporates Ushahidi
and participatory communication. It focuses on a problem pertinent to a number of Eastern
European countries: managing tuberculosis.
Research
Country Profile
Ukraine, along with a number of other Eastern European countries, for the last decade
has experienced an epidemic of tuberculosis, with rising mortality rates, low detection rates
and increasing incidence estimates. (See Table 3 below) 47
Table 3: 2009 Tuberculosis rates in Ukraine (based on country’s total population of 46,000,000). Source:WHO
According to UNDP country analysis, “deterioration of the tuberculosis
epidemiological situation began in 1990 [with] 1995 considered the beginning of the fullfledged tuberculosis epidemic …. the tuberculosis situation remains critical in Ukraine: more
than 30,000 new cases are recorded each year” (UNDP, n.d.) A large part of this is due to
economic situation in the country and lack of sufficient policy support that would provide
adequate funding to health institutions treating tuberculosis.
Infrastructure
According to the most recent data, in 2005 “there were 120 dispensaries (97 with
inpatient facilities) and 33 adult TB hospitals with approximately 23 000 dedicated TB beds,
and three TB hospitals for children with 365 beds. In addition, there were 6600 TB beds in
general medical facilities. Around 2765 TB specialists worked at these facilities” (PATH,
n.d.). A large number of these facilities lack heating, sufficient medical staff, and drugs
deemed essential by the World Health Organization. There is also no quality control of
essential drugs after they are procured and distributed to providers.
As multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is one of the most eminent threats
facing Ukraine, it is essential to provide patients that have active forms of tuberculosis with
timely and appropriate medication, as well as adequate nutrition. Lack of these essential
treatment conditions has been known to contribute to patients developing MDR-TB.
In response to the increasing global spread of tuberculosis in 2006, WHO launched its
international Stop TB Strategy. The core of this strategy is DOTS (Directly Observed
48
Treatment, Short-course), with regular, uninterrupted supply of all essential anti-TB drugs as
one of its key components. Although proven to work through a series of pilot projects, the
DOTS campaign has not been adapted on a national scale due to policy change resistance and
budgetary constraints in Ukraine (see Figure 7)
Figure 7: 2010-2011 financing for tuberculosis in Ukraine (NTP – National Tuberculosis Program)
PATH, an international NGO has already carried-out a communication-based needs
assessment
“collecting baseline data from several specific populations residing in Donetska oblast
and Kyiv …. to assess programmatic gaps in the implementation of the NTP [National
Tuberculosis Program]. This formative research aimed to explore the needs,
behavioural practices, and knowledge of select populations, clarify the best channels
and formats for providing TB information, and evaluate client satisfaction with the
performance of their doctors” (PATH, 2006)
Based on the results generated by the study, PATH suggested incorporating a
communication and counseling training course for doctors dealing with TB patients. These
recommendations were later incorporated into the Ukrainian National Tuberculosis Program.
The intermediate success of this effort both demonstrates the success of participatory
assessments and suggests that Ukrainian politicians, if placed under pressure from
international community, are prone to listen to collective voices of the Ukrainian public
regarding the problem of tuberculosis.
49
Objectives
The campaign will focus primarily on affecting policy advocacy by bringing
conditions within the health facilities for TB patients to the attention of politicians and
placing increased pressure from local and international audiences on Ukrainian politicians to
increase the budget for health facilities providing services to patients with tuberculosis.
The way this campaign will be implemented is through social mobilization, which is
essentially a participatory dialogue that “brings together community members and other
stakeholders to [generate] negotiation and consensus among a range of players”. At the core
of self-mobilization are people who are either living with active TB or have suffered from it
at some time in the past.
Their role in the campaign is to provide timely information about existing realities of
tuberculosis care in Ukraine (more specifically medical stock-outs, malnutrition, and
inadequate facilities) using participatory information and communication for development
technologies (ICT4D), specifically Ushahidi. Testimonies of the patients and their families
will be mapped on an online “crisis map of Ukraine” in a manner similar to that of “Stop
Stock-outs” campaign in sub-Saharan Africa. The map will be continuously updated with
links to the updates sent-out to the national media, including TV, newspapers and radio, as
well as distributed to patients in health facilities in the form of print-outs. These efforts will
seek to promote media advocacy and bring the issue to the forefront of both national and
international debate.
