Section 1: Communication as Dialogue: Communication for Social Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process and Its Outcomes

Section One: An Integrated Model of Communication for Social Change

Communication as Dialogue

Theories are not right or wrong, only appropriate or inappropriate given the circumstances and nature of the phenomenon to which they are applied. For example, the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1993), the health-belief model (Becker, 1974), and the stages of change model (Prochaska, et al., 1992) may all work quite well for communication projects designed to persuade individuals to reduce unsaturated fat in their diet, quit smoking and drinking, and practice safer sex, especially in situations where external constraints (social or physical) do not prevent or discourage individuals from taking action by themselves. Even in these situations, however, models of individual change reach their own, inherent limitations. For example, when the research shows that social influence and peer pressure are the major determinants of smoking and drinking, then finding the best rational arguments against smoking and drinking are simply not sufficient. Collective, institutional changes, policies and laws — such as the smoke-free workplace and a maximum, legal blood-alcohol level — are also necessary.

In other situations, the prevention of a disease may only be possible by means of collective action. The risk of getting dengue fever can be reduced by eliminating all of the standing water sources (e.g., tin cans, old tires, etc.) around one's house. This individual behavior is ineffective, however, if none of one's neighbors within the range of flight of mosquitoes eliminates the standing water around their houses as well. If everyone does not do it, what is the point of anyone doing it? The response must be collective. Some type of community dialogue and collective, cooperative action is required to solve the problem. Even in cases where individual change is extremely difficult to achieve, such as the reduction of HIV/AIDS by means of safer sex practices, it is still fruitful to adopt a social-change strategy in addition to an individual one. The individual-change strategy may simply not be sufficient by itself.

Individual-change strategies also have a habit of succeeding with one segment of a population (often the "haves") while failing with another (the "have-nots"). The unintended outcome may be an increase in the pre-existing gap or inequality in the population due to unequal access to education, mass media, employment and health care (Tichenor et al., 1970; Robinson and Levy, 1986). In addition to failing to change as expected and then lagging further behind, these same individuals may even be blamed for a program's failure. Personal or individual blame is to some extent a natural consequence of doing individual, psychological research on problems that are fundamentally social problems (Caplan and Nelson, 1973, in Rogers and Kincaid, 1981, p. 40).

The communication literature also contains criticisms of the dominant, individual approach to communication theory (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981). Early models of communication were linear, one-way processes from sources to receivers (Shannon and Weaver, 1949; Berlo, 1960), usually for the purpose of having an effect on individual receivers. When feedback was included in these models, it was treated as "knowledge of effects." Even though the diffusion model identified a "diffusion effect" in the adoption "S" curve due to interpersonal communication with satisfied adopters, communication was still assumed to serve primarily a function of information dissemination and persuasion (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). During the 1970s, criticism of one-way, top-down, persuasive models of communication was well articulated by Latin American scholars such as Beltrán, (1974, 1976, 1980) and Díaz Bordenave (1976).

As a consequence of this growing dissatisfaction, emphasis began to shift from audience members as individual objects to audiences as social groups, and from the action of sources on receivers to the relationships among participants (Schramm, 1973), to mutual understanding (Kincaid, 1979, 1988), and to convergence within communication networks (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981; Kincaid 1993; Rogers, 1995). In spite of this initial effort to shift the paradigm from action to transaction, by the end of the 1990s it became apparent that transmission and persuasive models still continue to dominate the design of strategic communication, at least in the field of health (Piotrow, et al., 1997).

Communication practitioners, however, have not let go of this important issue (Gray-Felder and Deane, 1999; Gumucio, 2001; UNAIDS, 2001). The call for a model of development communication based on dialogue versus monologue, horizontal versus vertical information sharing, equitable participation, local ownership, empowerment, and social versus individual change continues to be heard and, if anything, has grown stronger with the rapid decentralisation of authority and increased access to new communication technology that occurred during the 1990s (Beltrán, 1993a, 1993b; Díaz Bordenave, 1994, 1998; Fox and Coe, 1998).

What would an alternative paradigm look like? At least two key features are necessary. It needs to be based on a model of communication that describes a process of dialogue, information sharing, mutual understanding and agreement, and collective action. Second, it needs a model of social change based on community dialogue and collective action that clearly specifies social outcomes as well as individual outcomes. The convergence/network model of communication meets the first requirement (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981). It represents communication as a process of horizontal sharing between two or more participants within social networks. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to present this model in detail, but a brief description is necessary to understand how community dialogue fits into a model of social change (see Figure 1).

The first noticeable feature of the model is that information is shared or exchanged between two or more individuals rather that transmitted from one to the other. All participants act on the same information; none are passive receivers of information. The information can be created by the action of any participant, or it may originate from a third source such as television or radio, or a person or institution not directly participating such as church, school, nongovernmental agency and so forth. The second feature of the model is that it stresses the important role of the perception and interpretation of participants, and thus draws upon the principles of semiotics and the hermeneutics (Ricoeur, 1981), which treats understanding in terms of a dialogue or ongoing cultural conversation.

