Role of Development Communication in Fostering Social Change:

Evidence from Lesotho

Sergio Carciotto and Mulugeta F. Dinbabo

Institute for Social Development, University of the Western Cape,Cape Town, South Africa

E-mail: mdinbabo@uwc.ac.za, or sergio@scalabrini.org.za

KEYWORDS Participation. Efficacy. HIV/AIDS. Conscientisation. Collective-Action. Education-Entertainment.Empowerment.

ABSTRACT A number of programmes have been implemented in the field of development communication with thespecific aim of promoting social change among communities. Series of studies have also illustrated the positive effects ofEntertainment-Education (EE) interventions on individuals’ behavioural change. In line with the theory and conceptualframework of the Integrated Model of Communication for Social Change (IMCSC), this research empirically exploredhow development communication programmes can foster collective action amongst community members in Lesothousing media to promote social transformation and individual change. Both quantitative and qualitative research methodsof enquiry were employed throughout the research. The results of the study reveal that firstly, development communicationinitiatives are able to foster collective forms of action by increasing the level of self-efficacy amongst the audience.Secondly, participatory development communication with an educational aim allows people to identify problems and tostrategise and mobilise resources for collective action.

INTRODUCTION

Development communication is a “two-waycommunication systems that enable dialogue andallow communities to speak out, express theiraspirations and concerns and participate in thedecisions that relate to their development”(McCall 2011: 7). It has played a fundamentalrole within the discourse around different devel-opment practices, and a variety of programmesbased on the use of media have been implementedworldwide in the field of agriculture, literacy andHIV/AIDS prevention (Shefner-Rogers et al.1998; Brown and Singhal 1999; Papa et al. 2000;Tufte 2001, 2002).

A series of studies illustrate the positive ef-fects of development communication interven-tions such as entertainment-education (EE)programmes broadcasted on TV and radio, withregard to individual behaviour change (Singhalet al. 1993; Obregon and Waisbord 2012; Rasakand Adesina 2011). Scholars (Singhal et al. 1993;Shefner-Rogers et al. 1998; Rasak and Adesina2011; Obregon and Waisbord 2012) have alsoexamined the role of development communica-tion in fostering social change.

A critical review of the literature around theissue of development communication shows thatstrategies of communication based exclusivelyon individual behaviour change, such asbehaviour change communication (BCC) are not

able, alone, to produce social and structuralchange if they are not combined with the analy-sis of social structure, local norms and interper-sonal networks. Against this background this re-search is based on a case study of Sesotho Me-dia and Development (SMD), a non-governmen-tal organisation that use media to promote socialchange. SMD conducts facilitated post-screen-ing discussions around Lesotho and operates withthe following objectives: to increase awarenessand knowledge about HIV/AIDS and issues suchas treatment, gender, culture, discrimination andstigmatisation amongst the target groups; toemphasise the importance of reaching the youth,support group members and prison inmates; tocreate an enabling environment wherein the pub-lic can speak openly and in a non-discriminatoryway about the HIV virus and/or their own statusand to encourage individuals and communitiesto take action based on informed decision withregard to HIV/AIDS prevention, positive living,and support for others.

The purpose of this research was to determinehow the Integrated Model of Communication forSocial Change is applicable to the communica-tion for development programmes implementedby SMD. In general, it seeks to answer the fol-lowing research question: How can developmentcommunication programmes implemented inLesotho by SMD initiate and foster collectiveaction among community members in Maseru

© Kamla-Raj 2013 J Communication, 4(2): 65-70 (2013)

and the Berea District, including Maseru Cen-tral, Leribe and Mafeteng prisons? In order tomeasure the outcomes of development commu-nication interventions run by SMD and to de-scribe how “community dialogue and collectiveaction can work together to produce socialchange’’ Figueroa et al. (2002) designed a modelnamed the Integrated Model of Communicationfor Social Change (IMCSC) which was appliedto the case study.

The Integrated Model of communication forSocial Change (IMCSC) is the result of a com-bined approach to development communication,which includes “individual behavioural outcomesand social-change outcomes” (Figueroa et al.2002: 3). The main assumption behind it is thatparticipation and community engagement are thecore elements of every communication processand can lead to collective action. This model isinspired by the concept of dialogical action de-veloped by the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire(1972) and by a people-centred body of theoriesthat define communication as a two-way partici-patory process, based on dialogue. Through dia-logue, media and communication can empowerindividuals and communities and initiate a criti-cal process of analysis and understanding thatcan lead to individual and structural change.

