Part 2 of Unit 1, Unit 2 - In tro to Communication
What is development?
INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS DEVELOPMENT? For a time, many equated development with new roads and tall buildings. These were the observable signs of an increasing gross national product, the gauge of a nation’s wealth. It didn’t take long for them to realize that an increase in GNP didn’t exactly mean development.
That was in the 1960s. since then, many theories, many definitions and many measures of development have been forwarded. These theories, definitions, and measures have their own individual merits. From a development communication perspective, however, the true measure of development is man.
OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
define development;
describe the “Three Development De4cades”;
enumerate the conditions necessary for development as given by Dudley Seers; and
enumerate and describe the measures and indicators of development
A POEM ON DEVELOPMENT
As we look at all the roads,
Schools,
hospitals,
wells,
tractors,
that are appearing here and there
and all the fuss made about them,
we may wonder,
is this development?
If this is not, then what is?
A village gets a tractor and builds a well.
Many people rejoice,
here comes development,
The productive forces for expanding!
But someone says, development of people, not of things!
ten years of well digging,
Road building,
Tractor importing
Give no guarantee against
Ten following years of indolence,
corruption,
injustice and
stagnation.
Development, if any, is to be behind the well;
The way it was decided and built,
How credit was fought for,
In the discussion that went on
During its construction.
The tractor: its shiny exterior,
surrounded by smiling villagers
and illustrious potentates.
Does it represent
growing indigenous capacity for production and organization or
growing desire and ability to get what needs from
the Government or other agencies
with the least effort and
at the sacrifice of independent thought?
The tractor could represent many lies told
and as truths withheld.
To judge how much development a thing represents,
We have to look at
the people who bought the thing about, and how and why.
- G. Belkin
- Canadian Hunger Foundation Report
- From: ASIA FOCUS, Volume VIII, Number 1, First quarter,
- 1973, pp. 40-41
DEFINITIONS AND MEASURES
The first Development Decade
Much has been said, much has been written about development and many scholars feel that this much is enough. There is no longer any need to belabor it some more. However, it was only after the Second World War when people began applying the term “development” in the context of nations and societies. In fact, before John Maynard Keynes the term was more frequently applied in biology than in economics.
Among the first to employ it were economists from the victorious Allied countries, dons from Oxford and Harvard who, along with political scientists and strategists, were engaged by their respective governments to establish the foundation of the ost –war international economic order. Development was the desired goal or end-state for countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, al agriculture-based economies and post-colonial histories, some of which were ravaged by the war.
The term soon became a buzz word for diplomats, planners and policymakers. It was institutionalized as a fashionable adjunct to the newly-formed national and international agencies such a the United States Agency for International Development and the United Nations Development Programme. A surge of activity promoting development soon ensued internationally with the Western nations as the donors and countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as the beneficiaries. These focused on infrastructure and agricultural productivity. The 1960s became the First Development Decade.
There was no question about the so-called yardstick for development in the 1960s. The most accurate measure of development was the gross national product (GNP), the total money value of the goods and services produced by a country in a given year. Economists argued that was a direct correlation between development and the growth of the GNP.
In the 1960s, a country such as the Philippines whose GNP was increasing by five percent and above was undeniably on its way to development. It wa during this decade that the word underdeveloped was substituted by its more acceptable euphism, developing. Henceforth, underdeveloped countries in Asia, Africa, and South America became known as developing countries. It was also during this decade that international financial institutions such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank began investing heavily in development programs in the developing world.
During the First Development Decade, several feasibility studies which formed part of technical assistance grants for World Bank loans were conducted. Many of these studies concluded that it was as feasible to invest in human resource development or in education as in infrastructure in developing countries. In fact, it was projected be more profitable in the ling term.
Another enhancement was the involvement of multi-disciplinary terms of engineers, economists, and sociologists in these studies. It became quite apparent to the latter, particularly during filed visits, that in spite of recorded increases in GNP there seemed to be very little improvement among the poor. If the GNP was divided by the country’s total population, then the resulting number, an increasing per capita income, gave a misleading picture since the majority of the developing country’s population remained poor. Economists argued that, eventually, a trickle down effect would spread the benefits of economic development to every stratum of human society including the “poorest of the poor.”
In the international arena, the debate subsequently assumed a political flavor with the unavoidable comparison of the Western aid model of the development to the Chinese model, which became a communist showcase in Asia during the 1960s. The latter boasted of the equal distribution of wealth, participation, and agrarian reform, although in hindsight, the Chinese themselves began having secret misgivings about their model. These debates, however, sparked a serious rethinking of the use of the GNP as a single aggregate yardstick for development.
Towards the end of the 1960s, the development and underdevelopment dichotomy gave way to a three-way categorization. To distinguish the communist countries (or countries with centrally planned economies) from the developed or industrial-commercial countries, the latter became known as the First World and the former as the Second World. The developing countries from Asia, Africa, and South America made up the Third World.
The Second Development Decade
Thus, 1970s ushered in what the United Nations calls the second Development Decade with an obvious paradigm shift in perspective from the economic growth measured by the gross national product. The term began to assume a deeper meaning, the improvement of the quality of life of the individual. Man himself became the measure of development.
Foremost among the new development thinkers was a German named E.F. Schumacher and an Englishman named Dudley Seers. Schumacher, an economist by profession, was deeply influenced by Buddhist philosophy. His unique brand of Buddhist economics became the subject of a very influential book in the mid-1970s entitled Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mastered.
Seers, on the other hand, was the Director of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. Like Gandhi, he believed that development should provide the necessary conditions for development. “ The presence of these conditions determines whether a country is developed or not.” The following conditions should serve as indicators for development:
1. enough food, clothing, footwear, and shelter
2. meaningful employment
3. equality
4. education
Hence, the relevant questions to ask according to Seers are: Is the supply of food increasing? Is equality increasing? Are educational opportunities getting more and more available to everybody? If the answer to these questions are in the affirmative, then
“ there has been a period of development for the country concerned.”
Taking the cue from Seers, the Development Academy of the Philippines launched the Social Indicators Project in October 1973 to develop a comprehensive measure for development, a “national social accounting system” in the words of its project director, Mahar Mangahas. From a preliminary list of nine areas of concern, the project isolated 30 elements, each a measurable, quantitative indicator. The indeces are as follows:
1. Health and Nutrition
2. Education and Skills
3. Income and Consumption
§ Net beneficial product per capita
§ Proportion and number of families below the food poverty threshold
§ Proportion and number of families below the total poverty threshold
§ Ratio of mean income of richest quintile to mean income of poorest quintile
§ Rate of inflation of consumer prices
4. Employment
§ Unemployment rate of the totally unemployed, by occupation and educational attainment
§ Real wage rate index, skilled vs. unskilled workers, by occupation
5. Capita and Non-Human Resources
§ Reproductive capital stock
§ Arable land
§ Concentration ratio of agricultural land ownership
§ Forested land
§ Mineral reserves, by type of mineral
6. Housing, Utilities and Environment
§ Proportion of occupied dwelling units adequately served with water
§ Proportion of the population served by electricity at home
§ Index of housing adequacy
§ Proportion of household with 1.5 persons or less per home
§ Proportion of occupied dwelling units with toilets
§ Pollution index for Metro Manila
§ Proportion of river lengths polluted, by river, by degree of pollution
7. Public Safety and Justice
§ Crime incidence rate, by type of crime
§ Index of citizens’ perception of public safety and justice
§ Backlog of judicial cases
§ Admissions to penal institutions
§ Number confined in penal institutions
8. Social Mobility
§ Index of occupational mobility
§ Coefficient of openness of occupations, circulation mobility
§ Index of perceived social mobility
9. Political Values
§ Ratio of votes cast to registered voters
§ Ratio of registered voters to population aged 21 and over
§ Index of political mobility
§ Index of political participation
§ Index of political awareness
§ Index of freedom of political dissent
§ Index of political efficacy
The Third Development Decade
The 1980s became known as the Third Development Decade. By this time, widespread disillusionment on the slow pace of and frustrations in development work has made the use of the phrase superfluous. This period, however, was characterized by further refinements and focus.
The decade brought in a realignment of priorities among international funding institutions along the lines of Seers thought. From infrastructure, investments were channeled to agriculture, education, and health. Several landmark concerns were introduced. Among them are as follows:
Women in Development (WID). Concerns for the role of women in development became translated as valid components in almost all fields of development endeavor from the agriculture to population planning to rural credit. Years later, when the tendency was observed for the pendulum to swing extremely in favor of women, this agenda was repackaged into a more neutral set of concerns called “gender issues.” Today, almost all funding agencies, from international aid agencies such as the World Bank to bilateral agencies such as USAID, require a gender component in their projects.
Environment. The world environment conference in Stockholm in the late 1970 ushered in a serious concern for the environment in the development arena. In the past, development was synonymous to industrialization, and industrialization was anathema to the environment. Pollution and degradation had social and economic cost that largely undermined development efforts. Environmental impact assessments (EIA) are now primary prerequisites in development projects.
Social Dimensions. Much of the criticism on earlier development efforts was leveled on the apparent lack of concern for the negative social and cultural impacts that a development intervention would bring. For instance, building a dam to run turbines that would produce electricity or irrigate rice field would be desirable development project from the technical, economic and environmental points of view. Hydroelectric power is the cheapest source of electricity. It is also one of the cleanest, with little or no pollutants produced.
However, from the social and cultural points of view, building a dam can have such grave consequences. Two dams built in the 1970s may serve as cases in point: the Pantabangan Dam in Central Luzon and the Chico dam in the Cordilleras. In the case of the Pantabangan Dam, an entire town had to be inundated, literally wiped off from the face of the earth. In the Chico River Dam, sacred sites of indigenous peoples had to be submerged. This resulted in such a struggle that attracted worldwide attention and has become a case study for people’s repression.
If we are to compute the economic costs of such as struggle, we might arrive at the conclusion that the costs would far outweigh the benefits of such a facility. And indeed, this becomes a valid concern among the agencies that bankroll development. The Asian Development Bank, for one, has established a Social Dimensions Unit to look into the primary and higher order impacts of proposed development interventions to the social and cultural lives of affected communities. The Bank has published two innovative guidebooks on this subject. Likewise, the United States Agency for International Development has developed a procedure for social soundness analysis and has established it as a requirement for pipeline projects to be approved.
