2.2. ANALYSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

2.2.1 What are the reasons for the success or failure of communication for development?

The way you communicate developmental issues can make or break the project at hand. If your communication strategies are successful, the outcome can be dramatic. But again, there can be several reasons why a communication process might fail completely. This is because, development communication is often considered to be an “add-on to general planning and funding” and so necessary only for a short period of time. As such, the information does not reach the masses deep enough to change their behaviour and there are unrealistic expectations from the limited time allotted for effects [Bagsak in http://www.comminit. com/planningmodels/pmodels/planningmodels-55.html].

As Windahl, Signitzer and Olson [1992: 101] put it, one of the main reasons for the failure of some communication campaigns is that, in practice, they are generally unfolded in a linear model. It is only the participatory method that is based on a feedback system.

Furthermore, it is the nature of the sender/receiver relationship that is most crucial in any communication strategy. While campaigning, the sender cannot afford to ignore the needs, interests, values, and communication potential of the recipients. This might create distrust among the audience and they can refuse to attend workshops or even try to understand the message conveyed. In such cases, the campaign is bound to fail.

The shortcomings in a development communication strategy can also arise out of the differences in culture and level of education between the sender and the receiver of the message. The ways in which cultural traits and knowledge are transferred in traditional developing societies, differ immensely from the Western system of education. So, thoughtless introduction of Euro-American educational models and technologies cannot bridge the gap between “foreign cultural import and indigenous cultural potential” [Boeren and Epskamp, 1992: 8].

So, what are the reasons for the success of development communication? The answer lies simply in choosing the right strategy. But, as Anne Gregory [2000: 180] puts it: it is not the strategy but your tactics that might need to be improved upon. You need to ask such questions as: Do you really understand the target population? Do your messages have credibility? Do you have adequate resources? Is the programme too ambitious or perhaps not sufficiently ambitious?

Again, a clear understanding of certain terms [Windahl, Signitzer and Olson, 1992: 13-17] — often confused by the communication planner — can ascertain the success of a developmental campaign.

Receiver and target population: The former is the group for which the message is targeted, while the latter is the group whose behaviour and attitudes are to be influenced. The communicator needs to be carefully because, the two groups can become identical, a part of each other or even mutually exclusive, depending on the message that is communicated.

Effects and effectiveness/ consequences: A communication campaign always produces some ‘effect’ or the other. But, the results or consequences may be inadequate and so, not ‘effective’. Again, when a strategy is ‘effective’, it can bring about long-term ‘effects’ — whether intended or unintended. This brings us to the uses and gratifications theory, where the receiver takes in or uses only those effects that he thinks is right for him or gratifies him [Blumler and Katz, 1974: 118].

Feedback and feed-forward: The former is often confused with ‘effect’. ‘Feedback’ is actually the receiver’s reaction to the sender’s message. ‘Feed-forward’, on the other hand, is the information that the campaign planner gathers about the receiver before shaping the messages. The depth of this information is very important as it often determines the success or failure of a communications strategy.

But, as Rice and Atkin [1989:10; as quoted by Windahl, Signitzer and Olson, 1992: 102] say: “Campaign objectives and criteria for success should be reasonable; not only is it difficult to pass through all the individual’s information processing stages and to overcome constraints on resources, beliefs, and behaviour, but many public communication campaigns have typically set higher standards for success than the most successful commercial campaigns.” So, the planner should set realistic goals that are achievable.

A communication strategy can, on the other hand, face challenges with regard to social norms, measurement of different kinds of effects, long term or ‘delayed’ effects, indirect or unexpected effects, reaching ‘hard to reach’ and ‘hard to convince’ audiences [Bagsak in http://www.comminit.com/planningmodels/pmodels/planningmodels-55.html].

This brings us to one of the most famous articles on communications campaign by Hyman and Sheatsley, namely “Some Reasons Why Information Campaigns Fail” [1947:412]. In this article, the authors talk about this particular section of the American population that is absolutely impossible to reach. Because of their “selective exposure, selective perception and selective retention”, the receivers are immune to any kind of influence. Identifying the right strategy to reach such an audience is what ensures the success of a communication campaign.

However, there are five basic questions [Gregory, 2000: 182] that can tell you if a project is running successfully or not. By systematically working on these questions, one can make or break a program. They are:
# What are you trying to achieve?
# Who do you want to reach?
# What do you want to say?
# What are the most effective ways of getting the message across?
# How can success be measured?

Besides, one of the main reasons for the success or failure of development communication depends on how well the North understands the South. This is because more often than not the communication strategies are formulated by the developed Western world, for implementation in the under-developed or developing world. So, it is but natural that the former does not always have a clear understanding of the needs and desires of the latter.