The model is designed to overcome the limi-tations of one-way individual behaviour changestrategies and its main assumption is that socialchange requires more than a shift in individuals’behaviours but rather a collective effort to pro-duce results that are more effective. The modeldraws from a convergence/network model ofcommunication (Kincaid 2000, 2002; Rogers1976; Rogers and Kincaid 1981), which de-scribes communication as a process of dialogueand interaction between individuals that leads tocollective action. It places a strong emphasis onthe role of social networks, norms and interper-sonal communication to determine forms of col-lective action and structural change. The IMCSCis aimed at explaining how community dialogueand collective action can produce social change.

According to the IMCSC the process thatleads to collective action through communitydialogue is initiated by a catalyst (that is, massmedia, change agent, policies or internal stimu-lus) which triggers discussion among audiences.Once the discussion is initiated, participants un-dergo through a series of different stages: firstlyan assessment phase which includes: identify-

ing the problem and the relevant key stakehold-ers to deal with it together with a common visionfor the future; secondly a phase of planning thatincludes setting objectives, options of action andfinally an action plan. In essence, the informa-tion produced by media might acts as a catalystof the process. The identified problem is conse-quently discussed among community memberswho, after a process of attaining mutual under-standing, decide collectively on how to tackle acertain social issue. This process is based mainlyon community dialogue and collective action andis intended to promote participation and fosterpeople’s empowerment.

Entertainment-education programmes (Brownand Singhal 1996; Singhal et al. 1998; Rogersand Singhal 2002) are an example of how differ-ent media (that is, TV, radio, cinema and the-atre) can make people interact and debate on aparticular social issue. Once the dialogue is ini-tiated, audiences start receiving critical informa-tion and become more aware of the problemsaffecting their communities. This process of criti-cal social learning is comprised of a series ofsteps and alternates moments of agreement withmoments of conflict and disagreement until a fi-nal consensus is reached by community mem-bers. Once the problem is identified and possiblesolutions become clearer, an action plan is draftedand roles and responsibilities are assigned to dif-ferent individuals. This is a fundamental stepbecause it leads to mobilisation and ultimatelyto forms of collective action. The concept ofcollective self-efficacy becomes central in thediscourse around social change, together withdialogue and participation.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

This research employed a mix methodologyof secondary data analysis, quantitative and quali-tative data collection to understand issues involv-ing collective self-efficacy. A purposefully se-lected 16 people were interviewed. In addition,a self-administered questionnaire was designedand was distributed to a sample of 52 respon-dents, to measure, exclusively, the level of col-lective self-efficacy, as a main outcome of theprocess of dialogue and social learning betweenaudience and a facilitator, as per described bythe IMCSC. The choice of a selective quantita-tive analysis of collective self-efficacy, as an in-dependent variable, was made with the intent to

SERGIO CARCIOTTO AND MULUGETA F. DINBABO66

understand how the development communicationprogrammes, implemented in Lesotho by SMD,initiate and foster collective action. The researchundertook focus group interviews with twogroups of people in the case study area, that is,the SMD management team and members of dif-ferent support groups in the Berea District. Par-ticipants’ observations have been made and meet-ings at different levels were also conducted.These meetings enabled the researchers to un-derstand the different views, experiences andperspectives of the participants towards howdevelopment communication and dialogue couldfoster collective action among communities.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The analysis of quantitative data and the in-terpretation of item analysis firstly revealed thatrespondents presented a high level of collectiveself-efficacy, described as the group’s sharedbelief in its ability to perform a given task(Bandura 1986). A high level of collective self-efficacy was measured on all its three dimensions:a) the perceived efficacy to take action as a group;b) the perceived capability of other communitymembers; c) the perceived efficacy to solve prob-lems as a group. Figueroa et al. (2002) provideda series of quantitative tools to measure the levelof collective self-efficacy, of which some wereapplied to this study.

