Pradeep Nair IMPROVING PEOPLE S PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Today, information and communication networks are widely used to promote participatory exchange of information, knowledge and experiences for development at the grass roots level in a developing country like India. Internet is a new medium of communication, and its casting and content needs to be designed by keeping the participatory approaches in mind. Before looking at the details of why and how there could be benefits, it is important for us to understand what we mean by participatory approaches. There are many forms of participation, but the bottom line is that communities participate genuinely if they will derive benefits aimed at satisfying their real felt needs as they define these themselves (Bassette 1996). These benefits need not solely be material benefits - material benefits only make sense when they satisfy communities fundamental needs such as subsistence, identity, freedom, protection, affection, understanding, participation, creation and leisure. The material needs accomplished by the development activities we engage in with communities are satisfiers of these actual basic needs. If participation is a basic need, it is worth looking at the typology of different types of participation so as to put the type of participation that empowers communities in the context of other non-genuine forms of participation (Narayan 2008). This might help to ensure that we speak the same language when we refer to participation. The conceptual framework How people participate in development programmes?: PRADEEP NAIR, Research Scientist, Anwar Jamal Kidwai Mass Communication Research Centre (MCRC), Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, E-mail: nairdevcom@yahoo.co.in
264 THE EASTERN ANTHROPOLOGIST 64:2-3 (2011) Typology Passive participation Participation in information giving Participation by consultation Participation for material benefits Functional participation Interactive participation Self-mobilization Components of each type People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is an unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without any listening to people s responses. The information being shared belongs only to external professionals. People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers using questionnaire based surveys or such similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the research are neither shared nor checked for accuracy. People participate by being consulted, and external agents listen to views. These external agents 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. People participate by providing resources such as labour, in return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much of farm research falls in this category, as farmers provide the fields but are not involved in experimentation or the process of learning. It is very common to see this called participation yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when incentives end. People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiated social organizations. Such involvement tends not to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have already been made. These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become selfdependent. People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple objectives and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control/ownership over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices. People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. Such selfinitiated mobilization and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power.
PEOPLE S PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 265 The three pillars of interactive participation are: Sharing: Through which communities themselves share their knowledge, experiences among each other and with the facilitators working with them, internal or external; Methods: Through which the communities can interview, map, model, rank, score, analyze, diagram, present and plan their development; and Behaviour and attitudes: Through which outside facilitators/ extension workers can convene, catalyze and facilitate communication/programmes and assist people to learn while doing. Participation is therefore fostered by putting communities themselves in the driving seat with facilitators taking the passenger seats. Practically, this means the ownership and control of the technical, financial, socio-cultural, and institutional (overall community resources) components of a development programme should be vested in villagers themselves. The strategic framework: Implications of participatory communication approaches Structurally, villagers should have an understanding of the information and communication systems involved. They need to understand the system of networking they are involved in. This is important if they are to be empowered to get maximum benefit out of the system. Like designing any communication programme, and the communication media and activities that go with it, designing an information and communication network (Internet/Intranet) has several challenges if it is done in a participatory manner: How to design the system properly through research of the needs of key interaction groups including rural groups, the community, change agents, or facilitators if involved; and How to design the system properly through a participatory design process (Menon 1993). Such assessment would focus on issues such as: Segmentation of interaction groups by such factors as gender, age groups, occupation, wealth, etc.; Content identification; Subjects and purpose, for example, for awareness, entertainment or training; Packaging of the interface and the content; Using visuals or audio-visuals to assist overcoming gaps of literacy; and Activities that encourage responses. Some communication materials may need to be tailored to specific audiences, but this does not preclude connection to the Internet although it focuses on immediate needs for purposes of encouraging participation and developmental
266 THE EASTERN ANTHROPOLOGIST 64:2-3 (2011) objectives (Ramirez 1997). A major issue is how the system will be designed to bridge the first mile with participatory approaches that use other media and channels to encourage people s inputting and receiving relevant information, knowledge and experiences to and from the network, even though they do not have direct access to the computer monitor. Channels such as multimedia, print-outs, radio, audio-tapes, popular theatre, and language translations will be important. Further, information and communication change is needed to be rooted in peoples local cultures if such change is to be taken seriously by the people involved. Participatory consultations with villagers will expose the different cultural trends, which need to be taken note of before they will accept the new technology or realize its full potential (Richardson 1996). The following diagram is important to understand the communication and information needs discussion: a b c d e Village District Block Central Other farmers level level level publics Each part of the chain from a to e will need to determine the type of information it needs to share. Whereas, in terms of packaging, a might need graphics and sound, b might need a map, c might need diagrams, d might need statistical presentations, and e might need a bit of everything from sound to statistics. Appropriate packaging of information is thus an important issue to be considered. The fundamental question is, Who decides the type of packaging and types of information to be sent out to the community? (Zijp 1994). There are two possibilities: The horizontal trend in participatory information sharing and communication: Through participatory rural communication appraisal, establish how a wants communication coming from b, c, d, or e, to be packaged when it is received and the type of information wanted from each different point. The reverse is equally true; that is, each point can establish how a can send particular types of information they need in terms of packaging. The hierarchical trend in participatory information sharing and communication: Through participatory rural communication appraisal, establish how: a wants certain types of communication coming from b to be packaged; b wants certain types of communication coming from c to be packaged; c wants certain types of communication coming from d to be packaged; d wants certain types of communication coming from e to be packaged.
