Communication for social change - HIV/AIDS, social mobilisation, evaluation

Denise Gray-Felder presented the work of the new Communication for Social Change Consortium, which aims to build communication capacity and sustain change. Denise is CEO of the Consortium.

photo of Denise Gray-Felder presenting communication for social change

What is communication for social change?

The communication for social change approach encourages a process of public and private dialogue through which people define who they are, what they want and how they can get it. There is also an emphasis on improving the lives of those who are politically and economically marginalised, which is informed by principles of self-determination, equity, social justice and participation.

The approach was inspired by the challenge of sustaining change. Denise noted how she has too often heard about projects and initiatives that end when the funding stops.

In her presentation, Denise described how she realised that marketing principles could teach something to those working in development. Her mother’s loyalty to ‘Tide’ laundry detergent over many years could be traced back to the TV soap operas that were successfully used to advertise the product.

Denise also noted how she became aware of how people who live with poverty are too often held up as the problem in development and the media, and newspapers rarely present the experiences and opinions of the poor. Yet invariably people who live with poverty bring initiative and creativity to their situation. Communication for social change has an up-front emphasis on equity and participation, and recognises the need to amplify the voices of the poor.

Listen to Introducing Communication for Social Change (MP3 1.05 MB)

The methodology is currently being tried out in HIV and AIDS prevention work with adolescents in three rural communities in Zimbabwe. Initial signs are encouraging, though the work has yet to be fully evaluated.

The need for practical engagement and testing led the Rockefeller Foundation to separate the Consortium from the function of allocating funding. This means that the Consortium is able to focus on research, dialogue and developing case-studies. The Consortium will also measure the impact of work using the approach, and build adequate means of monitoring and evaluation.

There has been a deliberate attempt to develop ‘champions’ for the communication for social change approach throughout its years of development. This is particularly true among some of the larger institutions which invest a lot of money in communication, such as USAID.

The need to develop a curriculum and training for communicators is also recognised, so that the approach can be understood and effectively employed. Training is planned at three levels:

Alfonso Gumacio and Thomas Tufte from the University of Copenhagen have developed an anthology of materials to support the training and curriculum development. This consists of about 100 core materials drawn from a wider pool of around 1000 materials.

Listen to How the Communication for Social Change Consortium works (MP3 1.10 MB)

The Consortium has a commitment to build knowledge, to incubate new scholarship, ideas and innovations, and to make further attempts to apply the principles. Some forthcoming work with UNICEF East Africa will aim to develop programmes with a communication for social change emphasis, and to evaluate the impact of this work. Other possibilities include work with Stop TB and the World Bank, the World Health Organization (WHO) - whoever wants to join in partnership to develop and document this work.

The ultimate aim for the communication for social change approach is to strengthen what Denise calls ‘self-replicating communities’ which have the critical capacity to apply the same methods to next year’s issues and problems. This is best achieved by building on what’s already there. The people are too often seen as ‘in the way’ of development, when they are really the essence of development and should be at its centre.

One challenge for communication for social change work is knowing when a community or institution is in a state of ‘readiness’ for taking a communication for social change approach. Another question is what’s left behind by a successful communication for social change process.

Denise suggested a number of process indicators: leadership, equity of information access and use, collective sense of self-efficacy, a sense of owning the communication process and challenge, more social cohesion and changed social norms.

Changing social norms is important so that there is both public and private change. For example, in villages in Ghana a positive change would be considering it normal for girls to go to school and be educated.

Listen to Communication for social change in practice (MP3 1.09 MB)

Discussion: key points

It is difficult to support MA courses in developing countries In the case of the Theatre for Development course run in Zambia (linked to a UK institution), this has proved hard to sustain. Support from the British Council and DFID is also dwindling. Denise noted that NGOs now have more options to work at a number of levels but it is difficult to find the necessary supporting infrastructure.

The mass media can be used Denise emphasised community radio for its ability to give voice to local concerns. Radio can work as the first appropriate point of focus, and can then be linked into national outlets. Working with reporters is another way to develop capacity and promote public dialogue which can lead to action.

Working with the private sector could help This is an area that Denise thought had been unduly neglected up until now, although there have been some conversations with large media conglomerates. There is no information as yet about the financial impact of the communication for social change work. But private/public partnerships could also be explored, in order to turn the opportunities of information and communication technologies (ICTs) into social benefits. Putting pressure on both governments and companies could get them to work together.

Discussion: examples from the field

Neil Ford from UNICEF in East and Southern Africa shared some learning from HIV and AIDS communication work. He noted that behaviour change communication had some success in the case of immunisation, but proved inadequate in the more complex social question of HIV and AIDS. The realities of street children engaged in sex work means that health information makes little impact and is often irrelevant to their lives and priorities, and that it is necessary to use a comprehensive approach that deals with contextual and social factors.

Neil also gave the example of youth theatre work in Tanzania that allowed youth to define and explore their experiences and take their own action. Traditional ‘ngoma’ dances had been occasions for a lot of casual sex. But by promoting dialogue around the issues some of the risky behaviours were successfully changed.

Listen to Learning from HIV and AIDS communication (MP3 478 KB)

A similar example was recounted from Zimbabwe were economic constraints were driving youngsters into the hands of ‘sugar daddies’ making it very difficult for people to practice safer sex. In this case it was essential to tackle income issues as well as communication issues.

James Deane from PANOS noted that we were all still learning in this work, and that the situation is dynamic and changing, particularly where working with the media is concerned.

Discussion: conclusion

The discussion highlighted the political nature of communication for social change work. As with participatory communication over the last 10-15 years, there are issues about the legitimacy of those moving the work forward in the eyes of the communities involved. Who facilitates, catalyses and leads the change process, when ideally it should be internally led, are questions that remain.

The communication for social change agenda could potentially learn a great deal from the successes and failures of participatory communication. Experience shows that the power issues are complex, and participation has proved to be double-edged. What is purportedly local knowledge and initiative is often structured by the priorities of development interventions, despite best intentions.

Ultimately the communication process will continue in all its complexity, so it is vital to try and play a constructive role.