Respondents had an option, on the Sesothoversion of the questionnaire, to choose from threedifferent answers on a Likert-type scale. Becauseanswers on the questionnaire were not presentedon an ordinal scale, they subsequently had to bere-coded by using an ordinal scale from “1’’ to“3’’ in order to be easily analysed. Positive an-swers where therefore coded with a value of “3’’on the scale, negative with a value of “1’’, whilethose that did not fall within these categories werecoded as “2’’. According to this coding sys-tem,”1’’ represents a low level of self-efficacy,“2’’ a neutral level of self-efficacy and “3’’ a highlevel of self-efficacy. In general, in this research,to facilitate data analysis, each response categoryon the Likert-type scale was successively as-signed an integer value.

The first two sets of questions in the ques-tionnaire (see Tables 1 and 2,) aimed at measur-ing, respectively, the level of self-efficacy per-ceived amongst support group members and thelevel of self-efficacy or confidence in working

constructively with other community members.The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) for the firsttwo sets of questions (Q1 to Q11) was .8 >α ≥.7, indicating an “acceptable’’ and reliable coef-ficient of internal consistency. This means thatrespondents placed enough confidence in theskills and knowledge of their support group andthat their community looks cohesive and able tomobilise resources and implement the actionplanned.

Table 1: Cronbach’s Alpha Value (ααααα) for the first set ofthree questions

N %

Cases Valid 51 98.1Excludeda 1 1.9

Total 52 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedureReliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha N of items

.719 3

Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Value (ααααα) for the second setof eight questionsCase Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 51 98.1Excluded 1 1.9

Total 52 100.0

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha N of items

.778 8

The last set of questions (see Table 3) wasintended to establish a causal relationship be-tween the perceived level of collective self-effi-cacy and the effect of SMD methodology andtraining programmes. In this case, the test of re-liability produced a Cronbach’s alpha coefficientof .7 > α ≥ .6, which is generally considered“questionable’’ and not fully reliable. Therefore,a further elaboration on the available data wasconducted primarily to better understand the re-lationship between documentary screening andlevel of self-efficacy.

A t-test run on the last set of three questions(Q12, Q13, and Q15) scored a (µ), close to apositive value of “3’’, indicating a high value ofself-efficacy (see Table 4). This means that re-spondents generally agreed that screening

ROLE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION IN FOSTERING SOCIAL CHANGE 67

Table 3: Cronbach’s Alpha Value (ααααα) for the third setof three questionsCase Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 52 100.0Excluded 0 0

Total 52 100.0

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha N of items

.633 3

Table 4: A t-test run with the last set of three questionsOne-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean

meanSCREEN2 52 2.9551 .19835 .02751

One Sample Test

Test Values=0

t df Sig. Mean 95%(2-tailed) difference Confidence…

Lower

meanSCREEN2 107.437 51 .000 2.95513 2.8999

programmes and post-screening discussionshelped support group members and health carevillagers to discuss issues related to HIV/Aids,to initiate dialogue and to take action as a group.This fact reinforces the theory that developmentcommunication interventions developed by SMDcan increase the overall level of self-efficacy andultimately lead to collective forms of action.

Quantitative data analysis allows validatingthe Integrated Model of Communication for So-cial Change with particular regard to the mea-suring of collective self-efficacy as an outcomeof the process of social change. The process isgenerally initiated by a catalyst, which in thiscase, is represented by SMD. After getting ex-posed to development communication initiatives,members of the community are engaged in a dis-cussion which allows them to recognize prob-lems, express individual and group interests andlastly draft an action plan which lead to collec-tive action. Furthermore, data analysis revealedhow development communication interventions,in the form of documentary screenings and post-screening discussions, can contribute to the in-crease of the level of collective self-efficacyamongst the researched sample group. These dataprovides encouraging findings for the presentstudy.

The qualitative analysis strongly support theresults mentioned above. Thematic patterns wereisolated to facilitate content analysis. From thediscussion with the interviewees, it appears thatdocumentary screenings and discussions with theaudience are able to provoke a reaction that canlead to some form of “action’’ or changes of sta-tus. These interventions are based on a theoreti-cal framework that places a strong emphasis onthe dialogical and participated process betweenthe audience and the facilitator. Moreoverparasocial interactions allow the audience torelate to documentary characters and follow theirbehaviour patterns. This is the case of inter-viewees who declared to have openly disclosedtheir HIV/AIDS status to their family or com-munity because inspired by characters’ actions.