Indigenous Peoples. For so long, indigenous peoples have been neglected in the development agenda of Third World countries. Oftentimes, the spread of progress has led to the extinction of an entire ethnic culture or way of life. Development planners began to realize that, in many instances, struggle for cultural survival among indigenous peoples may be actually a struggle for ecological survival, i.e., against threats on biodiversity. This not surprising because to most indigenous peoples, distinction between cultural and biological diversity do not exist. Modernizing the way of life of cultural minorities will incur economic costs on our ecosystems. It thus becomes counter-productive. Again, ensuring the welfare of indigenous groups has becomes a consideration in the conduct of development undertakings.
Sustainable Development. Last but not the least is the concern for sustainable development. Sustainable development is the convergence of economic, social, and environment goals. This concern may be traced to the Third World’s experience in agricultural production or the so-called Green Revolution. In the early 1980s, it has become obvious that the gains in agricultural production cannot be sustained. The high-yielding variety technology required massive amounts of chemicals inputs. These severely stressed the soil and subsequently limited future produce. Recognizing these constraints, development planners began studying alternative production technologies guided by sustainability concerns. Sustainable agricultural was born in this manner, within an atmosphere of lively debate.
Of blind men and paradigms
INTRODUCTION
In the preceding chapter, we discussed the changes in development perspectives from the 1960’s to the 1980’s. We called these changes paradigm shifts. Here in this module, we shall again encounter the term paradigm as applied to the problems of development that we identified in the introductory module. We will also attempt to employ the problematique method describe in the second module to illustrate the major paradigms.
OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter, the student should be able to:
1. enumerate the four major paradigms through which the problem of underdevelopment is analyzed; and
2. determine the subordinate and superordinate influential factors of the underdevelopment problematique from each major paradigm.
PARADIGMS, PERSPECTIVE
It was six men of Indostan.
To learning much inclined.
Who went to see the elephants?
(Though all of them were blind,).
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
One of the most dreadful words that I had to wrestle with in graduate school was the word “paradigm”. What is a paradigm? Simply put, a paradigm is a way of explaining things. Ideally, a paradigm adopts a set of assumptions about nature (called epistemology), a unique pattern of interpretation, reasoning and theorizing. A paradigm may be described in a number of ways: a perspective; a way of looking at things; a school of thought; a particular model of reality adopted by a scientist of theoretician when conducting and inquiry.
For instance, the problems of underdevelopment may be analyzed from different points of view. Many of us at the UPLB College of Development Communication tend to look at these problems from the sociological perspective. An economics major would have it differently. So would a politician, an engineer, or even a priest. That is because we have chosen to adopt different paradigms or ways of interpreting reality.
In Chapter 2 we attempted to draw a map of the underdevelopment problematique and to trace its superordinate influential factors. Needles to say, the configurations in this map as well as the roots causes identified would depend to a large degree on the paradigm that we adopt.
There are four major paradigms used in analyzing underdevelopment, namely: the technological paradigm; the economic paradigm; the structural paradigm; and the values paradigm.
THE TECHNOLOGICAL PARADIGM
The first approached the elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl
“God bless me but the elephant
Is very like a wall!”
Many technologists and engineers believe that the primary cause of underdevelopment is the lack of technological know-how in the Third World. Their premise is based on the observation that Western nations are rich because they employ modern technology in agriculture, industry, transportation, telecommunications, and health. They argue that the Third World will solve most of its problems by adopting new technology. They are true believers of the concepts of “technical assistance” and “technology transfer” wherein the know-how of the West is transplanted, modified and practiced in the developing world. This is primary accomplished through the services of expatriate experts or consultants.
How then are the problems of underdevelopment solved? By addressing the root cause, technological backwardness.
Technology is the panacea of the problems associated with underdevelopment. This perspective has provided the main arguments for agencies such as the International Rice Research Agricultural Research (CGIAR) network as well as for the family planning programs of the 1960s and 1970s.
THE ECONOMIC PARADIGM
The second feeling of the tusk,
Cried:”Ho! What have we here,
So very round, and smooth and sharp?
To me ‘tis very clear,
This wonder of an elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The economic paradigm forwards that under-development is a function of economic policy. It follows then that the best instruments for development are sound monetary and fiscal policies. This view referred to as economic fundamentalism.
As Research Fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, I attended a seminar wherein an economist, who just completed a stint as a young professional of the Asian Development Bank, presented an economic model of what was then quite a novel topic, the newly-industrialization countries of South Asia or INCs. The paper gave a number of observations one which was that unsound economic policies has made the Philippines the “basket case” of Southeast Asia. This was, of course, in 1989. According to this expert, had the country pursued agro-industrialization and invested more on education it could have been an INC like Singapore and Taiwan. Such would be the argument of one who espouses the economic paradigm.
How then do we solve the underdevelopment problematique? By attacking the root cause with sound fiscal and monetary policies.
Of course, this argument is debatable. Anybody with even a little familiarity with the Philippine situation would certainly question the conclusion forwarded by young economist. So I challenged his observations regarding the Philippines after his presentation. It is a fact that the country invested heavily on education and even spearheaded agro-industrialization in the region. How could its problems been caused by poor economic planning when it had some of the best economists in the world at its service?
The speaker responded that he did not see this during his stint in Manila, which was during the Marcos era. What he did find, however, were absurd cases of graft and corruption such as “policemen stealing chickens from rural folk” Precisely. Graft and corruption may have been a major hindrance to economic prosperity. But where in his economic model was graft and corruption factored in? Agreeably, the Philippine government had some of the best economists in its employ then, textbook writers even. But it is also had some of the worst crooks, a situation which to my mind was the reason why Philippine economy was considered a basket case. No amount of fiscal or monetary policy could have saved it then.
Our economist friends would have a caveat for this in the Latin phrase, ceteris paribus, i.e., “All things being equal.” Given the complexity of poverty, one cannot just impose this conditionality.
Which brings us to our next paradigm.
THE STRUCTURAL PARADIGM
The third approached the anima,
And, happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake;
“I see,” quoth he, “the elephant
Is very like a snake!”
“An unjust, self-perpetuating social system is responsible for the social ills in this country.”
“Third World poverty is caused by the existing world economic order.”
“Inequality is exacerbated by the present world information and communication order.”
“Our environmental problems are not caused by biogeophysical factors but primarily by institutional factors.”
“In this age of information and communication, a new social dichotomy is emerging, one which is much more subtle but as exploitative as its predecessors – a new elite composed of the information rich and a new lower class composed of the information poor.”
These statements attribute societal problems to social structures, i.e. governments, institutions, the so-called establishment, the capitalistic economic system, the oligarchy, the monarchy, the elite, etc. this paradigm assumes that existing social orders dictating classes and castes, the ruler and the ruled, as well as the explicit and implicit laws that govern them have innate deficiencies and contradictions that breed inequality, poverty, corruption and eventually lead to its collapse.
How are the problems of underdevelopment solved? By changing the social order through revolution or devolution.
The concern for empowerment is rooted in this paradigm. In the third and last units of this course, you will be introduced to the four Es of development communication, one of which is empowerment. The assumption of this paradigm provides the rationale for empowerment to become a Devcom ideal.
THE VALUES PARADIGM
The fourth reached out his eager hand,
And fell about the knee:
“What must this wondrous beast is like,
Is very plain,” quoth he
“’Tis clear enough the elephant
Is very like a tree!”
Going back to the NIC example, explanations as to why certain countries in Southeast Asia become NICs are not limited to economics. There is the cultural explanation based on the observation that the newly industrialized countries have predominantly Chinese populations. Countries that are those with predominantly Malay populations such Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia.
This so-called cultural explanation was forwarded in the early 1990s. Later events would substantiate or belie this hypothesis depending on our sources of economic data.
However, upon hearing this explanation initially, we were tempted to categorize it as sociobiological argument, that development is correlated to the color of one’s skin, a racist view of development! However, a qualification accompanies this explanation: newly industrialized countries are not limited to those with predominantly Chinese populations such as Singapore and Taiwan. These include countries with cultures heavily influenced by Confucian teachings such as Korea and Thailand. Therefore, it is not a function of race but values.
At about the same time when this explanation was forwarded, a Senate sub-committee headed by former Sen. Leticia Ramos Shahani sponsored Senate Resolution Number 10. this resolution directed the Department of Education, Cultural and Sports to look into the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino national character to determine how these affect our development as a nation. This Senate resolution eventually spawned the Moral Regeneration Movement.
These are examples of arguments categorized under the values paradigm. According to this paradigm, the ills of our society may be traced to our values as a people.
To solve this underdevelopment problematique, we should change our values for the better and see to it that our children adopt and imbibe positive values associated with development.
A CASE OF BLIND MEN LEADING BLIND MEN?
The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most:
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of n elephant
Is very like a fan!”
You’ve just read the sixth stanza of the poem “The Six Men and the Elephant.” When you get to the next unit of this course, you’ll encounter an often-qouted maxim in communication, “Meaning are in people, not in worlds.” One of the best illustrations of this principle is John Godfrey Saxe’s poem about the six blind men from Indostan.
The sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within this scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the elephant
Is very like a rope!”
Now let us assume for a moment that the elephant under study is not an animal but this complex web of society problems called underdevelopment. In many respects, underdevelopment is as abstract to us an elephant is to a blind man. The perspective of the blind is limited to his other senses. In the case of the poem, their individual perceptions were determined by their respective angles of approach to the subject, guiding them to a specific body part and subsequently leading them to a conclusion about the animal’s appearance, i.e., a rope, a fan, a tree, a snake, a wall, or a spear.
These angles of approach may be likened to our points of view about underdevelopment. Since the concept itself cannot be seen in its totality, our tendency is to perceive it from our individual vantage points, that of our respective disciplines: engineering: economics: social sciences: religion. Thus we arrive at differing conclusions about underdevelopment and their cause, conclusions that upon comparison are as different as tree is to a snake or as a wall is to a spear.
Another communication concept that will be taught to you in the succeeding chapters is the principle of selectivity. This principle states, in short, that our vision of the world is limited by selective exposure, selective perception, and selective retention. There’s nothing wrong with this because it has been, is, and ever shall be part of human nature. In fact, this characteristic may have served us well in the development of our mental processes. However, problems do arise when we, for whatever reason, stubbornly stick to a point of view without due regard to the validity of other points of view. At best, such an attitude would result in blind men leading blind men. At worst, it would result in a useless and tiring protracted debate.
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And wall were in the wrong!
