Mapping Competencies for Communication for Development and Social Change: Appendix C-2: Training Opportunities - US & Europe

- from Mapping Competencies for Communication for Development and Social Change: Turning Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes Into Action

Appendix C-2: Training and Education Curricula and Programs in Communication for Development and Social Change: An Overview

A Presentation to the Conference by Jim Hunt, Consultant to the Rockefeller Foundation

Alfonso Gumucio Dagron, Rockefeller Foundation Consultant, and I have been asked this morning to talk about our research into what is being taught about communication for development and social change and where it is being taught.

This is a work in progress and we welcome your suggestions. We learned a lot yesterday and will throughout the conference. The questions we have are simple: Where is the good work going on, what approach to curriculum is being used and who is doing it? I'll give you an overview of what we're doing, then talk briefly about my focus areas - primarily the US and Europe. Alfonso will speak about Latin America, Asia and Africa.

First, the overview:

1. We are visiting and talking with educators and students in selected academic and non-academic centers involved with communication for development and social change around the world.
2. We are gathering information about the centers from phone calls and research.
3. We are listening carefully to decisions made in meetings like these about the competencies needed by communicators.
4. We will be helping to develop materials for use in training.
5. We will work with selected centers to develop courses, workshops, certificate programs and degree programs.

As we learned yesterday, people receive training and education at many levels in many ways. Academic institutions worldwide do this work, often in schools of health, agriculture, education, the environment or some other focused discipline as Dana Faulkner, The CHANGE Project, noted. Other programs are housed in departments of journalism, mass communication, telecommunications and other derivatives. A few openly declare themselves departments, even colleges, of communication for development and social change. Jan Servaes, Catholic University of Brussels, for example, heads one of the most well-known academic centers and calls it "Communication for Social Change." Nabil Dijani, American University of Beirut spoke about the cross-disciplinary approach used at the American University. Silvio Waisbord, Rutgers University, is leading his institution towards greater involvement in developmentcommunication efforts. A great deal of training, of course, is done by the UN, NGO's, some community-based organizations, and a small group of international consultants. Caby Versoza, The World Bank, for example, briefly mentioned the World Bank's distance learning initiative which works on both the "supply" and "demand" side to shift the focus towards capacity building. Thomas Tufte, University of Copenhagen talked about his Swedish-based distance learning program in development communication that is ready to expand. Hugues Kone, UNFPA Training Center, Cote D'Ivoire, talked about the short-term courses in population and communication issues and his efforts to upgrade and standardize training in Africa.

Community-based organizations also provide a blend of grass-roots practitioner and audience training which is intriguing, often based on community radio like those detailed in Making Waves or entertainment education like the work of Soul City in South Africa. The examples mentioned here yesterday, and others in which you all are involved, illustrate the diversity of options available at each stage of career development. As Rina Alcalay of the University of California at Davis noted, "there is something new everywhere."

The Communication Initiative, for example, lists over 100 academic programs, agencies and consultants involved in training. The site links more than 50 networks and organizations in development communication, from the African Council for Communication to World Neighbors. That list will become longer, and perhaps moreevaluative, as the result of an on-line survey that Warren Feek and his staff will conduct this spring. Many scholars belong to the International Communication Association and a look at even their committee structure illustrates the wide array of "communication" opportunities. An Internet search turns up almost 12,000 hits on development communication and about 800 for communication for social change. The newest edition of the Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication divides the field into four disciplines: Cross-cultural communication; intercultural communication, international communication; and development communication. Everett Rogers reports that in Latin America, for example, academic institutions enroll more communication students than the 2,000 US universities with departments of communication.

Amidst this diversity, Alfonso and I are finding there are centers around the world towards what we would consider education in communication for development and social change. Asia, especially the Philippines, is strong. Institutions like the Catholic University in Europe, for example, and Ohio University in the US, can contribute a great deal. In addition, programs which train community organizers or focus oncommunication effectiveness or start with a focus - say health communication - are doing good work.

We also are finding that the discussion that has surfaced here and will continue tends to define the way in which these efforts are evaluated. Rosa Maria Alfaro, of ACS Calandria, Peru, talked late yesterday about the "models" issue she has identified in the struggle she faces between academics and action. Around the world the discussion sets diffusionists and social marketers in one camp against participation advocates in theother. We are finding that the battle of paradigms that started 30 years ago with a critique of the development-as-modernization approach continues today.

Alfonso will talk about his visits and his view of this debate, but I have been finding that, in practice, students are offered the choice of paradigms - heavily influenced by their home country and institution. At some level, however, public and private dialogue, participation and a focus on the community have become important parts of the curriculum in a growing number of universities in the US and Europe. Students, like the ones I spoke with at Ohio University last week, say they and their cultures value anddemand it. That dialogue, as we know, is at the heart of Communication for Social Change. But many of the students also want to do good, no matter what country they come from. They want to help solve problems. And they illustrate another of the strains we face: how to blend individual and collective levels of change.

Our task is not simple. But our research so far shows it is needed. Perhaps we are working on a new "capability" paradigm that - as Denise Gray-Felder, VP, Rockefeller Foundation, noted yesterday - can help people in communities across the globe make the changes they want and help experts work their way out of a job.