Section 2: Community Dialogue and Action Process Matrices: Communication for Social Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process and Its Outcomes

Social Change Process Indicators

Community Dialogue and Action Process Matrices

Instructions

Assessment of the process of community dialogue and action can be conducted through direct observation, if the evaluator has enough time to spend in the community, or through focus-group discussions and interviews with key leaders. Direct observation should allow for a deeper understanding of the community dynamics regarding dialogue and action. But if the evaluator cannot be present to directly monitor all the dialogue and action process, it is recommended that he/she make notes whenever he/she is present in the community in order to obtain a better documentation of the community dynamics. (See below for matrices)

Before using the matrices, the evaluator should first carry out a community profile, which can be conducted through a series of group interviews in the community during the initial days of fieldwork as explained in Section 2, Community Definition. As a result of this process the evaluator should have a clear definition of the community, as well as the list of groups, leaders and problems, as defined by the community.

Two matrices have been designed — one for Community Dialogue and another for Collective Action, to record the extent to which the community has undertaken each of the dialogue and collective-action steps. A separate matrix should be filled out for each issue or problem that the community has addressed. The purpose is to document how far and how well the community has progressed toward resolving all of the problems that it had taken up, during a specified time period. It is important to note that some of the steps may have been skipped or may not have been adequately completed yet. The matrix will provide a single picture of the progress that a community has made on each problem.

Filling the Top of the Matrices

Use a different set of matrices (one for dialogue, another for action) for each problem identified by the community during the "community definition" analysis. Write the problem/issue being described in the matrix in the specific space provided for this purpose at the top left of each matrix.

Problem Code: Write the number of the problem being addressed and described in the matrix. This number will come from the list of problems identified by the community during the community profile. It may be the case that the community is dealing with more than one problem at a time and this code will help identify the information matrices related to each one of them and allow cross-referencing to other documents related to the same problem.

Start Date: Write the date that the dialogue and action processes starts (or started) in the community for that specific problem. It may be that the community has already started the dialogue/action process for a particular problem before the investigator/observer arrived in the community.

End Date: Write the date when the dialogue and the action processes ended for that specific problem. If the process is still ongoing, leave it blank.

Filling the Columns of the Matrices

The first column of each matrix contains the stages in the process of "community dialogue" and "collective action," respectively, as described in the Communication for Social Change Model. For the Community Dialogue Matrix only, use the codes provided at the bottom of this first column to identify the catalyst of the process for that specific problem. The other (13) columns have to be filled for each stage in the process as follows:

Occurrence, column (2): Mark if the specific stage occurred. It may be that for some cases, the community skips some of these stages. It may also be that the community process follows a different order. Make a note indicating if the stages were skipped and if the community went back to them later.

Change Agent, column (3): Write the name of the change agent (if any) that participated in each specific stage. Note whether the change agent comes from within or outside of the community.

Key Leaders, column (4): Record the number and names of key leaders involved in each stage.

Leader Identification, column (5): Write the identification number of the leaders involved in each stage. This information comes from the list of leaders prepared during the community-profile analysis.

Participants Count, column (6): Write the total number of community members that participated in each stage. Include both men and women.

Participant Gender, Men/Women, column (7): Write the total number of men and women that participated in each stage. This column will give the ratio of men to women participants, which may in fact be different for each stage and each type of problem being addressed.

Participant Groups, column (8): Record the names and total number of groups involved in each stage.

Group Identification, column (9): Write the identification number of the groups involved in each stage. This information comes from the list of groups prepared during the community profile analysis. This information will tell us whether or not the most affected groups are being involved in the different stages of the dialogue and action process.

Dialogue Context, column (10): Indicate for each stage, the context in which community members undertook any dialogue. Write the corresponding number from the bottom of the column that indicates the type of dialogue (0=none; 1=community meeting; 2=small groups; 3=sequential networking). Sequential networking is when one or more person goes house to house in a community so that dialogue takes place in a sequence of discussions with different people over time. Multiple codes may be used if several different types of dialogue occurred.

Disagreement/Conflict, column (11): At each stage in the process, indicate whether any disagreement or conflict arose. Use the codes at the bottom of the column to indicate the level of disagreement.

How Resolved, column (12): Use the codes at the bottom of the column to indicate the manner in which any disagreement or conflict was resolved at each stage in the process. If the conflict is still being resolved, simply write a question mark in this space. If a conflict exists but is not being dealt with, then use code 7 for avoidance. For other possible resolutions not included in the list, use the code for "other" and then specify how the conflict was resolved.

Decision Process, column (13): If a decision is made at any step in the process, indicate it by marking the number corresponding to the method used to make the decision. If no decision has been made (for example, a course of action has not been selected), then leave the column blank. If for some reason the process continues without any decision, then use code 1 for "none." If some type of voting process is used, then also note the letter of the type of vote that was taken.

Specific Outcome, column (14): For some stages of the dialogue and action process, the community may produce some specific outcomes/documents. For example, a document may result that contains a vision of the future and the list of objectives. Likewise, there may be documentation about the resources gathered by the community to deal with the problem during the stage in which organisations are mobilised. Write in this column whether this or other type of outcome exists for any stage and identify it with a specific reference to the actual document/outcome.

