The Dominant Paradigm (The Diffusion Theory Phase)
The major problem of development communication from the beginning
development process and communication effects. The early phase of this understanding — which lasted from the 1950s till the 1970s — has been labelled the modernisation theory phase. In this phase, the development process was seen as the “physical, social and psychological transformation of ‘traditional’ societies into ‘modern’ ones.”
Unfortunately, modernisation was wrongly conceived as becoming like Western Europe on North America. Moreover, the perspective of communication effects that then prevailed was the “stimulus — response”, “mass society”, “linear or direct influence” perspective. The development communication planners took little note of the emerging research findings about individual differences and social relations with their limiting effects on the source’s influence over the receiver. The
“theory” that obtained about communication effects was (therefore) the magic bullet / hypodermic needle / transmission belt theory.
It was the coming together of all these views and perspectives on the development process and of communication effects that gave rise to the dominant paradigm of development communication. The major features of this paradigm were as follows:
1. A focus on the diffusion of new ideas, practices and technologies from leaders (and innovators) to followers (and laggards).
2. A focus on the efficiency of the processes of message transfer from source to receiver.
3. An attempt to exploit the psychological and sociological properties of the receivers for the purpose of facilitating the achievement of the source’s goals.
4. The employment of expert/bureaucrat-controlled, nationally/
internationally planned programmes of development (or modernisation) action.
5. A reliance on the development model (or experience) of the industrialised countries of Western Europe and North America.
6. The use of modern mass communication messages and channels (radio, mobile cinema vans, news reels, agricultural extension documentaries, posters, leaflets etc). (See Ayedun–Aluma, 2004:
8).
UNESCO was recruited into the stakeholders’ group and renowned communication theorists such as Daniel Lerner, Wilbur Schramm and Everett Rogers were employed as consultants. Yet this high profile participation could not substitute for a clear grasp of the relationships between the development process and communication effects. The inadequacies, which soon became apparent, included the following:
1. Most of the “sophisticated” programmes of development (based on modernisation theory) were not in line with the priorities of the target or beneficiary populations.
2. The new practices and technologies were resisted in cases of
conflict with indigenous beliefs.
3. The programmes were abandoned where they failed to meet the receiver’s needs.
4. The need for maintenance and the lack of requisite local expertise sometimes caused serious problems.
5. The beneficiary populations were sometimes sidelined by the management styles of the development experts and bureaucrats with their aides.
These inadequacies ultimately led to the call for and establishment of an alternative paradigm.
The Alternative Paradigm (The Participation Theory Phase)
This phase lasted from the 1970s to the 1990s. Based on the frustrating experiences of the diffusion theory/dominant paradigm phase, the development process was now viewed as a function of the participation of all the stakeholders in the pertinent community. The participation view of development required that the widest possible cross-section of citizens be involved in deciding, implementing, evaluating and benefiting from the activities of deliberate social change. Thus:
i. The capacity to define and direct the development experience was restored to the beneficiaries of development.
ii. There was now a focus on the processes of local popular participation at the community level.
iii. Rather than remain neutral movers of information, communicators became active triggers of popular participation.
iv. Traditional and folk media assumed greater importance in development communication programming.
v. Small-scale, community-based communication activities (including broadcasting) mostly replaced large-scale, rather impersonal communication activities.
vi. There was improvement in learning both by the local population and by the facilitators themselves.
vii. There was also an acceptance and utilisation of the truism that every development experience is unique and should be treated as such.
However, the following weaknesses of the participation theory/paradigm (among others) soon became apparent (see Ayedun–Aluma, 2004: 9):
i. The process of deciding the goals and methods of development action tends to aggravate conflict.
ii. The activity of participation in development projects has an opportunity cost for beneficiaries since they would otherwise have spent their time in more customary productive enterprises.
iii. There was no universally relevant and feasible model for implementing, monitoring and evaluating participation.
iv. There was a tendency for participation to be superficial or tokenish, with unsatisfactory consequences for the pertinent development projects.
v. In some cases, a “participating elite” would soon be created, leading to the aggravation of social inequality in the target population.
The participatory paradigm still remains popular in development activities, in spite of the weaknesses identified in it. Witness the acknowledged successes of participation-based development programmes such as the World Bank-sponsored LEEMPS programme in Imo State of Nigeria. Indeed, it has assumed its own status as a dominant paradigm, thus occasioning a feeling of the need for an alternative paradigm. The Information Society Theory easily fits into that position. The little complication here is that Information Society Theory has itself become so predominant that it is looked upon in some quarters as the current Dominant Paradigm. Further discussion in this regard will be reserved till Module 6, which is devoted to Information Society Theory.
3.2 The Importance of Development Communication