For this activity, I am grouped with Jannele Jimenez, Lianna Cabigas, and Gianina Ng. I have worked with them in separate occasions and had a great experience, so I was relieved to know that they were my groupmates. Moreover, itās been a long while since we last saw each other and it's great to start off the new school year with familiar faces. I do not possess the talent nor confidence to create a video to present my individual response to the three readings, so I will sharing my thoughts through this blog post.
The readings revolved around the various definitions of development communication, contrasting communication for development and communication of development (development journalism). Ā What I got from them was that development communication pertains to a discipline, making use of communication theory to bring about development, while communication for development is a social process, aimed at empowering communities and facilitating their participation in decision making. Ā Rogers (1976), in contrast with UNDP (2009) exemplifies this point. The latterās definition of communication for development pertains to the actual process of communication between the community and the development practitioner towards social change, while the formerās definition of development communication studies that process.
To be honest, Iām still a bit confused whether to consider development communication as the overall discipline with two components (for/of), or if the two (development communication and communication for development) are totally separate from each other. In my perspective, the two fields intersect in many ways and there are some similarities with the tools used as well as their goals. This is seen in the definitions provided by the World Bank (2006) and the Rome Consensus (2006) wherein empowering communities to bring about social change is the apparent goal. I believe that we can make use of both fields to create and sustain social change.
The definitions are rooted in how the authors define development, which is reflected in the goals of the two fields. Both Quebral and Chatterjeeās definitions of development still put primary attention on economic development as the jumping point or end goal. While Quebral acknowledges the importance of social, political, and moral development, what often lacks is its measures. Understandably, economic progress is much easier to track (and more preferable for most people), however there needs to be some basis for other forms of development. Such is the case for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs, bouncing off from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), recognizes the interconnectedness of the worldās issues and the need for an integrated approach to solve them. However, the metrics by which countries are measured are economic in nature, which sometimes glosses over issues on human rights, press freedom, social justice, and environmental sustainability.
Continuing with Quebral, she also takes into account the need to include everyone āespecially those in the peripheriesā to achieve true development. For decades, development interventions benefit only a few members of society, leaving virtually nothing for the rest of the population. In the context of urban planning, this is seen in the stark contrasts between meticulously planned layouts of areas such as Bonifacio Global City (BGC) and exclusive subdivisions and densely populated areas like Tondo, Manila. We also see this in the vast difference between urban and rural areas. We have to involve other communities such as women, Indigenous Peoples, LGBTQIA+, PWDs and many more because they see and utilize their spaces differently, and we have to work diligently to ensure safe spaces for the whole population. However, my concern is how do we navigate the tensions and conflict between the very sectors we are trying to unite? This part Iām not exactly sure what to do. What Quebral also highlights in her work is the need to build the capacities of communities. I did research on technical vocational education and training (TVET) last semester and found that it is an effective way of capacity building. I hope that we will be able to break the stigma surrounding TVET and see its benefits. But more importantly, capacity building highlights the importance of community organising and development. It reminds us that local contexts matter, and that definition of development will differ from each community. As development practitioners, we have to be aware of our roles and take into heart the principles of empowerment, participation, and sustainability. We also have to be conscious about our privileges and work towards utilizing that for social change.
It was interesting to read about the role of community media, particularly radio in development. It reminded me of the plan released by the Department of Education to use radios as a form of teaching for students in areas without stable electricity and internet connection. But there is still the concern over the quality of education the students will receive. Iām sure weāve all seen the video on Twitter about incorrect English questions presented during the technical dry-run of the governmentās educational program. Now that I am writing about this, I realize that it has been a while since the government provided updates about the conduct of this mode of learning. I have not heard stories about how many students are using this mode of learning, whether the content has been improved, which areas are these students usually located, and others. Education is a vital right for every person, and honestly, what is going on right now is a mess, for students and teachers alike.
Shifting to Chatterjee (2010), he mentioned that one of the goals of development communication is behavior change. It should be clear that this pertains to behavior change on part of stakeholders who hold influence over Ā certain community. However, I think back to our first session in sociology class, which stated how it can be sued to alter peopleās behavior in order to pacify, and not address their concerns. While I do not think anyone in the class will utilize the tools learned in this class against communities one works with, it is a concern that I have that might happen. As development practitioners, we should be conscious about this and make sure that the work that we do will lead to genuine development.
What makes development journalism unique compared to other forms (as discussed by Chatterjee), is that it thoughtful and deliberate writing. More than reporting what has happened, it asks deeper questions and strives to establish the bigger picture. Ā This is why ideology cannot be separated from the ātangible and measurable termsā of development. The notions of development and community are rooted in ideas, which reflect peopleās core values and beliefs. One cannot talk about the tangible factors without the ideological because they are connected and reinforce each other. Furthermore, development journalism has to be used to amplify the voices of the marginalized, to make noise about their plight, and urge leaders to take effective action to address their concerns.
Communication and development are still significantly influenced by Western notions, as we have seen in Chatterjee (2010) and Quebral (2015). We have to break free from these, and strive to create perspectives rooted in our own communities, values, and experiences, just as emphasized in grassroots or participatory development. That way we can effectively make use of communication for development and development communication for enacting social change. The huge role of media in society points to the amount of influence it holds, and thus we should be conscious about the way we use these tools, and always put the community and its people in mind.