Findings reveal that post-screening discus-sions could help audiences to become more awareof the issues affecting their community and inidentifying new needs. This process of sociallearning is initiated by a ‘’dialogical communi-cation’’ as described by Freire (1972). The fa-cilitator, or the person who leads the discussion,has the responsibility to assist the audience inidentifying needs and designing a “plan of ac-tion’’ or a “way forward’’. Post screening dis-cussions have the power to bring people togetherand to make them more united and keen to co-operate to achieve common goals. The thematicanalysis of semi-structured interviews and focusgroup discussions showed that development com-munication activities run in prisons by SMD havethe capacity to stimulate collective action and tounite people. Some of the inmates interviewedreported that post-screening discussions highlycontributed to the formation of support groupswithin the prison system.

Finally the results show that developmentcommunication in the form of facilitated post-

SERGIO CARCIOTTO AND MULUGETA F. DINBABO68

screening discussion can increase the level ofself-efficacy of a group as well as the level oftrust or confidence amongst the members. Thisgenerates the idea that “together’’ people canachieve better results and advocate for theirneeds. In this regard, it can be argued that SMDhave played a vital role in using developmentcommunication programmes to inform and edu-cate people and encourage them to take action.Films are also used as a powerful tool that en-ables different audiences to reflect on their chal-lenges, identify problems and finally design aplan of action. This is, in essence, the meaningof the “learning cycle’’, underlining the method-ology of SMD, which is divided in the followingsteps: a) watching the film; b) reflecting on thefilm; c) looking at the bigger picture; and d) tak-ing action.

CONCLUSION

The concept of development communicationhas evolved throughout the years, moving froma top-down linear process aimed at shifting indi-viduals’ attitudes and behaviours to a bottom-upand participatory process, seeking consensus andownership at grassroots level. For this reason,the role of communication applied to the field ofdevelopment cannot be limited to the mere trans-fer of knowledge from a sender to a receiver, butit has to be conceived as a two-way practice.Communication should be able to lead audiencesof poor and disadvantaged people to criticallyunderstand the causes of their problems and iden-tify solutions to be achieved with a collectiveeffort. Therefore, passive and linear forms ofcommunication are outdated and ineffective andneed to be replaced by more integrated forms ofcommunication, forms that are able to “con-scientise’’ and educate communities on problemsolving.

This research was aimed at assessing howdevelopment communication programmes run bySMD in Lesotho could foster collective formsof action and lead to resource mobilisation. Bothquantitative and qualitative findings revealed thatdocumentary and post-screenings discussionscontribute to increase the level of confidence orefficacy of the target groups. This can be eitherobserved in the individual’s belief in the powerto produce change –self-efficacy– or in a group’sshared belief in collective action –collective self-efficacy. In particular, quantitative findings con-

firmed that documentary screenings and train-ing programmes run by SMD strongly contrib-ute to increase the level of collective self-effi-cacy amongst community members in the re-searched area. To summarise, the continuousexposure to development communicationprogrammes run by SMD positively influencedthe level of collective self-efficacy of HIV/Aidssupport group members with regard to theirgroups or communities. Lastly, the results of theresearch revealed that the dialogical process be-tween a facilitator and his/her audience helpedindividuals to identify problems and needs andto plan collective forms of action.

For the purposes of this study, the IntegratedModel of Communication for Social Change hasprovided a useful framework of analysis to ex-plain how the “learning cycle” and the method-ology used by SMD could stimulate collectiveforms of action. Empirically, determined find-ings helped to illustrate how the Integrated Modelof Communication for Social Change functionsand how this model of analysis applies to a casestudy. This research has demonstrated that de-velopment communication programmes based oncommunity dialogue and participation can fos-ter collective action and ultimately lead to socialchange.

RECOMMENDATIONS

SMD has been operating for over 10 years tocreate a safe environment for open and mean-ingful conversation, to reduce stigma and to equippeople with the ability to make informed deci-sions. Previous evaluation reports assessed therole of SMD and the impact of their interven-tions on behaviour change at individual level.This study contributed to highlight the effect ofthe “learning cycle” on collective action. There-fore, some recommendations are provided toSMD to implement their activities more effec-tively. These include first, concerning the prisonprogramme, findings revealed that Leribe prisonis the site where documentary screenings andtraining programme produced the best results.Those inmates who were initially trained by SMDin 2009 later decided to train other inmates whocurrently facilitate documentary screenings inprison. In future, it will be relevant to continuefocusing on this correctional institution, wherepositive relationships were established with thestaff and the inmates, rather than to stretch theorganisation’s capacity and waste resources to

