Different types of information sharing

To critically assess levels of participation it is necessary to look at who gives access to

who and to what kind of information. While some of the C4D literature focuses on who gives information (community or expert) and judges communication as valuable or not accordingly, I argue that the value of who gives information depends on the context and information needs of the community. From my review of C4D literature, I propose a new way of categorising the theme of information. I argue that there are three different types of information sharing within the literature, however rather than just examining which category or categories a project uses, we should investigate the nuances of these different categories as the next sub-sections lay out.

There are three main categories of who gives access within the literature: firstly, top down dissemination by experts or ‘change makers’ to communities (Katz &

Lazarsfeld, 1955; Lerner, 1958; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971), secondly, two-way flow information within a pre-existing democratic system (Arnstein, 1969; Schramm, 1964) and thirdly, dialogical problem posing between equal partners (Freire, 1996). These different approaches allude to different forms of participation; however, these three types are not always clear-cut and can merge and interact. Dialogical communication can mean that communities give feedback within a prescribed system (Schramm, 1964) or that they not only are part of a dialogue but co-decide on how information is shared (Arnstein, 1969). The categorisation is therefore not to be understood as a set outline, but rather as a way of understanding how to critically assess the differences within access to information. One project may use all three types or mixed forms of information. For instance, a radio station may have one programme mainly relaying information deemed relevant by the government, while another programme may go out into communities to let them discuss what they find relevant.

Top-down dissemination of information

Top-down dissemination of information (1) is often deemed as patronising and undesirable by participatory literature, however I argue it must be evaluated in its respective context to judge what it may contribute to or not. Publications such as the two-step-flow theory of communication by Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955) argue for a trickle down of information from the top (government/experts) to the bottom (community). Hence, they argue that mass media should target opinion leaders, as

‘(…) ideas, often, seem to flow from radio and print to opinion leaders and from them to the less active sections of the population’ (1955, p. 32). Rogers and Lerner similarly

see Western experts and educated elites as the main sources of information. These experts determine what information is valuable to the population of developing countries to foster modernisation. This shows a clear separation of who is perceived to be powerful and knowledgeable (the expert) and who is not (the community).

Giving information through change agents (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971) or experts (Lerner, 1958) is dismissed by much of the participation literature, however it is still predominant in many communication projects today (Waisbord, 2008). Message dissemination is still popular because it is easy to measure and maps onto an institutional ‘[…] mentality that prioritizes achieving rapid results within time-bounded funding cycles […]’ (Waisbord, 2008, p. 512).

However, there are instances in which this kind of information might be deemed useful or even be desired by communities. For instance, after an earthquake, communities may want and need an expert to tell them which kind of cracks in walls suggest structural damage and what to do in the case of aftershocks. As Waisbord elaborates on the potential value of information dissemination: ‘[i]n some cases such as epidemics and other public health crises, quick and top-down solutions could achieve positive results’ (2008, p. 21). Therefore, information given by experts should not be dismissed, instead it should be asked whether the information given by experts is accessible and useful to the community – ergo whether it is community-centred. Further, it is important to question how much information is given by experts and how much by the community to assess the value given to community voices.

Two-way flow information

The second type of information is two-way flow information, in which there is a dialogue between the community and another entity, for instance government and the community. Although, Schramm presents (rural) communities as the ones that need to be educated to achieve social change, pointing towards expert driven information, he also stresses that:

‘[…] information must flow and the changes must be discussed not only through a downward channel from the leaders to the villagers, but also upward to the leaders, and laterally so that the people can talk things over and arrive at group

decisions’. (p. 43)

Schramm’s approach alludes to more than a one-way flow of communication;

however, his argument is situated in a prescriptive context, which sees progress as striving towards Western democracy. Inayathullah criticises this predisposition towards a Western system as limiting since in his opinion ‘[…] imitation does not and cannot release the creative energy of the imitator. It only perpetuates his dependence on the model’ (1967, p. 102). While it is pivotal to question whether striving towards a Western democratic system is the right way forward, putting aside Schramm’s goal of Western democracy, we could argue that a two-way flow of information might be beneficial in other government forms too. More so in a disaster context, which may not encourage a systemic change.

