Programme deliverers’ planning concerns

To get deeper insight on programme planning during the mass violence, interviews explored the participants’ concerns for programme planners working in this area. Four concerns were raised from the programme deliverers’ perspective: language was perceived as the most concerning challenge by half the staff; choosing trustworthy senders; reducing suspicion; and safety were also perceived as important concerns for programme planners in the violence area.

Six staff members said language is the most important challenge, and identified several language problems. Interestingly, all problems referred to language for communicating with Muslim receivers, not Buddhists. This might be because Muslims are the majority of people in the area (85.16%; Thailand National Statistical Office, 2010), so are the main programme focuses. Buddhist staff members gave many examples of language problems, while Muslim members were familiar with Arabic language. A senior Buddhist staff member noted the variety of languages used in this area:

People cannot read and write in the Arabic language but they can speak Arabic. However, they also speak Melayu, both Malay Dialect and Bahasa Malay. They also write in Jawi alphabets. These became problems when we wanted to design programmes or media for them. (Staff no. 9)

Another Buddhist staff member reflected on the difficulty of translating specialist contentwithout distorting the meaning:

... when we communicated about mental health, some contents could be translated, such as emotional issues. However, if contents were specialist, such as in the mental health screening form, it was difficult to translate and make it

135

easy to understand. The receivers might not get the intended meanning or sometimes the meaning was distorted. (Staff no. 2)

Spoken language, especially pronunciation, was also a potential concern for those staff who came from other provinces or who could not speak the local language. A Buddhist staff member from outside the area spoke about the challenges:

I went to a community for a children’s IQ test. My friend taught me some words for admiring those children but my accent was wrong and it became another word, another meaning. So, we needed to be very careful. If we were not sure, we needed to speak with people who were more expert at communicating. (Staff no. 10)

For a senior Muslim staff member, the language problem was important in the religious context: it is important to be careful with manuals or books that use religious words because if some symbols are put in the wrong place, it changes the meaning (Staff no. 11). Three Muslim staff members also confirmed that in sensitive contexts, the Centre staff who can speak the local language were chosen to work with people in the community (or otherwise lead them) because they were perceived as “the same” and will find it “easy to access people in the area” (Staff no. 5).

A related concern was choosing trustworthy sources. A social worker participant referred to the Director in this context:

The Director has explored who is trusted by people in this area. She found that firstly people here trusted in the religious leaders followed by public health officers while policemen and soldiers were mentioned in the last order. A trustworthy sender is very important because if people do not open their hearts to listen or accept us, we cannot help. (Staff no. 2)

A related communication concern is to reduce suspicion, as illustrated by an experienced staff member:

If focusing on government sector, a public health officer is the most reliable in

people’s view. Previously, we often went to the danger area for home visiting.

Our Director went everywhere, even the dangerous or prohibited areas. There was one place where the villagers closed the door, did not accept outsiders.

136

They asked whether she came with the soldiers. She said no, we are public health officers. So, they talked to us; however, just a short talk. After that she went to visit them regularly, talking to them until they began to trust, until they believed that we are not on the opposite side or someone they feel unsecure with. (Staff no. 3)

According to participants, using the same language as the villagers and visiting people in the community regularly is the key to reducing suspicion. However, gaining trust is not easy and takes time: “It needs heart. Some cases we had to visit several times until they accepted us. We needed to show our sincerity” (Staff no. 5). Also, given the crisis context, it is not surprising that safety was identified as a major concern when planning programmes. This comment was from an experienced staff member:

First, we have to think of our safety. Second, we have to think about the area’s needs, are they ready to meet with us. We have to think about timing. When the crisis happens, we have to contact our network such as community hospitals. If they need help, we will go and support. (Staff no. 8)

Putting her own safety first, followed by others’ needs, was an interesting point congruent with section 4.4, where staff reflected on the impact of the violence on their work.

In summary, most of the participants indicated that language is the first factor of concern for programme design and planning in an area with a number of home languages. Social context and audience characteristics also need to be identified before planning programmes. Choosing trustworthy senders, reducing suspicion, and personal safety were also mentioned. However, systematic planning for programme evaluation did not appear in interviewees’ discussion of the programme planning stage. The following section provides the participants’ reflections on the second stage in their mental health communication programme cycle – collateral design and testing.