We would like to differ to this concluding line of the last stanza in Saxe’s poem. Why? A composite picture drawn from their individual descriptions could lead to a creature that resembles an elephant. Similarly, a convergence of points of views could result in a holistic, more accurate picture of under development. This so-called convergence of points of views will be treated lengthily in the next unit with the introduction of Kincaid’s Convergence Model of Communication.
At this point, however suffice it to say that development communication does not espouse any particular paradigm. In fact, at one phase or another, development communication practitioners have worked for and within each of these paradigms. Consider the Masagana 99 rural broadcasters and the family planning rural theaters of the 1970s; the alternative press of 1980s; the economic reporters of the 1990s; and the growing number of priest, nuns, pastors, and the other religious in the graduate program of the UPLB College of Development of Communication.
Whatever paradigm one adopts, there is an adequate development communication response.
What then is the development communication response? The response is to see to it that the right information is provided at the right time and at the right place. It is to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of educational delivery systems. Ti is to make sure that information flows within the social system are not encumbered and that these information flows, contribute to the development and this evolution of this system.
UNIT II
COMMUNICATION
The Process
Introduction
How does one define communication? A former colleague at the UPLB College of Development Communication had several pages of definitions of communication – typewritten, singlespaced! I have often wished I had photocopied that list of proof that definitions are not as important as knowing how communication takes place.
However, as development communication students, a basic understanding of the communication process is important to us to achieve the highest social good in its application. In this chapter, will be discussing communication, its models, and the elements and level of communication.
Objectives
By the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:
1. define communication;
2. explain the elements of communication;
3. enumerate the different levels of communication; and
4. compare and contrast the models of communication
DEFINING COMMUNICATION
In the past, you probably used the words “ sending” or “ receiving” when referring to communication. These days we prefer the word “ sharing”. The word “share” is important in any discussion or communication because it connotes something that that two or more people do together rather than something one person does or gives to someone else.
Based on this information, Kincaid’s and Schramm define communication as “ the process of sharing and the relationship of the participants in this process”. Of course, their definition is but one of many definitions of communication. As a student (or maybe even as a teacher), you probably already know that those in this field do not agree on a single definition of communication. How would you define communication?
Black and Bryant (1992) define communication as:
· The process by which individuals share meaning.
· The process by which an individuals (the communicator) transmits stimuli (usually verbal symbols) to modify the behavior of other individuals (communicate).
· Occurring whenever information is passed from one place to another.
· Not simply the verbal, explicit, and international transmission of message; it includes all those processes by which people influence one another.
· Occurring when person A communicates message B through channel C to person D with effect F. Each of these letters is an unknown to some extent, and the process can be solved for any one of them or any combination.
Dennis McQuail and Sven Windahl wrote one of the classic texts used in graduate communication classes. This was “Communication Models for the Study of Mass Communication” (1981). They offer three examples of definitions of communication. These definitions (as well as any others you will come across in the future) serve only to give us an idea of the diversity of meaning given to communication. McQuail and Windahl list the following definitions.
Communication
· Is the transmission of information, ideas, attitudes, or emotion from one person or group to another (or other) primarily through symbols (Theodorson and Theodorson, 1969).
· In the most general sense, occurs whenever one system, a source, influences another, the destination, by manipulation of alternative symbols, which can be transmitted over the channel connecting them (Osgood et al., 1957)
· May be defined as “social interaction through messages” (Gerbner, 1967)
· Is a process by which a source sends a message to a receiver by means of some channel to produce a response from the receiver, in accordance with the intention of the source (SRA Sourcebook, 1996).
So far, we have come across two key words in these definitions: process and information. According to Kincaid and Schramm:
· Not all communication has to be human communication. Animals communicate with animals, animals communicate with people, traffic lights communicate with drivers, machines communicate with other machines (e.g., your ATM with its mainframe)
· Not all participants in a communication process have to be present at the same time. This is why we still know what Christ, Confucius, and Plato taught, and why you can communicate through letters, posters and other media.
· Because of information and the ways with which man creates maintains, stores, retrieves, processes, and interprets it, communication can take place over large distances of space and time. Thus, people can communicate through audiotape, videotape, e-mail and regular mail.
· Not all communication takes place in words. The traffic enforcer’s whistle, the traffic light, and the map-all these communicate without the spoken or written word. Deaf-mutes communicate without words.
· Communication does not always require two or more participants. When a security guard hears a noise in the middle of the night, he calls out “Who’s there?” In calling out, he has created information. When no one responds, he realized that no one else is around. He has created and shared information with himself.
· Thinking is a form of communication. Kincaid and Schramm argue that thinking is actually talking to oneself. You may even say that it is a form of internal communication by which messages are framed and responded to in much the same way as two people engaged in communication with each other. Take, for example, the way you argue with yourself before making a move that could affect your career (e.g., making a stand for something not advocated by your office).
COMMUNICATION AS A PROCESS
When communication is looked upon as a process, it follows that it has elements that are continually changing, dynamic, and interacting, Furthermore, the events and relationships among its elements are seen as being:
· On-going
· Cyclic
· Ever-changing
· No beginning, no end
· Interdependent
· Interrelated
As a process, it has at least four attributes (SRA Sourcebook). It is:
Dynamic. Communication is ever changing, with no clear beginnings and endings.
Systemic. A system consists of a group of elements, which interact to influence each other and the system as a whole.
Symbolic interaction. Language is a form of symbols which people use in interacting with each other, in describing and classifying experiences. How we select these symbols and how we organize them will affect how others will interpret our messages.
Meaning is personally constructed. Everyone interprets things in different ways based on their perceptions and backgrounds. This is why we say that meanings are in people, not in words.
The emphasis on communication as a process is important because this reminds us of a paradigm shift from the earlier understanding of communication as a one-way, linear activity. The paradigm of communication as a process emphasizes its being a two-way, multi-dimensional activity.
ELEMENTS OF THE PROCESS
If we look at communication as a process, then we need to look at its elements.
The elements in Berlo’s model of communication (1961) are most quoted because his model is often used as the model of communication. Later, we will discuss other models. However we can use Berlo’s as a benchmark because its elements are those commonly employed. Let us look at each of these elements
Source
Source refers to a person or a group of person or a group of persons “with a purpose, reason, for engaging in communication” (Berlo, 1961). The source initiates the communication process.
In some models of communication, the source is also referred to as the encoder, sender, information source, or communicator.
Receiver
The receiver is the person or group of persons at the other end of the communication process. He/she is the target of communication (Berlo, 1961). The receiver listens when the source talks; the receiver reads what the source writes.
Message
A source must have something to transmit. His or her purpose is expressed in the form of a message. The message may be an idea, purpose, or intention that has been translated into a code or a systematic set of symbols (Berlo, 1961).
A message has three factors: message code, message content, and message treatment. Berlo defined message code as “any group of symbols that can be structured in a way that is meaningful to some person.” Thus, to Berlo, language is a code because it contains elements (sounds, letters, and words) that are arranged in meaningful orders (syntax).
Messages content, on the other hand, is the material in the message selected by the source to express his/her purpose. For example, in a research paper or report, the message content includes the writer’s assertions, information presented, and conclusions drawn. Like message code, message content has elements (e.g. information) that must be presented in some order (structure).
Berlo defined message treatment as “decisions that the communication source makes in selecting and arranging both code and content.” He further explained this by using the journalist as an example. When a journalist writes an article, he makes decisions on as the content he will include in his article, the angel of the story, and the words he will use.
Channel
Berlo asserted that no other word in communication theory has been so much used and abused as the word channel. He explained that the channel has three major meanings:
1. modes of encoding and decoding messages;
2. message vehicles; and
3. vehicle carriers.
Let me try to explain this using a radio broadcast example.
When you hear a community broadcaster receive a live telephone call from a farmer concerned about insects ruining his citrus trees, then the broadcaster’s and farmer’s speaking mechanisms are channels or modes of encoding and decoding messages.
Sound waves carry the message from the farmer to the broadcaster, from the broadcaster to you. The sound waves are also channels. This time, these channels are message-vehicles.
The sound waves are supported by air. The air served as another channel. Air is a vehicle-carrier.
Berlo explained that channels are determined by: availability, money, source preferences, which channels are received by the most people at the lowest cost, which channels have the most impact, which channels are the most adaptable to the kind of purpose of the source, and which channels are most adaptable to the content of the message.
Effect
The effect is the outcome of a communication or the response of the receiver to the message of the source. Often, it is the desired outcome of the source. Sometimes, the effect is not the desired outcome but it is an outcome nevertheless.
An effect can be overt (obvious or visible) or covert (non-observable). Overt responses include non-verbal cues such as nodding of the head or signing of a contact. Covert responses may not be observable but sometimes they are the most important most important. For example, a farmer may refuse to join other farmers who will participate in a government program to reforest part of their community. But, as an individual, he may appreciate the efforts done, resulting in change in his attitude towards similar future undertakings. Communication can result in motivation or persuasion. It may lead to awareness, interest, decision, or action. These are the traditional effects attributed to communication.
Feedback
In some models of communication, another element feedback is introduced. Berlo (1960) explained “when an individual communicates with himself, the messages he encodes are fed back into his system by his decoder.” This is feedback. In human communication, we constantly seek feedback. Thus, we check on our communication, on our messages, on what pour receivers understand of our message. A communication response is feedback to both source and receiver.
When you speak at a convention, the responses and reaction of your listeners give you an idea of how well they are receiving your message. Feedback could take the form of simple non-verbal cues or vocal, verbal responses to something you have done or said.
LEVELS OF COMMUNICATION
There are three levels of communication: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and mass communication.
Intrapersonal Communication
Intrapersonal communication involves communication with oneself. While this sounds odd, I’m sure you would agree with me that, at one time or another, we talk to ourselves before making major decisions.
Interpersonal Communication
Interpersonal communication is often defined as face-to-face communication. The problem with this definition is that it leads to questions such as “How many people can you communicate with interpersonally at one time?” And “Is theater a from of interpersonal communication? What about puppetry?” Talking over the telephone?” Thus, the definition of interpersonal communication has evolved to “person-to-person communication,” a definition that has been further expanded with new communication technologies that allow one person to communicate with a room full of people at one time but still on a person-to-person basis.
Mass Communication
Mass communication comprises the institutions and techniques by which specialized groups employ technological devices (press, radio, films, ect.) to disseminate symbolic content tolarge, heterogeneous, and widely dispersed audiences (Janowitz, 1968 and McQuail, 1981). Others have simplified mass communication to mean communicating with large groups of people at one time through the use of mass media such as the press, radio, and film.