Target Audience
According to UNDP, “a significant portion of the impact [of tuberculosis] is on poor
and socially marginalized populations, whose numbers increased in Ukraine during the
economic crisis. Unemployed individuals of working age represented 53.1 percent of those
who became ill with tuberculosis for the first time”(UNDP, n.d.). No recent epidemiological
50
demographic data of the population has been made public by an official international or state
organization since 2003. According to the 2003 statistics, “of the 37,097 new TB cases
registered in Ukraine, 72 percent were among men. The proportion of notified cases among
women (28 percent) has remained steady for the last 10…. The highest age-specific incidence
rates are among individuals aged 40 to 49” (PATH, 2006).
In order to diffuse the information about the crisis mapping, the campaign will
primarily target the most prevalent population, men ages 30 to 50, with average or below
average family income, who suffer from active forms of tuberculosis and are receiving
treatment in state clinics throughout Ukraine. This population will act as early adopters of
innovation and will continue to spread the information once they adopt it.
Message
The 2005 popular ad-campaign launched by Ukrainian government to counteract the
decrease in country’s birth rates was built upon the slogan: “There should be 52 million of
us! – make love”. The two messages of the Ushahidi campaign will seek to build on this
familiar idea with the messages being:
Tuberculosis: There are 59,000 of us! - Map your story
Tuberculosis: There are 59,000 of us! – Have a budget that reflects it
Both messages will be displayed simultaneously, so they will ultimately supplement each
other with one message providing a clear call to action and the other emphasizing the effect
that the action will have.
Desired outcome
TB patients and their families will send-in information via text-messages, social
media and emails about current medical stock-outs, lack of nutrition, inadequate facilities,
and lack of medical attention in health centers for treatment of tuberculosis-infected patients.
These testimonies, comprised of text and photos, will be placed on a national map of Ukraine
51
using Ushahidi. The maps will generate local and international media coverage, which will
drive policy change and greater national funding to health institutions for people with
tuberculosis. Programming
Media
According to research conducted by an international NGO PATH “to establish a
baseline on TB knowledge, attitudes, and practices …. TV is the most popular source of
information about TB among most audiences (37-67 percent). Prisoners cite family and
friends (46 percent) and medical workers (40 percent) as the most common sources of
information …. Medical workers are the most trusted source of information about TB,
followed by TV and specialized health journals” (PATH, 2006). These results were based on
a survey of 1,600 individuals in the general public divided between two major oblasts
(regions) in Ukraine; 60 open market vendors and 100 clients of food banks in Kyiv City and
Donetska Oblast; and 50 recently released prisoners in Donetska Oblast.
The initial information about the campaign and Ushahidi technology will be spread to
the main target audience using paid advertising in:
•
National newspapers “Komsomolska Pravda Ukraina”, the target audience of the
newspaper is 45-54 years old, with 64% having a high school degree, and 45% having
either average or below average earnings;
•
Radio “Chanson”, the target audience of the radio stations is 25-64 years old (with the
highest percentage falling within the 35 to 54 year old range), 46% having either
average or below average earnings;
•
“Shuster Live”, a live talk-show that covers major social and political issued in
Ukraine and has a live audience representative of Ukrainian demographics that
interact with the “guests”/politicians invited into the studio. It airs on a national
52
channel “UT-1”, which cites target audience of 18+ in all major cities throughout
Ukraine.
Campaign outline and timeline
The campaign will run for one year with the launch and finish dates being World TB
day, March 24th.
A group of technical assistance will set-up an open-source Ushahidi website, which
utilizes Google map satellite images to pin-point where exactly the health facilities are
lacking in terms of medicine, qualified personnel, and appropriate facilities. The Ushahidi TB
Ukraine interactive online map will feature satellite images of Ukraine with user-generated
content, including video, photo and written testimony. Using “multiple source data streaming
so that information can be gathered via SMS, email, twitter and web sources,” the platform
will function as a one-stop public forum for TB patients and their families (Goldstein and
Rotich, 2010). Because of the specifics of the target population and their socioeconomic
standing it will most heavily rely on locally-available mobile technology.
In order to
promote further participation, a partnership agreement will be negotiated with MTS mobile
service provider most prevalanet in Eastern Ukraine, where the majority of the TB health
facilities are based. MTS will be asked to provide a free short number to which people will be
sending their texts. People from other mobile service providers will be able to send-in
information at a minimal text message charge (see penetration rates as of February 28 2011
below):
Total number of active mobile SIM cards in Ukraine 53,453,660 (with the population
of Ukraine being roughly 47,000,000).
53
The organization responsible for the campaign will also set-up an email address and a
Twitter account to which people can send-in their testimonies. These, however, will not be as
highly advertised via radio and TV and will only be presented in newspaper publications and
printed ads/billboards/posters.
