The institutional challenges of participatory communication in international aid

Abstract

This article offers an explanation for the limited uses of participatory communication in development by taking an institutionalist perspective that examines prevalent notions about communication and organizational uses in international aid institutions. The argument is that institutional goals and dynamics determine the use of disciplinary and theoretical approaches. The selection of specific communication approaches is not primarily based on their analytical or normative value, but rather, on institutional factors and expectations. Institutional dynamics undercut the potential contributions of participatory communication in three ways. First, bureaucratic requirements favor the use of informational models over participatory approaches to communication. Standard institutional procedures inside development agencies, donors and governments perpetuate understandings and uses of communication as a set of technical skills to disseminate messages. Second, the weak status of communication as a field of study and practice in development organizations undermine the prospects for expanding the understanding of communication that do not fit prevalent institutional expectations. As long as technical experts in public health or other fields expect communication to be ‘the art of messaging,’ communication staff lacks autonomy to make decisions and incorporate participatory approaches. Third, the institutional predominance of a technical mindset also limits the uses of participation thinking. The prioritization of technical perspectives decouples ‘development’ programs from local processes of participation and change.

Keywords:

• participatory communication
• professionalism
• international aid

Notes

1. Telling signs to eschew ‘development’ in favor of ‘social change’ are the recent decision of the former International and Development Communication division of the International Communication Association to change its name to Global Communication and Social Change, and the launch of the journal Communication for Development and Social Change.

2. The situation varies across organizations and in different periods. The World Bank, for example, has a sizable ‘development program’ unit with tasks that go beyond the typical ‘press relations offices’ and provide support to a variety of projects on participatory communication, training, and behavior change communication. Until the unit was dismantled a few years ago, UNICEF had a ‘program communication’ unit in its New York headquarters that worked closely with technical areas, particularly in health and children's rights. Likewise, the Food and Agricultural Organization had a ‘program communication’ unit that collaborated with technical offices on participation and other issues. The situation in the World Health Organization is complex and hard to generalize. As it widely varies across technical units and levels (global, regional, and country). While at the global level there are some programs (e.g. HIV/AIDS) with specific communication officers who perform typical information functions and/or substantive functions closely linked to technical goals, communication staffing resources and skills are much thinner in regional and country offices. In general, only a few regional offices have communication officers working on technical issues. The majority rely on support from ‘public relations’ units typically staffed by press officers and other officers with expertise in media relations.