Schramm’s quote speaks to a dialogical access to information as he also argues that policy must be influenced by what communities ask for and that decision makers must listen to communities (1964, p. 19). Therefore, information is not only given by experts but also by communities. As Servaes argues, it is pivotal that:

‘[…] one is no longer attempting to create a need for the information disseminated, but instead information is disseminated for which there is a need.

Experts and development workers respond rather than dictate, they choose what is relevant to the context in which they are working. The emphasis is on information exchange rather than on persuasion, as was the case in the diffusion model.’ (1996, p. 16)

This closely relates to Arnstein’s view that information should influence policy and must be a closed feedback loop (1969). She also makes her argument more concrete, in that she points out that not only should there be a feedback channel but that communities also need to have power to negotiate. Arnstein also goes further than Schramm when she argues that ideally ‘[…] the have-nots join in determining how information is shared […]’ (1969, p. 216). This implies a higher level of participation and power sharing. However, the problem with Arnstein’s argument is that it assumes that communities want to take on ownership which may not always be the case. If participation is forced, then how is it different from top-down

communication? Just like dominant thinkers, participatory theorists have equally been condemned for being paternalistic and condescending (Midgley, 1986). Midgley critically evaluates that:

‘[t]he assumption that the proponents of community participation know what local people want and need pervades the literature. But concepts of participation that appeal to western educated middle-class activists do not always conform to the expectations of ordinary people’ (Midgley, 1986, p. 158).

There are many reasons why individuals may not participate, such as fear that their feedback will have repercussions, different priorities, or other reasons. This must be acknowledged when looking at participation. If full participation fails and only a few individuals are willing to participate, then there is a substantial risk of a few deciding for many, which will almost inevitably lead to a lack of diversity and inclusion – the opposite of what participation strives towards. To address this, literature and practice need to consider diversity and take a close look at the mechanisms that are or can be used to ensure diversity if full participation fails. Therefore, it is not solely about looking at whether access to information has been provided to communities or communities have a platform where they can give feedback that will have an impact.

Instead, we should also investigate what efforts are made to diversify access and who may be excluded from it. This relates to section 2.3 on the inclusion of community voices and exemplifies the overlap of the two key themes.

Problem posing information flow

The third ‘category’, problem posing, focuses much more on information as a first step towards collective action and eventually revolution. Although Freire’s aims are more radical, it is useful to use some of his philosophical premises for investigating for instance equality within access. Is the same value given to all information sources - the information coming from communities as well as from the experts? In Freire’s view information is to be understood as a part of dialogue: ‘[w]ithout dialogue there is no communication […]’ (1996, p. 73). He identifies information dissemination as

‘banking knowledge’, in which an expert deposits knowledge. To him this depositing of knowledge robs individuals of being ‘truly human’ (1996, p. 53). Instead, Freire argues, only inquiring the world together, inventing and re-inventing it will lead to

true knowledge (1996, p. 73). Freire remains quite vague on what he exactly means by this. This is partly due to the philosophic nature of his work. ‘Paulo Freire is not a method’ as Macedo and Freire’s wife Araujo Freire point out (2000, p. 6) and they further explain that ‘[t]his fetish for method works insidiously against adhering to Freire’s own pronouncement against the importation and exportation of methodology’ (2000, p. 6). However, the lack of concreteness also makes it hard to implement these ideas in real world circumstances, where a project relies on pragmatic and substantial guidelines rather than philosophies. This relates to a recurring critique of participatory communication, which is that it focuses on the philosophical rather than the practical and does not give guidance for implementation (Mefalopulos, 2003; Waisbord, 2001). However, elements of Freire’s participation philosophy can be useful to question what projects should aim for, i.e.

valuing community members and their opinions as equals, and whether they are truly aiming for equality and the empowerment of communities. Ultimately, this suggests that we should research not only who gives information but also, how this information is sourced, how accessible it is and how diverse.