PEOPLE S PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 267 The reverse is equally applicable. In both cases referred to above, the communication (internet) point could be at village level itself or at the district level. Preferably, it should be at village level for the villagers to feel and exercise ownership (Graham 1997). Group formation/community organization: Information and communication networking could easily supercharge the speed of everything from cash flow to customer services in a rural community. The network in this case is not only a means of facilitating business but the business itself. Since important activities cannot be entrusted to one person, the community will need to be organized/reorganized to deal with the new changes in communication. Changes in communication of this nature bring extreme changes like free-flowing information, and the community needs to be organized for this (Young, Brown and Laursen 1997). Information is power, and investing it in a few hands could disempower the other villagers. This can be overcome by group rather than individual training. The information/communication market place: Village activities in developing countries are usually conducted under a big tree or in a big grass thatched enclosure with the people sitting together, circular fashion that is intimate. Information received (e.g., for training, marketing, inputs, prices, etc.) could be enlarged from a PC monitor to an overhead projector screen and the villagers could together or in groups discuss and strategize on what action to take next. As soon as they make their decision they could respond via the same medium. Juxtaposed to this is the possibility of the extension worker, the facilitator at village level, being an information worker too. This means people can still meet under the big tree or big grass thatched hut and discuss information they have received and plan together sending back replies. However, the information worker will also play the role of decoding a lot of information, which could be difficult to comprehend or respond to. Although emphasis is placed on group activity, we should not make it seem a must. Whereas in nascent community organizations group approaches are strong, in emergent and mature community organizations decisions taken collectively are more and more delegated to individuals to implement or critique (Rogers and Kincaid 1981). Functional literacy: If people cannot read and write it is not the end of the world. Programmes can be designed so that people understand interaction in the written word with regards to specific functions. This has been known to work very well with teaching bookkeeping to village groups involved in smallscale enterprises (Wresch 1996). Village resource centres: Villagers are not concerned about into food security only. A resource such as internet based communication network would be under-utilized if left for one function only. The people may like such a resource to be linked to development of other things like a library, information on opportunities for school leavers and entertainment. Participatory
268 THE EASTERN ANTHROPOLOGIST 64:2-3 (2011) approaches could also establish different preferred information and communication needs (Richardson 1997). User friendly: The information and communication systems, the technology itself and the atmosphere should be sensitive to the needs of women, men, children, adults and old people of the rural communities. If conflicts arise in use or content or type of technology, villagers would need to be familiar with conflict mediation and resolution (Sirimanne 1996). Conclusion Adopting a proactive participatory communication strategy and acting to bring the Internet and other information and communication networks to rural and agricultural communities in developing countries will help to enable rural people to face the unprecedented challenges brought on by the changing global economy, political changes, environmental degradation and demographic pressures. To deal with these challenges and to make critical decisions, people at all levels of society, and especially the food-insecure and the organizations that serves and represent them, must be able to access critical information and communicate. Improved communication and access to information are directly related to social and economic development. Now it is the right time to act in support of internet knowledge and communication systems in developing countries. Today we truly live in a global village, but it is a village with privileged information haves and many information have-nots. With the new technologies available to us, we have an opportunity to change this. REFERENCES Bessette, Guy. 1996 Development communication in West and Central Africa: Toward a research and intervention agenda. In G. Bessette and C.V. Rajasunderam (Eds.): Participatory Development Communication: a West African Agenda, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre: 87-92. Graham, Michael 1997 Use of Information and Communication Technologies in IDRC Projects: Lessons Learned: 40-43. Ottawa, Evaluation Unit, Corporate Services Branch, International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Mchombu, Kingo 1996 Impact of Information on Rural Development: Background, Methodology and Progress. In P. McConnell (Ed.): Making a Difference: Measuring the Impact of Information on Development: Ottawa, Canada: Global Publications, pp. 23-32. Menou, Michel 1993 Measuring the Impact of Information on Development: 59-67. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
PEOPLE S PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 269 Narayan, Deepa 2008 Participatory Evaluation: Tools for Managing Change in Water and Sanitation, World Bank Technical Paper Number 207. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Ramirez, Ricardo 1997 Communication: a Meeting Ground for Sustainable Development, paper published on the World Wide Web and available at http://www.fao.org/ sd/cddirect/cdanalys.htm. Retrieved on 23 June 2010. Richardson, Don 1996 The Internet and Rural Development: Recommendations for Strategy and Activity. Paper published on the World Wide Web and available at http://www.fao.org/sd/cddirect/cddo/contents.htm. Retrieved on 15 July 2010. 1997 The Internet and Rural and Agricultural Development, Paper published on the World Wide Web and available at http://www.fao.org/sd/cddirect/ CDanalys.htm. Retrieved on 20 July 2010. 1997 The Sustainability of Participatory Communication. Paper published on the World Wide Web and available at http://www.panasia.org.sg/ confhome.htm. Retrieved on 8 August 2010. Rogers, Everett M., and D. Lawrence Kincaid 1981 Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research: 23-37. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers. Sirimanne, Shamrika 1996 The Information Technology Revolution: What About the Developing Countries? CIDA International Development Information Centre: Development Express, No. 04. Retrieved from http://www.acdi_cida.gc.ca/ express/dex9401.htm on 25 August 2010. Wresch, William 1996 Disconnected: Haves and Have-nots in the Information Age: 67-89. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Young, Valerie, Grant Brown and Jens Laursen 1997 Information and Communication Technologies and Development: Testing a Framework for Evaluation, Volume 1: Final report. Ottawa, Canada: Performance Review Division, Canadian International Development Agency. Zijp, Willem 1994 Improving the Transfer and Use of Agricultural Information - A Guide to Information Technology. Washington: World Bank Report.