COMMUNICATION MODELS
Why study communication models/ I like to think of models as simple descriptions or graphic forms of frozen reality. In other words, when we speak of communication models we are really “freezing the communication process, so we can study or explore it. McQuail and Windahl cite Deutsch (1966) who noted three main advantages in the use of models in the social sciences:
· Models organize by “ordering and relating systems to each other and by providing us with images of wholes that we might not otherwise perceive.” Thus a model can give a general picture of whole range of different circumstances (organizing function).
· Models can help explain complicated or ambiguous information (heuristic function).
· Models make it possible to predict outcomes and the flows of events (predictive function). At the least, they can provide a basis for “assigning probabilities to various alternative outcomes, and hence for formulating hypotheses in research” (McQuail and Windalh, 1981).
Before we go into the basic model of communication, a word from McQuail and Windalh:
…because aware of the possibilities of testing models against circumstances or cases and of adopting any given model to suit the chosen application. The models presented are not so sacred that they cannot b easily given a somewhat different shape and formulation. It should become apparent that anyone is in a position to construct his own models of a given aspect of the communication process…
Lasswell’s Model
Harold D. Lasswell was an American political scientist who wrote an article in 1948 that began with “A convenient way to describe an act of communication is to answer the following question:
“Who,
Say What,
In Which Channel,
To Whom,
With What Effects?”
Lasswell’s model was the first real attempt among social scientist to depict the communication process. However, it was later criticized because:
· The model took for granted that communication is mainly a persuasive process, that the communicator always has some intent to influence the receiver.
· It omits the elements of feedback.
Despite these limitations (which were really a reflection of the understanding of
communication during his time), this model remains a “convenient and comprehensive way of introducing people to the study of communication.”
Shannon and Weaver’s “Mathematical Model”
Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver were engineers working for the Bell Telephone Company when they developed a graphical model of communication that they could apply to their field. This model answered the questions: What kind of communication channel can bring through the maximum amount of signals? How much of transmitted signs will be destroyed by noise under way from transmitter to receiver? (McQuail and Windalh, 1981).
Despite the technical beginnings of this model, it is easy to see how students of communication can apply this human communication.
Message Signal Receive Signal Message
Receiver
Destination
Transmitter
Information
Noise
Source
Figure 2.1 Shannon and Weaver Model
What do you notice about this model of communication? It is a one-way, linear model that introduces the dysfunctional factor, noise. In the technical aspect, noise is everything that disrupts transmission of signal. In the human communication context, noise is anything that disrupts the smooth flow of communication.
Newcomb’s Model
So far, we have been looking at linear models or model that depict communication following a line from Source to Receiver. Interestingly enough, Newcomb’s model is triangular.
Fiske argues that Newcomb’s model is significant because it introduces the role of communication in a society or social relationship. To Newcomb, communication maintains equilibrium within social system. Thus ABX represents a system. If A and B have similar attitudes about X, then the system is in equilibrium. Should their attitudes differ, then there is no equilibrium and A and b must communicate to find a way to put their system in balance by arriving at similar attitudes once again.
X
A B
Fig. 2.2 Newcomb Model
Can you think of example where this model would apply in everyday life? I know a farmer (A) and his wife (B) who are thinking of raising pigs in their backyard (X). The wife was not too enthusiastic at first because she did not want the noise and the mess. They had many arguments and a few fights over this.
Then, the husband convinced his wife to talk to their extension agent and some friends who are backyard swine growers. After many months, she finally agreed to his plan and is happy with the traditional income their backyard piggery has brought them. Once more, their relationship is in a state of equilibrium.
Osgood and Schramm’s Model
The model of communication presented by Wilbur Schramm actually originated with Charles E. Osgood. Compare their model with the Shannon-Weaver model.
This model focuses on the main actors of the process-unlike the Shannon and Weaver model, which focuses on the channels that mediate between sender and receiver. Schramm and Osgood show the actors in communicating to be equals who perform the identical tasks of encoding, interpreting, and decoding messages. Note that the model does not fit the mold of traditional, one-way, linear communication models, which clearly fix and separate the roles of sender and receiver.
MESSAGE
ENCODER
INTERPRETER
DECODER
DECODER
INTERPRETER
ENCODER
MESSAGE
Fig 2.3 Osgood and Schramm Model
The reason why this model required a cyclical representation was explained by Schramm himself in 1954 (McQuail and Windahl, 1981):
“… it is misleading to think of the communication process as starting somewhere and ending somewhere. It is really endless. We are little switchboard centers handling and rerouting the great endless current of information…”
However, note that while this model is useful describing interpersonal communication, it does not explain communication situations where there is little or not feedback (e.g, mass communication). Furthermore, it seems to connote a feeling of equality in communication. Those of us who are experienced in this area know all too well that a communication situation is often unbalanced in terms of resources, power, and time.
Gerbner’s Model
George Gerbner introduced another linear model. Fiske (1982) explains that Gerbner’s model is a more complex version of Shannon and Weaver’s. It is unique in that it allows us to see the communication process as one that consists of “two alternating dimensions – the perceptual or receptive, and the communicating or means and control dimensions.”
The Gerbner model underwent several modifications but the version of this model that is shown below gives the elements of his model.
E
EVENT
M
E1
PERCEPT SELECTION CONSENT
AVAILABILITY
ACCESS
TO
CHANNELS
MEDIA
CONTROL
F C
S O O E
R N
M T
E
N
T
M2
STATEMENT ABOUT EVENT
SE1
PERCEPT
OR SELECTION CONSENT
AVAILABILITY
Fig. 2.4 Gerbner’s Model
What does this model demonstrate? Actually, it demonstrates a process whereby an event (E) takes place and his perceived by M (human or machine like a camera). M’s perception of the event is percept E1 – and here begins the perceptual dimension that starts the process. One percept E1 is converted into a signal about the event (SE), we have a message or statement about E.
Then, we move into the vertical dimensions of the model. The circle is divided into two: S (signal) and E (content) because content can be communicated in different ways, there are many potential Ss to choose from. The communicator then must make a crucial decision: how to find the best signal for the content. Fiske reminds us that SE is a “unified concept, not two separate areas brought together.” Thus, the choice of signal will affect the presentation of the content.
In the third stage of the mode, we move once more into the horizontal dimensions. What the receiver,M2, perceives is not an event (E). Rather, M2 receives a signal statement about the event (SE). Drawing upon his or her needs and concepts from his or her culture, M2 finds meaning in the message.
What do you notice about this model? Do you see the important role that Gerbner has assigned to perception in the communication of meaning and message?
Westley and Maclean’s Model
Fiske (1982) believes that the social need for information also underlies the Westley and Maclean model of communication. He looks upon the 1957model as an extension of Newcomb’s 1953 model. However, the westley and Maclean model was created with the mass media in mind. Thus, while it is rooted in Newcomb’s ABX model, it has a new element: C.
C represents the editorial-communicating function or the process one undergoes in deciding what and how to communicate something. Fiske uses the example of a news reporter to explain this model. Let’s use it too as it may be familiar to you. The reporter (A) sends his story to the newsroom or C. In the newsroom, editing takes place and the edited product is transmitted to his readers (B).
x3 A x1 C x2 B
Fig 2.5 Westley and Maclean Model
Just like in mass media, the reader (B) has lost touch with A and C. They have no direct relationship with each other. Can you see why this communication model is specific to mass communication?
Berlo’s Model
Perhaps the most well-known (certainly one of the most cited) model of communication is David Berlo’s model of communication. Like the other linear models, Berlo delineates the different actors of the communication process and the elements that mediate between them. His model began as the SMCR model (Source Message Channel Receiver).
When he added the element of effect, it become the SMCRE model of communication. However, in his book the Process of Communication (1961), he also discusses the element of feedback, leading some communicators to depict his model as follows:
S M C R E
FEEDBACK
Fig 2.6 Berlo Model
Dance’s Helical Model
McQuail and Windahl (1981) included Dance’s helical model of communication in their book because they looked at it as an interesting development of the Osgood and Schramm model.
Fig 2.7 Helical Model (refer to class discussion)
The Circular model of communication (e.g., Osgood and Schramm’s model) suggest that communication is circular, that it goes full circle to the same point from which is started. The helical model, however, portrays the communication process more accurately – in that it shows the communication process as moving.
Dance’s model shows the dynamism of communication process. It gives the notion that man, when communicating, is active, creative, and able to store information. McQuail and Windhal (1981) suggest that the model “may be used to illustrate information gaps and thesis that knowledge tends to create more knowledge, helping them to become successively better informed. Thus, his new lectures can build on that knowledge.
Kincaid’s Convergence Model
In 1981, D. Lawrence Kincaid brought forth his Convergence Model of Communication. As illustrated below, it shows a process of convergence through which participant’s share information so that mutual understanding is reached.
I 1
I 3
CAPRESS PARTICIPANT A
INTERPRET
INTERPRET PARTICIPANT B EXPRESS
B
A
c
I 4 AND THEN
AND THEN
I 2
Fig 2.8 Convergence Model
Kincaid’s model shows the communication process as one in which mutual understanding is reach through information that cuts through uncertainty. One mutual understanding is reached; there is mutual agreement. Based on that mutual agreement, collective action can be taken (Rogers and Kancaid, 1981).
SUMMARY
As a process, communication is ongoing, cyclic, ever changing, with no beginning and no end. The elements of the process are interdependent and interrelated. These elements are the source, message, receiver, channel, effect, and feedback. However, in the communication models designed to explain this process, not all these elements are present. In other models, these elements are given equivalents or called by other names (e.g., channel = transmitter or medium).
These models reflect trends in communication theory:
1. Communication is a process (Berlo,1961).
2. Communication is a transaction. When people communicate, they continually offer definitions of themselves to their perceived definitions of the others (Stewart, 1990); and
3. Communication is a convergence of mutual understanding. (Rogers and Kanciad, 1981).
Whichever trend you adhere to, it is clear that communication takes place on the three levels- intrapersonal, interpersonal, and mass communication. People cannot NOT communicate.
source: Intro to Dev Com by Ongkiko and Flor
INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS DEVELOPMENT? For a time, many equated development with new roads and tall buildings. These were the observable signs of an increasing gross national product, the gauge of a nation’s wealth. It didn’t take long for them to realize that an increase in GNP didn’t exactly mean development.