To spread the message, the campaign will initially rely on outdoor advertisement at
bus stops, billboards and posters within health facilities for treating tuberculosis patients
(hospitals and polyclinics). The posters will show a map of Ukraine with either one of the
slogans. The posters/billboards and outdoor ads will be replaced monthly to reflect new
markings on the map.
Launch Event/ End of campaign event
Both the launch of the campaign and the end of the campaign will be marked by a
special “Shuster-Live” episode with guests on the show being doctors treating patients with
tuberculosis (who have undergone recent training on how to manage patient fears and
expectations as part of a USAID training project), people cured from tuberculosis, families
and friends of current tuberculosis patients, politicians, as well as Ukrainian and Russian
chanson performers who are seen as manly, tough and street-wise. At the launch show, the
host will explain the key principle and reveal campaign slogans, he will also provide the sms
short number for texting, hashtag for Twitter messages and an email address for sending-in
messages/pictures. At the end of the show he will reveal an unmarked map of Ukraine and
will say that throughout the campaign the map will be marked with testimonies, stories of
patients and their families, which will then be delivered to Ukrainian politicians, as well as
international TB program donors.
Evaluation
The campaign focuses on three levels of goals:
54
•
Process Goals – empowering TB patients to communicate with the government and
the public about the current conditions of health facilities in which they are receiving
treatment;
•
Intermediate Goals – bringing the issue of TB facilities into the public sphere and
political discourse, increasing pressure from international donors on Ukrainian
politicians;
•
Long-term Goals – increasing budget spending on improving health care facilities for
TB patients and more actively implementing DOTS throughout Ukraine.
The evaluation of the campaign’s effectiveness should also constitute a three-pronged
process. The process goals will be defined by the level of public engagement with the
platforms and can be further assessed as a post-campaign survey measuring how the
experience with the campaign changed people’s perceptions (a pre- and post-campaign
survey in this case will be of limited value and too costly). Intermediate results can also be
measured by a series of post-campaign focus groups to be carried-out with the politicians.
PATH NGO has already carried-out a number of similar research projects in prior years
and thus can be subcontracted for delivering and designing the post-campaign focus
groups and surveys, which can also be measured against the benchmark responses outlined
by PATH in their previous research. Long-terms goals are more policy and action-based
and can be assessed within 1 and 5 years after the campaign in terms of changes and
budgetary spending.
55
IMPLICATIONS AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
The campaign outlined above, as well as the list of case studies provides an applied
understanding to the concepts delineated in the literature review section of the paper. The
presented evidence suggests that participatory communication is a vital component of
international development practices. Implemented throughout all stages of the project cycle
and intertwined with other forms of communication it plays a significant role in increasing
civic engagement with the development initiatives and overall sustainability of the project.
This paper is centered mostly on generating a collective outlook on the current
landscape of participatory communication approaches in the sphere of international
development. It overlooks a number of questions that would need to be researched further to
evaluate the use of participatory communication toolset examined within this paper.
Since public deliberation, or causes and ways of public decision-making process, is
one of the ultimate concepts involved in the participatory communication future research
needs to closer examine the existing relationships between participatory communication as
both the cause and effect of deliberation processes. Another issue that goes hand-in-hand
with deliberation and participatory communication is the role of governments in international
development projects and how government involvement may impact the level of public
participation. This was a question that all of the experts answered differently. In the case of
Ushahidi in Lybia, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) made a
decision to make the platform private, for security reasons related to the possible control over
the Internet and the mobile network by the government, as well as lack of safety of those two
communication tools in general. (A. A. Iacucci, personal communication 04/05/2011). In
Latin America on the other hand, “governments are realizing more and more that their
success depends on initiatives they put forth …. And they see that in order to be more
successful they need to be more inclusive” (S. Jellinek, personal communication,
56
04/08/2011). It would also be interesting to examine whether geographic and historical
context plays a significant role in the use of participatory communication in development.
The research also does not fully examine the issue of how best to evaluate
participatory communication. The interviews provided a glimpse of the different methods
employed by a variety of institutions. However, Paulo Mefalopulos provided an excellent
comparison for measuring participatory communication using quantitative tools: “it’s like
trying to measure how much water there is in a jar with a meter”. He also suggested that since
participatory communication is about the local people, the evaluation method should also be
self-reporting. An example of this would be UNICEF’s “most significant change
methodology, which allows people to tell a story about what they experienced and how they
felt about it” (P. Mefalopulos, personal communication, 04/07/2011). The World Bank
employs a more traditional methodology that relies on the LogFrame approach, which from
the start identifies inputs, outputs, purpose and goal of the project and then evaluates whether
the project reached set indicators for each (S. Jellinek, personal communication, 04/08/2011).