ROLE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION IN FOSTERING SOCIAL CHANGE 69

reach other correctional institutions that mightalso not have the necessary screening equipment.Secondly, using ex-inmates to facilitate screen-ing discussions in different communities ofLesotho has a positive effect on the social reha-bilitation of individuals previously detained.These people, who in some cases are HIV posi-tive, are often facing discrimination from com-munity members and therefore to act as facilita-tors can help them to be reintegrated into theircommunities and to receive an income. Thirdly,screening and post-screening discussions havethe power to unite people and stimulate collec-tive action. Therefore, the organisation shouldexpand lobbying and advocacy activities by pro-viding support to those individuals/organisationsthat manifest their intention to mobilise resourcesaround a specific issue. Finally, SMD shouldprovide more capacity building activities to beincluded in their training sessions. This will helptrained facilitators to support groups’ initiativesand collective action.

REFERENCES

Bandura A 1986. Social Foundations of Thought andAction: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Brown WJ, Singhal A 1996. The entertainment-educationcommunication strategies: Past struggles, presentstatus, future agenda. Jurnal Komunikasi, 12: 19-36.

Brown WJ, Singhal A 1999. Entertainment-educationmedia strategies for social change: Promises andproblems. In: DP Demers, K Viswanath (Eds.): MassMedia, Social Control and Social Change. Ames, IA:Iowa State University Press.

Figueroa ME, Kincaid DL, Rani M, Lewis G 2002.Communication for social change: An integratedmodel for measuring the process and its outcomes.The Communication for Social Change WorkingPaper Series, 1: 1-38. New York, NY: RockefellerFoundation/CFSC Consortium.

Freire P1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY:Harder and Harder.

Kincaid DL 2000. Social networks, ideation, andcontraceptive behavior in Bangladesh: A longitudinalanalysis. Social Science and Medicine, 50: 215-31.

Kincaid DL 2002. Drama, emotion and culturalconvergence. Communication Theory, 12(2): 136-152.

McCall E 2011. Communication for Development:Strengthening the Effectiveness of the UnitedNations. UNDP. From <http: //www.unicef.org/cbsc/files/Inter agency_C4D_Book_2011.pdf> (Retrievedon July 10, 2013).

Obregon R, Waisbord S (Eds.) 2012. The Handbook ofGlobal Health Communication. Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley and Sons.

Papa MJ, Singhal A, Law S, Pant S, Sood S, Rogers EM,Shefner-Rogers CL 2000. Entertainment educationand social change: An analysis of parasocial inter-actions, social learning, collective efficacy and para-doxical communication. Journal of Communication,50(4): 31-35.

Rasak O, Adesina T 2011. The impact of radioentertainment-education program on sexual practicesof selected farm families in Ebonyi State. OzeanJournal of Social Science, 4(1): 23-35.

Rogers E 1976. Communication and development: Thepassing of the dominant paradigm. In: E Rogers(Eds.): Communication and Development: CriticalPerspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rogers EM, Kincaid DL1981. Communication Networks:Toward a New Paradigm for Research. New York,NY: The Free Press.

Rogers EM, Singhal A 2002. A theoretical agenda forentertainment education. Communication Theory,12(2): 117-135.

Shefner-Rogers CL, Rogers EM, Singhal A 1998.Parasocial interaction with the television soap operas“Simplemente Maria” and “Oshin”. Keio Communi-cation Review, 20: 3-18.

Singhal A, Rogers EM, Brown WJ 1993. Harnessing thepotential of education-entertainment telenovelelas.Gazette, 51: 1-18.

Singhal A, Sood S, Rogers EM, Law S, Vaughan PW 1998.Effects of “Tinka-Tinka Sukh”: A Radio Soap Operain India on Gender Equality. Women Rights andFamily Planning. International Conference on Popu-lation Development.

Tufte T 2001. Entertainment-education and participation:Assessing the communication strategy of “Soul City”.Journal of International Communication, 7(2): 25-51.

Tufte T 2002. Edutainment in HIV/AIDS prevention.Building on the Soul City experience in South Africa.In: J Servaes (Eds.): Approaches to DevelopmentCommunication. Chapter 13. Paris, France:UNESCO, pp. 394-419.

SERGIO CARCIOTTO AND MULUGETA F. DINBABO70