That was in the 1960s. since then, many theories, many definitions and many measures of development have been forwarded. These theories, definitions, and measures have their own individual merits. From a development communication perspective, however, the true measure of development is man.
OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
define development;
describe the “Three Development De4cades”;
enumerate the conditions necessary for development as given by Dudley Seers; and
enumerate and describe the measures and indicators of development
A POEM ON DEVELOPMENT
As we look at all the roads,
Schools,
hospitals,
wells,
tractors,
that are appearing here and there
and all the fuss made about them,
we may wonder,
is this development?
If this is not, then what is?
A village gets a tractor and builds a well.
Many people rejoice,
here comes development,
The productive forces for expanding!
But someone says, development of people, not of things!
ten years of well digging,
Road building,
Tractor importing
Give no guarantee against
Ten following years of indolence,
corruption,
injustice and
stagnation.
Development, if any, is to be behind the well;
The way it was decided and built,
How credit was fought for,
In the discussion that went on
During its construction.
The tractor: its shiny exterior,
surrounded by smiling villagers
and illustrious potentates.
Does it represent
growing indigenous capacity for production and organization or
growing desire and ability to get what needs from
the Government or other agencies
with the least effort and
at the sacrifice of independent thought?
The tractor could represent many lies told
and as truths withheld.
To judge how much development a thing represents,
We have to look at
the people who bought the thing about, and how and why.
- G. Belkin
- Canadian Hunger Foundation Report
- From: ASIA FOCUS, Volume VIII, Number 1, First quarter,
- 1973, pp. 40-41
DEFINITIONS AND MEASURES
The first Development Decade
Much has been said, much has been written about development and many scholars feel that this much is enough. There is no longer any need to belabor it some more. However, it was only after the Second World War when people began applying the term “development” in the context of nations and societies. In fact, before John Maynard Keynes the term was more frequently applied in biology than in economics.
Among the first to employ it were economists from the victorious Allied countries, dons from Oxford and Harvard who, along with political scientists and strategists, were engaged by their respective governments to establish the foundation of the ost –war international economic order. Development was the desired goal or end-state for countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, al agriculture-based economies and post-colonial histories, some of which were ravaged by the war.
The term soon became a buzz word for diplomats, planners and policymakers. It was institutionalized as a fashionable adjunct to the newly-formed national and international agencies such a the United States Agency for International Development and the United Nations Development Programme. A surge of activity promoting development soon ensued internationally with the Western nations as the donors and countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as the beneficiaries. These focused on infrastructure and agricultural productivity. The 1960s became the First Development Decade.
There was no question about the so-called yardstick for development in the 1960s. The most accurate measure of development was the gross national product (GNP), the total money value of the goods and services produced by a country in a given year. Economists argued that was a direct correlation between development and the growth of the GNP.
In the 1960s, a country such as the Philippines whose GNP was increasing by five percent and above was undeniably on its way to development. It wa during this decade that the word underdeveloped was substituted by its more acceptable euphism, developing. Henceforth, underdeveloped countries in Asia, Africa, and South America became known as developing countries. It was also during this decade that international financial institutions such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank began investing heavily in development programs in the developing world.
During the First Development Decade, several feasibility studies which formed part of technical assistance grants for World Bank loans were conducted. Many of these studies concluded that it was as feasible to invest in human resource development or in education as in infrastructure in developing countries. In fact, it was projected be more profitable in the ling term.
Another enhancement was the involvement of multi-disciplinary terms of engineers, economists, and sociologists in these studies. It became quite apparent to the latter, particularly during filed visits, that in spite of recorded increases in GNP there seemed to be very little improvement among the poor. If the GNP was divided by the country’s total population, then the resulting number, an increasing per capita income, gave a misleading picture since the majority of the developing country’s population remained poor. Economists argued that, eventually, a trickle down effect would spread the benefits of economic development to every stratum of human society including the “poorest of the poor.”
In the international arena, the debate subsequently assumed a political flavor with the unavoidable comparison of the Western aid model of the development to the Chinese model, which became a communist showcase in Asia during the 1960s. The latter boasted of the equal distribution of wealth, participation, and agrarian reform, although in hindsight, the Chinese themselves began having secret misgivings about their model. These debates, however, sparked a serious rethinking of the use of the GNP as a single aggregate yardstick for development.
Towards the end of the 1960s, the development and underdevelopment dichotomy gave way to a three-way categorization. To distinguish the communist countries (or countries with centrally planned economies) from the developed or industrial-commercial countries, the latter became known as the First World and the former as the Second World. The developing countries from Asia, Africa, and South America made up the Third World.
The Second Development Decade
Thus, 1970s ushered in what the United Nations calls the second Development Decade with an obvious paradigm shift in perspective from the economic growth measured by the gross national product. The term began to assume a deeper meaning, the improvement of the quality of life of the individual. Man himself became the measure of development.
Foremost among the new development thinkers was a German named E.F. Schumacher and an Englishman named Dudley Seers. Schumacher, an economist by profession, was deeply influenced by Buddhist philosophy. His unique brand of Buddhist economics became the subject of a very influential book in the mid-1970s entitled Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mastered.
Seers, on the other hand, was the Director of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. Like Gandhi, he believed that development should provide the necessary conditions for development. “ The presence of these conditions determines whether a country is developed or not.” The following conditions should serve as indicators for development:
1. enough food, clothing, footwear, and shelter
2. meaningful employment
3. equality
4. education
Hence, the relevant questions to ask according to Seers are: Is the supply of food increasing? Is equality increasing? Are educational opportunities getting more and more available to everybody? If the answer to these questions are in the affirmative, then
“ there has been a period of development for the country concerned.”
Taking the cue from Seers, the Development Academy of the Philippines launched the Social Indicators Project in October 1973 to develop a comprehensive measure for development, a “national social accounting system” in the words of its project director, Mahar Mangahas. From a preliminary list of nine areas of concern, the project isolated 30 elements, each a measurable, quantitative indicator. The indeces are as follows:
1. Health and Nutrition
2. Education and Skills
3. Income and Consumption
§ Net beneficial product per capita
§ Proportion and number of families below the food poverty threshold
§ Proportion and number of families below the total poverty threshold
§ Ratio of mean income of richest quintile to mean income of poorest quintile
§ Rate of inflation of consumer prices
4. Employment
§ Unemployment rate of the totally unemployed, by occupation and educational attainment
§ Real wage rate index, skilled vs. unskilled workers, by occupation
5. Capita and Non-Human Resources
§ Reproductive capital stock
§ Arable land
§ Concentration ratio of agricultural land ownership
§ Forested land
§ Mineral reserves, by type of mineral
6. Housing, Utilities and Environment
§ Proportion of occupied dwelling units adequately served with water
§ Proportion of the population served by electricity at home
§ Index of housing adequacy
§ Proportion of household with 1.5 persons or less per home
§ Proportion of occupied dwelling units with toilets
§ Pollution index for Metro Manila
§ Proportion of river lengths polluted, by river, by degree of pollution
7. Public Safety and Justice
§ Crime incidence rate, by type of crime
§ Index of citizens’ perception of public safety and justice
§ Backlog of judicial cases
§ Admissions to penal institutions
§ Number confined in penal institutions
8. Social Mobility
§ Index of occupational mobility
§ Coefficient of openness of occupations, circulation mobility
§ Index of perceived social mobility
9. Political Values
§ Ratio of votes cast to registered voters
§ Ratio of registered voters to population aged 21 and over
§ Index of political mobility
§ Index of political participation
§ Index of political awareness
§ Index of freedom of political dissent
§ Index of political efficacy
The Third Development Decade
The 1980s became known as the Third Development Decade. By this time, widespread disillusionment on the slow pace of and frustrations in development work has made the use of the phrase superfluous. This period, however, was characterized by further refinements and focus.
The decade brought in a realignment of priorities among international funding institutions along the lines of Seers thought. From infrastructure, investments were channeled to agriculture, education, and health. Several landmark concerns were introduced. Among them are as follows:
Women in Development (WID). Concerns for the role of women in development became translated as valid components in almost all fields of development endeavor from the agriculture to population planning to rural credit. Years later, when the tendency was observed for the pendulum to swing extremely in favor of women, this agenda was repackaged into a more neutral set of concerns called “gender issues.” Today, almost all funding agencies, from international aid agencies such as the World Bank to bilateral agencies such as USAID, require a gender component in their projects.
Environment. The world environment conference in Stockholm in the late 1970 ushered in a serious concern for the environment in the development arena. In the past, development was synonymous to industrialization, and industrialization was anathema to the environment. Pollution and degradation had social and economic cost that largely undermined development efforts. Environmental impact assessments (EIA) are now primary prerequisites in development projects.
Social Dimensions. Much of the criticism on earlier development efforts was leveled on the apparent lack of concern for the negative social and cultural impacts that a development intervention would bring. For instance, building a dam to run turbines that would produce electricity or irrigate rice field would be desirable development project from the technical, economic and environmental points of view. Hydroelectric power is the cheapest source of electricity. It is also one of the cleanest, with little or no pollutants produced.
However, from the social and cultural points of view, building a dam can have such grave consequences. Two dams built in the 1970s may serve as cases in point: the Pantabangan Dam in Central Luzon and the Chico dam in the Cordilleras. In the case of the Pantabangan Dam, an entire town had to be inundated, literally wiped off from the face of the earth. In the Chico River Dam, sacred sites of indigenous peoples had to be submerged. This resulted in such a struggle that attracted worldwide attention and has become a case study for people’s repression.
If we are to compute the economic costs of such as struggle, we might arrive at the conclusion that the costs would far outweigh the benefits of such a facility. And indeed, this becomes a valid concern among the agencies that bankroll development. The Asian Development Bank, for one, has established a Social Dimensions Unit to look into the primary and higher order impacts of proposed development interventions to the social and cultural lives of affected communities. The Bank has published two innovative guidebooks on this subject. Likewise, the United States Agency for International Development has developed a procedure for social soundness analysis and has established it as a requirement for pipeline projects to be approved.
Indigenous Peoples. For so long, indigenous peoples have been neglected in the development agenda of Third World countries. Oftentimes, the spread of progress has led to the extinction of an entire ethnic culture or way of life. Development planners began to realize that, in many instances, struggle for cultural survival among indigenous peoples may be actually a struggle for ecological survival, i.e., against threats on biodiversity. This not surprising because to most indigenous peoples, distinction between cultural and biological diversity do not exist. Modernizing the way of life of cultural minorities will incur economic costs on our ecosystems. It thus becomes counter-productive. Again, ensuring the welfare of indigenous groups has becomes a consideration in the conduct of development undertakings.