However, further research needs to more thoroughly examine the variety of existing
methodologies and provide their side-by-side comparison.
Limitations
Since the methodology relied primarily on a limited number of personal expert
interviews presented results cannot be clearly triangulated to ensure for accuracy of
information. Also, the case studies on traditional participatory tools are primarily taken from
publications sponsored by the institutions that carried-out the project, so the researcher does
not rule-out the possibility of self-reporting bias within the case studies. In presenting the
Ushahidi case study, due to its rather new technological approach and limited popularity
beyond the development arena, the information was mostly gathered from non-academic
sources, such as blogs and recent media publications.
57
58
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atun R. and Olynik I. Resistance to implementing policy change: the case of Ukraine. Bulletin of the World Health Organiation, 2008, 86:147–154. Banks K. (2009) Mapping Medicine Availability via SMS. Frontline SMS. Retrieved from http://www.frontlinesms.com/2009/07/01/mapping-­‐medicine-­‐availability-­‐via-­‐
sms/ on April 27, 2011. Belting J. (2008). Empirical Methods: Expert Interviews. Retrieved on April 27, 2011 at www.oat.ethz.ch Byrne, A, Arnold, and Nagano, F. (2010) Building Public Support for Anti-­‐Corruption Efforts. The World Bank. Washington, DC Calabrese, D. (2008). Strategic communication for privatization, public-­‐private partnerships, and private participation in infrastructure projects. Washington, DC, World Bank. Cellular Market Data: Russian and Ukraine. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.acm-­‐
consulting.com/data-­‐downloads/doc_download/81-­‐february.html April 27, 2011. Cohen, R. L. (1985). "Procedural Justice and Participation." Human Relations 38(7): 643-­‐663. Dagron, A., Gray-­‐Felder, D. (2001). Making Waves: Stories of Participatory Communication for Social Change. Rockefeller Foundation. New York, New York. D. Deshler and D. Sock, Eds. (1985) Community development participation: A concept review of the International Literature. Ljungskile, Sweden. Easterly, W. (2006). The white man's burden : why the West's efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. New York, Penguin Press. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Research and Extension Division. (2007). Communication and sustainable development : selected papers from the 9th UN roundtable on communication for development. Rome, Research and Extension Division, Natural Resources Management and Environment Dept., Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Freire, P. (1976). Education, the practice of freedom. London, Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative. George, S. (2011) Ushahidi Lsssons Learned. Retrieved on April 28,2011 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/51458660/Lessons-­‐Learned-­‐Ushahidi Goldstein, J., & Rotich, J. (2010). Digitally networked technology in Kenya’s 2007-­‐08 post-­‐election crisis. In S. Ekine, SMS Uprising: Mobile Phone Activism in Africa (pp. 124-­‐137). Dakar, Nairobi, New Haven, & Oxford: Pambazuka Press. Granat Group. Komsomolska Pravda. Retireved from http://www.ra-­‐
granat.ru/reklama-­‐v-­‐presse1/natsionalnaia-­‐pressa/reklama-­‐v-­‐gazete-­‐
komsomolskaia-­‐pravda April 27, 2011 Feshchenko Y., Melnyk V., Koblianska A., Laptieva N., Kucher T., (2001). Monitoring TB Morbidity and Mortality among Different Age and Gender Groups in Ukraine in 1990-­‐2000, UDK:616.24-­‐002.5-­‐036.2-­‐053 (477). Hamelink, C. (2002). "Social Development, Information and Knowledge: Whatever happened to communication?" Development, Journal of the Society for International Development 45(4): 5-­‐9. Heeks, R., (2010). Development 2.0: The IT-­‐Enabled Transformation of International Development. Communications of the ACM, vol. 53, no. 4 59
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1721665&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=
93467646&CFTOKEN=23 915801 Howe, J. (2006) The Rise of Crowdsourcing, Wired, 14(6), URL Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html. 24 November 2006 Iacucci, A. A. (2011) Diary of a Crisis Mapper, Retrieved from http://crisismapper.wordpress.com/author/anahiayalaiacucci. Apr 27, 2011 Lévy, P. (1997 [1995]) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace (R. Bononno, Trans.) New York: Plenum. Livingston, S. (2011). Africa’s Evolving Infosystems: A Pathway to Security and Stability. Washington, DC. Africa Center for Strategic Studies Research Paper No.2. Manji F. (2008). Mobile Activism or Mobile Hype?. in Gender & Media Diversity Journal, 4, pp. 125-­‐132 Mazzei, L. and Scuppa, G. (2006). The Role of Communication in Large Infrastructure: The Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project