The third feature of the model is that it represents a horizontal, symmetrical relationship among two or more participants (A, B,...n) that is created by sharing information. The outcomes of information processing by the participants are social — mutual understanding, agreement and collective action (see the central column of the model), as well as individual — perceiving, interpreting, understanding and believing. And finally, the model implies a continuous, cyclical process as participants take turns creating information to share with one another and then interpreting and reinterpreting its meaning until a sufficient degree of mutual understanding and agreement has been reached for collective action to take place.

"Information" is preferred over the term "message" to allow for both verbal and nonverbal information, unintended as well as intended information. For example, if women suddenly show up at a community meeting for the first time, this action by itself conveys information that can be stronger than all of the verbal comments made about "allowing women to participate."

Each participant perceives and arrives at her/his own unique interpretation, understanding and beliefs (defined as the validity of one's interpretation) about information that is shared. Once reached, each person's understanding and beliefs can then be expressed to others. In the diagram, talking (self-expression) is one type of action that follows from, and is based on, each person's own understanding and beliefs. Any action creates new information, which potentially can be interpreted by the other participants. For instance, this means walking out of a meeting is also a form of information that can be interpreted. In a dialogue, a process of turn taking occurs as each participant seeks to clarify what others believe and understand as well as one's own understanding and beliefs. And that turn taking constitutes a minimal form of collective action: joint action in the form of two or more persons engaging in dialogue. But dialogue must mean more than just endless turn taking. The underlying assumption of dialogue is that all participants are willing to listen and change not just one of the parties. Communities that have a long history of conflict may not be able to engage even in this minimal form of collective action — talking to one another.

This turn taking (conversation, dialogue) constitutes a feedback process for each participant which, if effective, leads to a "series of diminishing mistakes — a dwindling series of under-and-over corrections converging on a goal" (Deutsch, 1963, in Rogers and Kincaid, 1981, p. 62). The common experience of "ah...so that's what you mean," indicates a process in which participants gradually converge toward a greater degree of mutual understanding and agreement (shared beliefs). The initial, relatively unique understanding and beliefs of each individual gradually become more similar and share more in common with those of others. Convergence does not imply perfect agreement, only the direction of movement.

The inherent properties of this process suggest that over time most groups will converge toward a state of greater internal uniformity, also referred to as "local culture" (Kincaid, 1988, 1993). The convergence theory is valid in part because of the important roles played by boundaries. Within the boundaries created by the dialogue itself, convergence occurs because those who do not see an issue the same way nor agree with other participants tend to stop participating in the dialogue and then "drop out" of the group. Simply leaving a group (moving outside the boundaries created by the dialogue) automatically ensures greater uniformity among those who remain within the group. In communities, this process of divergence describes the formation of factions. The existence of factions/subgroups within a group (culture) implies two simultaneous processes: convergence among members within each bounded subgroup and divergence between subgroups over time. Boundaries determine who is included and who is excluded within a dialogue. Boundaries can be determined by observation and self-report, and by mapping the social networks within a community. Splitting communities into factions with different points of view reduces the overall social cohesion of a community and hence its capacity to solve mutual problems through collective action. If severe, it can bring cooperative action among groups within a community to a halt.

Ironically, dialogue itself is one of the primary means of overcoming such divisions. Effective dialogue occurs (1) when participants with differing points of view listen to one another, as indicated by paraphrasing the other's point of view to the other's satisfaction, (2) when each one acknowledges the conditions under which the other's point of view can be accepted as valid, and (3) when each one acknowledges the overlap or similarity of both points of view (Rapoport, 1967, as derived from Rogers' client-centered therapy, 1951). But sometimes dialogue can lead to disagreement and divergence, especially when the dialogue makes it clear each individual's true interests and values are in conflict. The model depicted in Figure 1 does not show the nature of the relationships among the participants, nor does it say anything about the role of emotion, conflict and group motivation. Other models are needed to add this level of complexity. The social-change model described below considers these missing elements.

The convergence model of communication implies symmetry in the relationship of participants and equity of information sharing (action). Real groups and communities are sometimes far from this ideal. Power relationships substantially affect the communication process. Power may be exercised by means of authority (threat or use of positive and negative sanctions), influence (persuasiveness of participants), pre-existing social norms or all three. So, power and conflict represent another means for overcoming differences and opposition within a group. But even in cases where a community leader or outsider coerces recalcitrant individuals and subgroups to cooperate in a project, some minimal level of mutual understanding and agreement is still required for them to comply and engage in collective action. Negotiation represents a third means of overcoming opposition and conflict. Leaders of opposing factions can propose trade-offs and agree to compromises in order to obtain sufficient mutual agreement for collective action to proceed. For example, the subgroup within a village that wants to build latrines rather than new wells can agree to cooperate with building the wells first if the other subgroups agree to help with latrines later and if some of the wells are located close to their houses. Third-party arbitration or mediation provides another alternative to conflict if dialogue and negotiation fail.

In summary, some initial amount of communication within a community or group is required to identify areas of agreement and disagreement among those participating. When different points of view and beliefs arise (divergence), further communication is required to reduce the level of diversity (convergence) to the point where there is a sufficient level of mutual understanding and agreement to engage in collective action and solve mutual problems. The method used to reach consensus is usually determined by leaders within the community. The communication for social-change model describes a process by which leaders guide community members through dialogue and collective action in order to resolve mutual problems for themselves.