Sustainable Development. Last but not the least is the concern for sustainable development. Sustainable development is the convergence of economic, social, and environment goals. This concern may be traced to the Third World’s experience in agricultural production or the so-called Green Revolution. In the early 1980s, it has become obvious that the gains in agricultural production cannot be sustained. The high-yielding variety technology required massive amounts of chemicals inputs. These severely stressed the soil and subsequently limited future produce. Recognizing these constraints, development planners began studying alternative production technologies guided by sustainability concerns. Sustainable agricultural was born in this manner, within an atmosphere of lively debate.
Of blind men and paradigms
INTRODUCTION
In the preceding chapter, we discussed the changes in development perspectives from the 1960’s to the 1980’s. We called these changes paradigm shifts. Here in this module, we shall again encounter the term paradigm as applied to the problems of development that we identified in the introductory module. We will also attempt to employ the problematique method describe in the second module to illustrate the major paradigms.
OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter, the student should be able to:
1. enumerate the four major paradigms through which the problem of underdevelopment is analyzed; and
2. determine the subordinate and superordinate influential factors of the underdevelopment problematique from each major paradigm.
PARADIGMS, PERSPECTIVE
It was six men of Indostan.
To learning much inclined.
Who went to see the elephants?
(Though all of them were blind,).
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
One of the most dreadful words that I had to wrestle with in graduate school was the word “paradigm”. What is a paradigm? Simply put, a paradigm is a way of explaining things. Ideally, a paradigm adopts a set of assumptions about nature (called epistemology), a unique pattern of interpretation, reasoning and theorizing. A paradigm may be described in a number of ways: a perspective; a way of looking at things; a school of thought; a particular model of reality adopted by a scientist of theoretician when conducting and inquiry.
For instance, the problems of underdevelopment may be analyzed from different points of view. Many of us at the UPLB College of Development Communication tend to look at these problems from the sociological perspective. An economics major would have it differently. So would a politician, an engineer, or even a priest. That is because we have chosen to adopt different paradigms or ways of interpreting reality.
In Chapter 2 we attempted to draw a map of the underdevelopment problematique and to trace its superordinate influential factors. Needles to say, the configurations in this map as well as the roots causes identified would depend to a large degree on the paradigm that we adopt.
There are four major paradigms used in analyzing underdevelopment, namely: the technological paradigm; the economic paradigm; the structural paradigm; and the values paradigm.
THE TECHNOLOGICAL PARADIGM
The first approached the elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl
“God bless me but the elephant
Is very like a wall!”
Many technologists and engineers believe that the primary cause of underdevelopment is the lack of technological know-how in the Third World. Their premise is based on the observation that Western nations are rich because they employ modern technology in agriculture, industry, transportation, telecommunications, and health. They argue that the Third World will solve most of its problems by adopting new technology. They are true believers of the concepts of “technical assistance” and “technology transfer” wherein the know-how of the West is transplanted, modified and practiced in the developing world. This is primary accomplished through the services of expatriate experts or consultants.
How then are the problems of underdevelopment solved? By addressing the root cause, technological backwardness.
Technology is the panacea of the problems associated with underdevelopment. This perspective has provided the main arguments for agencies such as the International Rice Research Agricultural Research (CGIAR) network as well as for the family planning programs of the 1960s and 1970s.
THE ECONOMIC PARADIGM
The second feeling of the tusk,
Cried:”Ho! What have we here,
So very round, and smooth and sharp?
To me ‘tis very clear,
This wonder of an elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The economic paradigm forwards that under-development is a function of economic policy. It follows then that the best instruments for development are sound monetary and fiscal policies. This view referred to as economic fundamentalism.
As Research Fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, I attended a seminar wherein an economist, who just completed a stint as a young professional of the Asian Development Bank, presented an economic model of what was then quite a novel topic, the newly-industrialization countries of South Asia or INCs. The paper gave a number of observations one which was that unsound economic policies has made the Philippines the “basket case” of Southeast Asia. This was, of course, in 1989. According to this expert, had the country pursued agro-industrialization and invested more on education it could have been an INC like Singapore and Taiwan. Such would be the argument of one who espouses the economic paradigm.
How then do we solve the underdevelopment problematique? By attacking the root cause with sound fiscal and monetary policies.
Of course, this argument is debatable. Anybody with even a little familiarity with the Philippine situation would certainly question the conclusion forwarded by young economist. So I challenged his observations regarding the Philippines after his presentation. It is a fact that the country invested heavily on education and even spearheaded agro-industrialization in the region. How could its problems been caused by poor economic planning when it had some of the best economists in the world at its service?
The speaker responded that he did not see this during his stint in Manila, which was during the Marcos era. What he did find, however, were absurd cases of graft and corruption such as “policemen stealing chickens from rural folk” Precisely. Graft and corruption may have been a major hindrance to economic prosperity. But where in his economic model was graft and corruption factored in? Agreeably, the Philippine government had some of the best economists in its employ then, textbook writers even. But it is also had some of the worst crooks, a situation which to my mind was the reason why Philippine economy was considered a basket case. No amount of fiscal or monetary policy could have saved it then.
Our economist friends would have a caveat for this in the Latin phrase, ceteris paribus, i.e., “All things being equal.” Given the complexity of poverty, one cannot just impose this conditionality.
Which brings us to our next paradigm.
THE STRUCTURAL PARADIGM
The third approached the anima,
And, happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake;
“I see,” quoth he, “the elephant
Is very like a snake!”
“An unjust, self-perpetuating social system is responsible for the social ills in this country.”
“Third World poverty is caused by the existing world economic order.”
“Inequality is exacerbated by the present world information and communication order.”
“Our environmental problems are not caused by biogeophysical factors but primarily by institutional factors.”
“In this age of information and communication, a new social dichotomy is emerging, one which is much more subtle but as exploitative as its predecessors – a new elite composed of the information rich and a new lower class composed of the information poor.”
These statements attribute societal problems to social structures, i.e. governments, institutions, the so-called establishment, the capitalistic economic system, the oligarchy, the monarchy, the elite, etc. this paradigm assumes that existing social orders dictating classes and castes, the ruler and the ruled, as well as the explicit and implicit laws that govern them have innate deficiencies and contradictions that breed inequality, poverty, corruption and eventually lead to its collapse.
How are the problems of underdevelopment solved? By changing the social order through revolution or devolution.
The concern for empowerment is rooted in this paradigm. In the third and last units of this course, you will be introduced to the four Es of development communication, one of which is empowerment. The assumption of this paradigm provides the rationale for empowerment to become a Devcom ideal.
THE VALUES PARADIGM
The fourth reached out his eager hand,
And fell about the knee:
“What must this wondrous beast is like,
Is very plain,” quoth he
“’Tis clear enough the elephant
Is very like a tree!”
Going back to the NIC example, explanations as to why certain countries in Southeast Asia become NICs are not limited to economics. There is the cultural explanation based on the observation that the newly industrialized countries have predominantly Chinese populations. Countries that are those with predominantly Malay populations such Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia.
This so-called cultural explanation was forwarded in the early 1990s. Later events would substantiate or belie this hypothesis depending on our sources of economic data.
However, upon hearing this explanation initially, we were tempted to categorize it as sociobiological argument, that development is correlated to the color of one’s skin, a racist view of development! However, a qualification accompanies this explanation: newly industrialized countries are not limited to those with predominantly Chinese populations such as Singapore and Taiwan. These include countries with cultures heavily influenced by Confucian teachings such as Korea and Thailand. Therefore, it is not a function of race but values.
At about the same time when this explanation was forwarded, a Senate sub-committee headed by former Sen. Leticia Ramos Shahani sponsored Senate Resolution Number 10. this resolution directed the Department of Education, Cultural and Sports to look into the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino national character to determine how these affect our development as a nation. This Senate resolution eventually spawned the Moral Regeneration Movement.
These are examples of arguments categorized under the values paradigm. According to this paradigm, the ills of our society may be traced to our values as a people.
To solve this underdevelopment problematique, we should change our values for the better and see to it that our children adopt and imbibe positive values associated with development.
A CASE OF BLIND MEN LEADING BLIND MEN?
The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most:
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of n elephant
Is very like a fan!”
You’ve just read the sixth stanza of the poem “The Six Men and the Elephant.” When you get to the next unit of this course, you’ll encounter an often-qouted maxim in communication, “Meaning are in people, not in worlds.” One of the best illustrations of this principle is John Godfrey Saxe’s poem about the six blind men from Indostan.
The sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within this scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the elephant
Is very like a rope!”
Now let us assume for a moment that the elephant under study is not an animal but this complex web of society problems called underdevelopment. In many respects, underdevelopment is as abstract to us an elephant is to a blind man. The perspective of the blind is limited to his other senses. In the case of the poem, their individual perceptions were determined by their respective angles of approach to the subject, guiding them to a specific body part and subsequently leading them to a conclusion about the animal’s appearance, i.e., a rope, a fan, a tree, a snake, a wall, or a spear.
These angles of approach may be likened to our points of view about underdevelopment. Since the concept itself cannot be seen in its totality, our tendency is to perceive it from our individual vantage points, that of our respective disciplines: engineering: economics: social sciences: religion. Thus we arrive at differing conclusions about underdevelopment and their cause, conclusions that upon comparison are as different as tree is to a snake or as a wall is to a spear.
Another communication concept that will be taught to you in the succeeding chapters is the principle of selectivity. This principle states, in short, that our vision of the world is limited by selective exposure, selective perception, and selective retention. There’s nothing wrong with this because it has been, is, and ever shall be part of human nature. In fact, this characteristic may have served us well in the development of our mental processes. However, problems do arise when we, for whatever reason, stubbornly stick to a point of view without due regard to the validity of other points of view. At best, such an attitude would result in blind men leading blind men. At worst, it would result in a useless and tiring protracted debate.
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And wall were in the wrong!
We would like to differ to this concluding line of the last stanza in Saxe’s poem. Why? A composite picture drawn from their individual descriptions could lead to a creature that resembles an elephant. Similarly, a convergence of points of views could result in a holistic, more accurate picture of under development. This so-called convergence of points of views will be treated lengthily in the next unit with the introduction of Kincaid’s Convergence Model of Communication.
