Development Calling - Worries, Opportunities, Priorities, and Core Question (draft)

Within Opportunities, 2, 4 and 5 sound like the same thing. If they are not they need more explanation.

Programming Standards:

It should be recognized that for much of this work programming standards exist. The challenge is a) ensuring that they are widely accessible, and b) understood and supported by key decision-makers, including partner governments. So possibly and activity would be targeting non-SBC practitioners on existing programming standards so that partners are held accountable.

Training Standards:

How does this account for the fact that this field is growing ever more diverse, with a range of sub-fields and related areas (such as behavioral economics or human-centered design) gaining visibility? How do we balance the need for standards in training with the reality that our field is diverse and benefits from the varied perspectives of different types of practitioners?

Policy voice:

This is the area of most interest to us. And while all levels are mentioned (global to national level), the suggested activities are really only global in focus. What would be the role of this mechanism in addressing how this area is reflected in country government structure, national budgets etc? Additionally this "voice" can be used to advocate for funding and for full recognition of this field as a defined and specialized discipline.

Credible evidence:

This is currently being tackled in other forums. This mechanism  should not replicate but rather expand on other ongoing efforts. Gathering evidence is not a role for this mechanism.

Funding levels:

Given the current funding environment, it may be better to highlight how to mobilize new sources of funds rather than set a metric to raise funds from existing donors. This should also address national/domestic resource mobilization in countries.

Civil Society Engagement:

Would this be an appropriate place to highlight the unique ability of SBC/C4D to foster integration of development and social change efforts across health areas or sectors? Within USAID, this has been identified as an area of comparative advantage for SBC, and a potential point of leverage in engaging with skeptics

Building resilience should start with and draw upon joint humanitarian - development strategic approaches. The IFRC network strives to improve humanitarian standards, work as partner in development, respond to disasters and support healthier and safer communities. We help reduce vulnerabilities, strengthen resilience and foster a culture of peace around the world. Despite IFRC and National Societies concern with issues of participation, communication and accountability, communication and community engagement approaches are still limited in practice, fragmented and restricted to engagement solutions in some targeted countries and large scale emergency settings which are seldom interlinked with development programmes.

The paper does not address this important aspect nor analysis the key need to move beyond rhetorical and time limited support to communication and community engagement in emergencies and development and add value and expertise along the continuum of preparedness, response, recovery, and development programmes.

Since this issue has not been analysed and referred to in the ‘worries’ and ‘problem options’, there has been no analysis of the possible link and interaction with the ‘Communication and Community Engagement Collective Service Initiative’ that is responding to the Grand Bargain ‘Participation Revolution’ commitments to putt people at the centre of development and humanitarian work.

This can only happen if there is a clear investment in preparedness work and strong links with development initiatives to better ‘equip’ local actors with the skills, knowledge and capacity they need to sustain C4D activities in peace and crisis times.

The priorities:

There is little reference to the need to ensure local actors and communities are leaders and equal partners in humanitarian and development action and that programmes and operations.

If we aspire to have a more systematic approach to C4D and deliver on the Grand Bargain’s vision and promise  of ‘including people receiving aid in  making the decisions which affect their lives’ and smarter, more localised `community impact first` approach to humanitarian response and long term programming, we need to invest more and differently on coordinated capacity building efforts and ensure local organizations are not only considered ‘our implementers’ but are truly supported to take the lead in delivering and coordinating effective C4D/community engagement  actions.

 
The opportunities:

There is no reference to the Grand Bargain participation revolution processes as an opportunity (nor this is mentioned in the analysis of the development challenge). We believe that the commitments we’ve all subscribed as donors and organizations represent and key milestone towards improving communication, engagement and accountability approaches and ensuring these are at the core of our humanitarian and development work and pivotal to operational excellence, building acceptance and trust and contributing to long term community resilience.

Prioritizing issues

The priority worries are difficult to rank. They are highly interrelated like a spider’s web and could even operate like a vicious cycle. One may be the cause or the outcome of the other.  For example, the difficulty of explaining what communication for development is could lead to poor funding, which in turn leads to lack of standards in the profession, that subsequently leads to poor impact evidence, hence , giving  us no voice in policy making forums, etc. As such, the same thinking would affect the manner the proposed  actions may be prioritized.

Programme standards

There is much diversity out there for the field of communication, media, social and behavioural change  practice to be standardized.  It is in the very nature of said processes to be highly context-driven.  That’s why when we talk about communication for development, there is definitely one for Latin America, one for Asia, and one for Africa. And there are even differences between and among countries in the same region. Given these different contexts, it will be difficult to set standards fair to all. Whose standards can serve as model? How can we be inclusive in this aspect when there seems to be a big difference between north and south contexts?

Definitely, it is good to maintain a continuing quality assessment of the practice.  This would ensure the progress in the field and a better sense of commitment for practitioners to pursue quality work. There are now many quality assessment methods and tools to choose from. But again the challenge would be how to factor in the context. Communication for development is highly pragmatic and would depend greatly on how the needs at the local level have been met by the process.

Difficulty of explaining what our work is

We spend a lot of time doing our job, we forget to communicate who we are and what we do. Nonetheless, I believe that this should not be a big issue if  the people and institutions we are accountable to see the difference in what we do. Perhaps we need not do the talking ourselves. Others should be the ones talking about us instead. But why is this not happening? 

Compelling evidence

As an answer to the above question, then perhaps the absence of compelling evidence can be among the reasons why our work and our contributions are not being talked about. I guess we have many empirical evidences lying around but we have failed to package them into something that would strongly present our case.  In any case, it is still better if others talk about us.

a. Which specific priority worries and issues need to be addressed in order for this field of work to become more effective at greater scale.