Constraints and Supports, boxes at the bottom: Use the two boxes below each matrix to describe any constraints or supports (such as, outside political pressure, lack of tools/equipment, building permits, access to credit, political support and donations from outside agencies) that are currently affecting or have affected the community's progress with each problem. Also, note how the community is dealing with these constraints or using provided support. How did the community react to them? What actions are planned for them? The back of the page may be used for any additional notes regarding each stage or the process overall.

Data Processing and Analysis: The Dynamics of Social Change

Each cell in the matrix can be treated as a variable for purposes of data analysis. The entry from each cell should be entered into a database under an appropriate variable name. The verbal (as opposed to numerical codes) entries, including the notes in the boxes corresponding to constraints and supports, can be entered as string variables in the same database. The "case" in the data set corresponds to a matrix for a specific community problem or issue. The case number is identical to the problem number listed in the top corner of the matrix. A separate variable should be used to code the name of the community for the study, especially if more than one community is being observed. A community may have several problem "cases" entered under its name. The dates and sequence of the data for each case (problem/issue) are very important, because one of the main purposes of collecting the data for these matrices is to examine the change over time in the way that communities use dialogue and collective action to solve problems.

For example, if a community undertakes dialogue/collective action to resolve three different problems over the course of one year, then the database constructed from the matrix sheets would provide data for three cases (problem cycles) for that community. Each case would have data from all the cells (row/column). Therefore, for the variable, participants, or number of people who select a course of action, there would be three entries, one for each dialogue/problem cycle, ordered sequentially by time. The date of each dialogue/problem cycle would also be entered as a variable. This would make it possible to graph the number of participants, by time, over the course of the year covered by the data collection. The graph would show to what extent the number of participants was increasing, decreasing or staying the same over the course of one year. If a variable is created for each problem type (water supply, AIDS, etc.), then it would be possible, for example, to examine trends in women's participation over time by type of problem.

Likewise, the percent of women participating could be created for each time period (dialogue/problem cycle) to see the trend in women's participation over time. If 10 such dialogue/problem cycles are entered over the course of five years then the resulting data set would provide a good description of changes over time (dynamics) in the nature of the process of dialogue, decision making, leadership, participation and outcomes (social change). This data and the corresponding graphs can be used in combination with the other information collected about each community to provide a comprehensive description of the communication and social-change process for each community.

Dynamics of Social Change: An Illustration

The following graph presents a hypothetical case of five community problems, which were undertaken by a community. The projects are ordered from 1 to 5 according to the order in time in which they were undertaken.

The lines show the percent of women who participated in the decisions at two points in the community dialogue process. The percentages used for the bottom line would be calculated by dividing the number of women (row 2, col. 7) by the total number of people participating (row 2, col. 6) for each of the five projects/problems undertaken. The graph shows that in the first project no women participated in the definition of the problem to be undertaken by the community, but 10 percent were involved in choosing the course of action (option) to solve the problem (top line). The graph indicates that women's participation in defining the problem gradually increased to around 8 or 10 percent over the course of the five projects. So, women's participation in bringing problems to the attention of the community increased slightly during the time represented by these five projects. On the other hand, when it comes to choosing which options to pursue to solve problems, women's participation increases dramatically, from just 10 percent for the first problem/ project to a majority of 60 percent on the last project. Was the last project one in which women are traditionally involved, or have women increased their general participation in this phase of community dialogue? An analysis of the data by type of problem would shed light on this question.

The community dialogue and collective-action matrices generate an overall data table of 16 rows by 14 columns, plus four string variables with textual information regarding constraints and supports (see the two boxes at the bottom of each matrix). This means 224 cells from both matrices (16 x 14) plus the text from the four boxes (constraints and supports). Some of the cells may be empty (not applicable or relevant for a particular project). The information from the data table can be entered into a computer database with variables corresponding to each of the 224 cells, plus the four boxes and identifying information for each case (e.g., community and problem codes). This is another way of saying that as a community goes through this process, it generates a considerable amount of data just about the process by which it undertakes a project.

If a larger programme includes a set of 20 communities or so, then the model and matrices would generate data for more than 240 variables in 20 cases (communities). Over time, as some of the communities undertake new projects, the number of dialogue/action cases per community would increase. Once all of the information from the cases generated by the 20 communities have been entered into a computer database, it would be possible to examine statistical outcomes such as: (a) the average percentage of women's participation in any particular step in the process for all 20 communities, and (b) the average participation of women during all the 16 steps in the dialogue/action process depicted by the IMCFSC. Similarly, it would be possible to calculate the percentage of steps where conflict occurred (in a community project), or to examine at which steps in the process conflict was more likely to erupt over all 20 communities being studied. Likewise, it may be possible to assess the most common way in which community conflicts were resolved (i.e., consensus, negotiation, etc.). And finally, as the graph above shows, it would be possible to analyse each community over time (say, five years) to see what kind of social change has taken place and at which point in the dialogue/action process. With a sufficient number of data points (cases) for each community, it would also be possible to calculate the rate and direction of social change over time using these two matrices.