At this point, however suffice it to say that development communication does not espouse any particular paradigm. In fact, at one phase or another, development communication practitioners have worked for and within each of these paradigms. Consider the Masagana 99 rural broadcasters and the family planning rural theaters of the 1970s; the alternative press of 1980s; the economic reporters of the 1990s; and the growing number of priest, nuns, pastors, and the other religious in the graduate program of the UPLB College of Development of Communication.
Whatever paradigm one adopts, there is an adequate development communication response.
What then is the development communication response? The response is to see to it that the right information is provided at the right time and at the right place. It is to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of educational delivery systems. Ti is to make sure that information flows within the social system are not encumbered and that these information flows, contribute to the development and this evolution of this system.
UNIT II
COMMUNICATION
The Process
Introduction
How does one define communication? A former colleague at the UPLB College of Development Communication had several pages of definitions of communication – typewritten, singlespaced! I have often wished I had photocopied that list of proof that definitions are not as important as knowing how communication takes place.
However, as development communication students, a basic understanding of the communication process is important to us to achieve the highest social good in its application. In this chapter, will be discussing communication, its models, and the elements and level of communication.
Objectives
By the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:
1. define communication;
2. explain the elements of communication;
3. enumerate the different levels of communication; and
4. compare and contrast the models of communication
DEFINING COMMUNICATION
In the past, you probably used the words “ sending” or “ receiving” when referring to communication. These days we prefer the word “ sharing”. The word “share” is important in any discussion or communication because it connotes something that that two or more people do together rather than something one person does or gives to someone else.
Based on this information, Kincaid’s and Schramm define communication as “ the process of sharing and the relationship of the participants in this process”. Of course, their definition is but one of many definitions of communication. As a student (or maybe even as a teacher), you probably already know that those in this field do not agree on a single definition of communication. How would you define communication?
Black and Bryant (1992) define communication as:
· The process by which individuals share meaning.
· The process by which an individuals (the communicator) transmits stimuli (usually verbal symbols) to modify the behavior of other individuals (communicate).
· Occurring whenever information is passed from one place to another.
· Not simply the verbal, explicit, and international transmission of message; it includes all those processes by which people influence one another.
· Occurring when person A communicates message B through channel C to person D with effect F. Each of these letters is an unknown to some extent, and the process can be solved for any one of them or any combination.
Dennis McQuail and Sven Windahl wrote one of the classic texts used in graduate communication classes. This was “Communication Models for the Study of Mass Communication” (1981). They offer three examples of definitions of communication. These definitions (as well as any others you will come across in the future) serve only to give us an idea of the diversity of meaning given to communication. McQuail and Windahl list the following definitions.
Communication
· Is the transmission of information, ideas, attitudes, or emotion from one person or group to another (or other) primarily through symbols (Theodorson and Theodorson, 1969).
· In the most general sense, occurs whenever one system, a source, influences another, the destination, by manipulation of alternative symbols, which can be transmitted over the channel connecting them (Osgood et al., 1957)
· May be defined as “social interaction through messages” (Gerbner, 1967)
· Is a process by which a source sends a message to a receiver by means of some channel to produce a response from the receiver, in accordance with the intention of the source (SRA Sourcebook, 1996).
So far, we have come across two key words in these definitions: process and information. According to Kincaid and Schramm:
· Not all communication has to be human communication. Animals communicate with animals, animals communicate with people, traffic lights communicate with drivers, machines communicate with other machines (e.g., your ATM with its mainframe)
· Not all participants in a communication process have to be present at the same time. This is why we still know what Christ, Confucius, and Plato taught, and why you can communicate through letters, posters and other media.
· Because of information and the ways with which man creates maintains, stores, retrieves, processes, and interprets it, communication can take place over large distances of space and time. Thus, people can communicate through audiotape, videotape, e-mail and regular mail.
· Not all communication takes place in words. The traffic enforcer’s whistle, the traffic light, and the map-all these communicate without the spoken or written word. Deaf-mutes communicate without words.
· Communication does not always require two or more participants. When a security guard hears a noise in the middle of the night, he calls out “Who’s there?” In calling out, he has created information. When no one responds, he realized that no one else is around. He has created and shared information with himself.
· Thinking is a form of communication. Kincaid and Schramm argue that thinking is actually talking to oneself. You may even say that it is a form of internal communication by which messages are framed and responded to in much the same way as two people engaged in communication with each other. Take, for example, the way you argue with yourself before making a move that could affect your career (e.g., making a stand for something not advocated by your office).
COMMUNICATION AS A PROCESS
When communication is looked upon as a process, it follows that it has elements that are continually changing, dynamic, and interacting, Furthermore, the events and relationships among its elements are seen as being:
· On-going
· Cyclic
· Ever-changing
· No beginning, no end
· Interdependent
· Interrelated
As a process, it has at least four attributes (SRA Sourcebook). It is:
Dynamic. Communication is ever changing, with no clear beginnings and endings.
Systemic. A system consists of a group of elements, which interact to influence each other and the system as a whole.
Symbolic interaction. Language is a form of symbols which people use in interacting with each other, in describing and classifying experiences. How we select these symbols and how we organize them will affect how others will interpret our messages.
Meaning is personally constructed. Everyone interprets things in different ways based on their perceptions and backgrounds. This is why we say that meanings are in people, not in words.
The emphasis on communication as a process is important because this reminds us of a paradigm shift from the earlier understanding of communication as a one-way, linear activity. The paradigm of communication as a process emphasizes its being a two-way, multi-dimensional activity.
ELEMENTS OF THE PROCESS
If we look at communication as a process, then we need to look at its elements.
The elements in Berlo’s model of communication (1961) are most quoted because his model is often used as the model of communication. Later, we will discuss other models. However we can use Berlo’s as a benchmark because its elements are those commonly employed. Let us look at each of these elements
Source
Source refers to a person or a group of person or a group of persons “with a purpose, reason, for engaging in communication” (Berlo, 1961). The source initiates the communication process.
In some models of communication, the source is also referred to as the encoder, sender, information source, or communicator.
Receiver
The receiver is the person or group of persons at the other end of the communication process. He/she is the target of communication (Berlo, 1961). The receiver listens when the source talks; the receiver reads what the source writes.
Message
A source must have something to transmit. His or her purpose is expressed in the form of a message. The message may be an idea, purpose, or intention that has been translated into a code or a systematic set of symbols (Berlo, 1961).
A message has three factors: message code, message content, and message treatment. Berlo defined message code as “any group of symbols that can be structured in a way that is meaningful to some person.” Thus, to Berlo, language is a code because it contains elements (sounds, letters, and words) that are arranged in meaningful orders (syntax).
Messages content, on the other hand, is the material in the message selected by the source to express his/her purpose. For example, in a research paper or report, the message content includes the writer’s assertions, information presented, and conclusions drawn. Like message code, message content has elements (e.g. information) that must be presented in some order (structure).
Berlo defined message treatment as “decisions that the communication source makes in selecting and arranging both code and content.” He further explained this by using the journalist as an example. When a journalist writes an article, he makes decisions on as the content he will include in his article, the angel of the story, and the words he will use.
Channel
Berlo asserted that no other word in communication theory has been so much used and abused as the word channel. He explained that the channel has three major meanings:
1. modes of encoding and decoding messages;
2. message vehicles; and
3. vehicle carriers.
Let me try to explain this using a radio broadcast example.
When you hear a community broadcaster receive a live telephone call from a farmer concerned about insects ruining his citrus trees, then the broadcaster’s and farmer’s speaking mechanisms are channels or modes of encoding and decoding messages.
Sound waves carry the message from the farmer to the broadcaster, from the broadcaster to you. The sound waves are also channels. This time, these channels are message-vehicles.
The sound waves are supported by air. The air served as another channel. Air is a vehicle-carrier.
Berlo explained that channels are determined by: availability, money, source preferences, which channels are received by the most people at the lowest cost, which channels have the most impact, which channels are the most adaptable to the kind of purpose of the source, and which channels are most adaptable to the content of the message.
Effect
The effect is the outcome of a communication or the response of the receiver to the message of the source. Often, it is the desired outcome of the source. Sometimes, the effect is not the desired outcome but it is an outcome nevertheless.
An effect can be overt (obvious or visible) or covert (non-observable). Overt responses include non-verbal cues such as nodding of the head or signing of a contact. Covert responses may not be observable but sometimes they are the most important most important. For example, a farmer may refuse to join other farmers who will participate in a government program to reforest part of their community. But, as an individual, he may appreciate the efforts done, resulting in change in his attitude towards similar future undertakings. Communication can result in motivation or persuasion. It may lead to awareness, interest, decision, or action. These are the traditional effects attributed to communication.
Feedback
In some models of communication, another element feedback is introduced. Berlo (1960) explained “when an individual communicates with himself, the messages he encodes are fed back into his system by his decoder.” This is feedback. In human communication, we constantly seek feedback. Thus, we check on our communication, on our messages, on what pour receivers understand of our message. A communication response is feedback to both source and receiver.
When you speak at a convention, the responses and reaction of your listeners give you an idea of how well they are receiving your message. Feedback could take the form of simple non-verbal cues or vocal, verbal responses to something you have done or said.
LEVELS OF COMMUNICATION
There are three levels of communication: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and mass communication.
Intrapersonal Communication
Intrapersonal communication involves communication with oneself. While this sounds odd, I’m sure you would agree with me that, at one time or another, we talk to ourselves before making major decisions.
Interpersonal Communication
Interpersonal communication is often defined as face-to-face communication. The problem with this definition is that it leads to questions such as “How many people can you communicate with interpersonally at one time?” And “Is theater a from of interpersonal communication? What about puppetry?” Talking over the telephone?” Thus, the definition of interpersonal communication has evolved to “person-to-person communication,” a definition that has been further expanded with new communication technologies that allow one person to communicate with a room full of people at one time but still on a person-to-person basis.
Mass Communication
Mass communication comprises the institutions and techniques by which specialized groups employ technological devices (press, radio, films, ect.) to disseminate symbolic content tolarge, heterogeneous, and widely dispersed audiences (Janowitz, 1968 and McQuail, 1981). Others have simplified mass communication to mean communicating with large groups of people at one time through the use of mass media such as the press, radio, and film.