in Post-­‐Conflict Sierra Leone. The World Bank. Wasington, DC. McPhail, T. L. (2009). Development communication : reframing the role of the media. Chichester, U.K. ; Malden, MA, Wiley-­‐Blackwell. Mefalopulos, P. and World Bank. (2008). Development communication sourcebook : broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington, D.C., World Bank. Mitchell, P. and K. Chaman-­‐Ruiz (2007). Communication-­‐based assessment for bank operations. Washington, D.C., World Bank. Mody, B. (1991). Designing messages for development communication : an audience participation-­‐based approach. New Delhi ; Newbury Park, Sage Publications. Nelson, A. (2011). SMS messages and direct reports from Haitian citizens began to flow
within four days of the quake. Media Shift. Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/01/how-mapping-sms-platforms-saved-lives-inhaiti-earthquake011.html. April 27, 2011
Okolloh, O. (2009). Mapping Access to Essential Medicines. Ushahidi. Retrieved from http://blog.ushahidi.com/index.php/2009/07/02/stop-­‐stock-­‐outs-­‐mapping-­‐
access-­‐to-­‐essential-­‐medicines/. 27 April 2011. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory / Carole Pateman. Cambridge, Eng. :, The University Press. Pretty, J. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23 8
p1247-1263.
Prosser, D., (2008). We Didn't Know People Like Me Could Ask Questions Like This?: A
Dialogue in Bangladesh. World Bank. Washington, DC
Quarry, W. and R. Ramírez (2009). Communication for another development : listening before telling. London ; New York, Zed Books. PATH (2006). Advocacy, communication and social mobilization (ACSM) for tuberculosis control : a handbook for country programmes. World Health Organization. Retrieved from www.stoptb.org/assets/documents/resources. April 27, 2011. Rogers, E. M. (1994). Elements of diffusion. In Diffusion of Innovations (pp. 1-­‐37). New York: Free Press. Rosen, J. (2006). The people formerly known as the audience. Retrived from http://archive.pressthink. org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr_p. html. April 27, 2011 Sampson, E. (1993). Identity Politics: Challenges to psychology's understanding. Americn Psychologist 48:1219-­‐1230. 60
Servaes J. & P. Malikhao (2008). Development Communication Approaches in an International Perspective, Servaes J. (ed.), Communication for Development and Social Change, Sage, London-­‐New Delhi, pp. 158-­‐179. Snow Bailard, C. (2009). Mobile Phone Diffusion and Corruption in Africa, Political Communication 26, No. 3, 338. Steyaert, J. (2002) Inequality and the Digital Divide: Myths and Realities. Advocacy, Activism and the Internet, Community Organization and Social Policy (pp. 199-­‐
211). Chicago: Lyceum Books. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). "Participation and Development: Perspectives from the Comprehensive Development Paradigm." Review of Development Economics 6(2): 163-­‐182. Stop stock-­‐outs. Ensure Access to Essential Medicines for All. Retrieved from http://stopstockouts.org/, 27 April 2011. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York: Doubleday. Thibaut, J. W. and L. Walker (1975). Procedural justice : a psychological analysis. Hillsdale, N.J. New York, L. Erlbaum Associates ; distributed by the Halsted Press Division of Wiley. Tufte, T. and Mefalopulos, P., (2009). Participatory Communication: A Practical Guide. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Tuite, L. S. (2008). The Potential for Organizational Justice as a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Symmetry and Dialogic Processes in Public Relations. In K. Yamamura (Ed.), 11th International Public Relations Research Conference: Research that matters to the practice (pp. 138-­‐153). Retrieved from
http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/IPRRC_11_Proceedings.pdf
Tyler, T. R. (1989). "The Psychology of Procedural Justice: A Test of the Group-­‐Value Model." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(5): 830-­‐838. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). MDGS in Ukraine. Millenium Development Goals. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org.ua/en/millennium-­‐
development-­‐goals/mdgs-­‐in-­‐ukraine. April 27, 2011. Ushahidi. (n.d.) Retrieved on April 27, 2011 from http://www.ushahidi.com/ World Health Organization. Essential Medicines. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/topics/essential_medicines/en/, April 27 2011. World Bank (2005). Project Appraisal Document: Sierra Leone -­‐ Completion of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project. Retrieved from http://www-­‐
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64193027&piPK=6418793
7&theSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteNa
me=WDS&entityID=000012009_20050527095956 on April 27, 2011. 61