COMMUNICATION MODELS
Why study communication models/ I like to think of models as simple descriptions or graphic forms of frozen reality. In other words, when we speak of communication models we are really “freezing the communication process, so we can study or explore it. McQuail and Windahl cite Deutsch (1966) who noted three main advantages in the use of models in the social sciences:
· Models organize by “ordering and relating systems to each other and by providing us with images of wholes that we might not otherwise perceive.” Thus a model can give a general picture of whole range of different circumstances (organizing function).
· Models can help explain complicated or ambiguous information (heuristic function).
· Models make it possible to predict outcomes and the flows of events (predictive function). At the least, they can provide a basis for “assigning probabilities to various alternative outcomes, and hence for formulating hypotheses in research” (McQuail and Windalh, 1981).
Before we go into the basic model of communication, a word from McQuail and Windalh:
…because aware of the possibilities of testing models against circumstances or cases and of adopting any given model to suit the chosen application. The models presented are not so sacred that they cannot b easily given a somewhat different shape and formulation. It should become apparent that anyone is in a position to construct his own models of a given aspect of the communication process…
Lasswell’s Model
Harold D. Lasswell was an American political scientist who wrote an article in 1948 that began with “A convenient way to describe an act of communication is to answer the following question:
“Who,
Say What,
In Which Channel,
To Whom,
With What Effects?”
Lasswell’s model was the first real attempt among social scientist to depict the communication process. However, it was later criticized because:
· The model took for granted that communication is mainly a persuasive process, that the communicator always has some intent to influence the receiver.
· It omits the elements of feedback.
Despite these limitations (which were really a reflection of the understanding of
communication during his time), this model remains a “convenient and comprehensive way of introducing people to the study of communication.”
Shannon and Weaver’s “Mathematical Model”
Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver were engineers working for the Bell Telephone Company when they developed a graphical model of communication that they could apply to their field. This model answered the questions: What kind of communication channel can bring through the maximum amount of signals? How much of transmitted signs will be destroyed by noise under way from transmitter to receiver? (McQuail and Windalh, 1981).
Despite the technical beginnings of this model, it is easy to see how students of communication can apply this human communication.
Message Signal Receive Signal Message
Receiver
Destination
Transmitter
Information
Noise
Source
Figure 2.1 Shannon and Weaver Model
What do you notice about this model of communication? It is a one-way, linear model that introduces the dysfunctional factor, noise. In the technical aspect, noise is everything that disrupts transmission of signal. In the human communication context, noise is anything that disrupts the smooth flow of communication.
Newcomb’s Model
So far, we have been looking at linear models or model that depict communication following a line from Source to Receiver. Interestingly enough, Newcomb’s model is triangular.
Fiske argues that Newcomb’s model is significant because it introduces the role of communication in a society or social relationship. To Newcomb, communication maintains equilibrium within social system. Thus ABX represents a system. If A and B have similar attitudes about X, then the system is in equilibrium. Should their attitudes differ, then there is no equilibrium and A and b must communicate to find a way to put their system in balance by arriving at similar attitudes once again.
X
A B
Fig. 2.2 Newcomb Model
Can you think of example where this model would apply in everyday life? I know a farmer (A) and his wife (B) who are thinking of raising pigs in their backyard (X). The wife was not too enthusiastic at first because she did not want the noise and the mess. They had many arguments and a few fights over this.
Then, the husband convinced his wife to talk to their extension agent and some friends who are backyard swine growers. After many months, she finally agreed to his plan and is happy with the traditional income their backyard piggery has brought them. Once more, their relationship is in a state of equilibrium.
Osgood and Schramm’s Model
The model of communication presented by Wilbur Schramm actually originated with Charles E. Osgood. Compare their model with the Shannon-Weaver model.
This model focuses on the main actors of the process-unlike the Shannon and Weaver model, which focuses on the channels that mediate between sender and receiver. Schramm and Osgood show the actors in communicating to be equals who perform the identical tasks of encoding, interpreting, and decoding messages. Note that the model does not fit the mold of traditional, one-way, linear communication models, which clearly fix and separate the roles of sender and receiver.
MESSAGE
ENCODER
INTERPRETER
DECODER
DECODER
INTERPRETER
ENCODER
MESSAGE
Fig 2.3 Osgood and Schramm Model
The reason why this model required a cyclical representation was explained by Schramm himself in 1954 (McQuail and Windahl, 1981):
“… it is misleading to think of the communication process as starting somewhere and ending somewhere. It is really endless. We are little switchboard centers handling and rerouting the great endless current of information…”
However, note that while this model is useful describing interpersonal communication, it does not explain communication situations where there is little or not feedback (e.g, mass communication). Furthermore, it seems to connote a feeling of equality in communication. Those of us who are experienced in this area know all too well that a communication situation is often unbalanced in terms of resources, power, and time.
Gerbner’s Model
George Gerbner introduced another linear model. Fiske (1982) explains that Gerbner’s model is a more complex version of Shannon and Weaver’s. It is unique in that it allows us to see the communication process as one that consists of “two alternating dimensions – the perceptual or receptive, and the communicating or means and control dimensions.”
The Gerbner model underwent several modifications but the version of this model that is shown below gives the elements of his model.
E
EVENT
M
E1
PERCEPT SELECTION CONSENT
AVAILABILITY
ACCESS
TO
CHANNELS
MEDIA
CONTROL
F C
S O O E
R N
M T
E
N
T
M2
STATEMENT ABOUT EVENT
SE1
PERCEPT
OR SELECTION CONSENT
AVAILABILITY
Fig. 2.4 Gerbner’s Model
What does this model demonstrate? Actually, it demonstrates a process whereby an event (E) takes place and his perceived by M (human or machine like a camera). M’s perception of the event is percept E1 – and here begins the perceptual dimension that starts the process. One percept E1 is converted into a signal about the event (SE), we have a message or statement about E.
Then, we move into the vertical dimensions of the model. The circle is divided into two: S (signal) and E (content) because content can be communicated in different ways, there are many potential Ss to choose from. The communicator then must make a crucial decision: how to find the best signal for the content. Fiske reminds us that SE is a “unified concept, not two separate areas brought together.” Thus, the choice of signal will affect the presentation of the content.
In the third stage of the mode, we move once more into the horizontal dimensions. What the receiver,M2, perceives is not an event (E). Rather, M2 receives a signal statement about the event (SE). Drawing upon his or her needs and concepts from his or her culture, M2 finds meaning in the message.
What do you notice about this model? Do you see the important role that Gerbner has assigned to perception in the communication of meaning and message?
Westley and Maclean’s Model
Fiske (1982) believes that the social need for information also underlies the Westley and Maclean model of communication. He looks upon the 1957model as an extension of Newcomb’s 1953 model. However, the westley and Maclean model was created with the mass media in mind. Thus, while it is rooted in Newcomb’s ABX model, it has a new element: C.
C represents the editorial-communicating function or the process one undergoes in deciding what and how to communicate something. Fiske uses the example of a news reporter to explain this model. Let’s use it too as it may be familiar to you. The reporter (A) sends his story to the newsroom or C. In the newsroom, editing takes place and the edited product is transmitted to his readers (B).
x3 A x1 C x2 B
Fig 2.5 Westley and Maclean Model
Just like in mass media, the reader (B) has lost touch with A and C. They have no direct relationship with each other. Can you see why this communication model is specific to mass communication?
Berlo’s Model
Perhaps the most well-known (certainly one of the most cited) model of communication is David Berlo’s model of communication. Like the other linear models, Berlo delineates the different actors of the communication process and the elements that mediate between them. His model began as the SMCR model (Source Message Channel Receiver).
When he added the element of effect, it become the SMCRE model of communication. However, in his book the Process of Communication (1961), he also discusses the element of feedback, leading some communicators to depict his model as follows:
S M C R E
FEEDBACK
Fig 2.6 Berlo Model
Dance’s Helical Model
McQuail and Windahl (1981) included Dance’s helical model of communication in their book because they looked at it as an interesting development of the Osgood and Schramm model.
Fig 2.7 Helical Model (refer to class discussion)
The Circular model of communication (e.g., Osgood and Schramm’s model) suggest that communication is circular, that it goes full circle to the same point from which is started. The helical model, however, portrays the communication process more accurately – in that it shows the communication process as moving.
Dance’s model shows the dynamism of communication process. It gives the notion that man, when communicating, is active, creative, and able to store information. McQuail and Windhal (1981) suggest that the model “may be used to illustrate information gaps and thesis that knowledge tends to create more knowledge, helping them to become successively better informed. Thus, his new lectures can build on that knowledge.
Kincaid’s Convergence Model
In 1981, D. Lawrence Kincaid brought forth his Convergence Model of Communication. As illustrated below, it shows a process of convergence through which participant’s share information so that mutual understanding is reached.
I 1
I 3
CAPRESS PARTICIPANT A
INTERPRET
INTERPRET PARTICIPANT B EXPRESS
B
A
c
I 4 AND THEN
AND THEN
I 2
Fig 2.8 Convergence Model
Kincaid’s model shows the communication process as one in which mutual understanding is reach through information that cuts through uncertainty. One mutual understanding is reached; there is mutual agreement. Based on that mutual agreement, collective action can be taken (Rogers and Kancaid, 1981).
SUMMARY
As a process, communication is ongoing, cyclic, ever changing, with no beginning and no end. The elements of the process are interdependent and interrelated. These elements are the source, message, receiver, channel, effect, and feedback. However, in the communication models designed to explain this process, not all these elements are present. In other models, these elements are given equivalents or called by other names (e.g., channel = transmitter or medium).
These models reflect trends in communication theory:
1. Communication is a process (Berlo,1961).
2. Communication is a transaction. When people communicate, they continually offer definitions of themselves to their perceived definitions of the others (Stewart, 1990); and
3. Communication is a convergence of mutual understanding. (Rogers and Kanciad, 1981).
Whichever trend you adhere to, it is clear that communication takes place on the three levels- intrapersonal, interpersonal, and mass communication. People cannot NOT communicate.
source: Intro to Dev Com by Ongkiko and Flor
posted by Estrella E Taco Borja at
11:56 PM
3 Comments:
ma'am, can you please give us some pointers on which matters to focus on studying for midterms?
thank you.
By
hyacinth, at 6:05 PM
ma'am, this is hyacinth tagupa from devcom1 b.
can you please give us some pointers on which matters to focus on studying for midterms?
thank you.
By
hyacinth, at 6:06 PM
sorry shane, i wasn't able to reply... i hope it's ok. well, must be. you did well in the exam... congrats
By
Estrella E Taco Borja, at 2:13 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home