•    Conduct a transparent 360 degree review of C4D, including its ethical dimensions, in the new international environment

•    Strengthen the evidence base for the positive contributions of C4D to sustainable human development, human rights and peace, including the SDG/MDGs, while acknowledging the field’s shortcomings and failures

•    Shift from prescriptive behavior change to social change approaches owned and led by communities and national counterparts

•    Demystify and simplify the language and methodologies used by C4D

•    Articulate C4D as being driven by inclusive, democratic values as opposed to its portrayal as a neutral, technical intervention

•    Integrate C4D more closely with other communication approaches, including “external communication”

•    Widely publicize C4D initiatives and recognize its success stories

•    Apply behavior/social change approaches to advocacy with policy- and decision-makers as well as donors regarding the importance of investing in C4D 

•    Connect with innovative government, private sector and academic efforts in the behavioral sciences, social psychology, behavioral economics and social media

•    Make the case for longer time frames for C4D processes to show results, acknowledging that meaningful social change does not occur overnight or jibe with project cycles

•    Make C4D training mandatory for national and international program specialists

•    Ensure that C4D projects include robust M & E and implementation plans

Worries? - There exist some successful initiatives that provide community perspective /voices in policy work eg PATH's Advocacy for Better Health in Uganda. Can such models be documented  as evidence? Among other worries are the ever changing contexts of development work influenced by cultural ; political; economic factors.

 
Opportunities: Across many development programs; there is the opportunity to work across sectors' however; there is a challenge with scope and coverage in light of dwindling resources from partners.  There is also need to consider other emerging areas such as population movements(refugees) ; food security ; etc.

G.    The worries

CORE: I suggest a different terminology- Challenges or Concerns?

➢    No common standards for people working in this field

CORE: Standards defined as quality, content? Communication standards of practice  ,( such as respectful comments in an online dialogue or debate”) Please unpack this a bit more

➢    Lack of a valid change theory

CORE: And problem trees that accompany pre-TOC

The “absence of compelling impact evidence data” worry requires some context

CORE: Please change this “worry”- it is emotive- Since  this is a professional document, so I would suggest that it would be less emotive, and more substantive/professional  in word choice

➢    Raise the funds required

CORE: I think that if this is a priority, we need to highlight the connection between the SBC strategies, the effects on health/nutrition, etc., and the economic investment case. I know WHO/PMNHC is working on a SBC economic investment/Community engagement piece- but we need more to effectively raise funds.

➢    Produce the impact evidence

CORE: I would suggest not just produce, but effectively disseminate evidence

➢    Better coordinate with other organisations involved in similar work

CORE: Suggestion” Not only improved coordination but improved collaboration mechanisms to avoid duplication

The lack of agreed-upon standards for communication and media (and/for) development, and social and behaviour change programme initiatives

CORE: Shouldn’t there be a process to this? Related to the goals below- should there be a landscaping/mapping exercise of what quality standards DO exist or how some standards can be adapted and expanded?

from message development to dialogue facilitation, from quality media standards to public campaigns

CORE: How is quality being defined here?

The worries: I agree with all, those were mostly choices, but I disagree with the last one. I think that there are theories, or at least valid frameworks (e.g., participatory, experiential, reflective) that would allow for change. Perhaps, measuring outcomes of those changes are more worrisome, or challenging, in my view.

The opportunities: more inter-sectoral collaboration with common goal; more partnerships that are complementary in nature, again with a common global goal;

The priorities: I have a question that may need to be addressed very carefully and in detail in the sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday.  My question is reinforcing the question raised in the paper - what is the reason that people did not choose SDGs as priority? I would be interested in learning about it. I wish I could be be there in person.

The question: sounds really good. Two essential concepts are missing:   “global” and “populations” or “people.” If we are concerned with communications and media and information, etc., it must be available to all people, globally. Even if the question relates to professionals, we cannot achieve anything meaningful without those to whom we are providing services. If this is not a final – perhaps, expanding a bit with:  global communication, to all people.

Thank you very much for the invitation to participate in this important discussion, and for all the work that has gone into preparing the very useful paper.

My interest is in the role of media and communication in supporting governance and peacebuilding, specifically how it relates to Agenda 2030, the Secretary General’s prevention agenda, and sustaining peace.

I have a couple of comments, one more conceptual and one more practical:

Section E – the development challenge.

You are right to note that media and communication is relevant both to specific targets (especially  SDG16.6, SDG16.7 and SDG 16.10) and to the achievement of many other areas goals and targets. Indeed, this mirrors somewhat the discussions that some of us who are focusing on SDG16 are having around the oft-cited (but rarely elaborated) “interlinkages” between that goal and others. UNDP’s Oslo Governance Centre, with other UNDP colleagues, is doing some work to map systematically interlinkages between SDG16 and some other goals. The aim is to show to use empirical knowledge to show SDG targets are interlinked and whether they reinforce, rely on or undermine each other. This can inform the prioritization of investments for SDG directed reforms,

This work could provide a useful framing for broadening the discussion around media and communication and its impact on different sectors.

We do not have a grand theory of change because change happens in different ways, in various places, through a multitude of mechanisms, over short and long periods of time, at many levels (individual to community to ….), mediated through disparate influences, and so on. This is in fact the theory of change. And in this theory of change we need to recognize that sometimes change does not happen, and sometimes things regress. Change is difficult to bring about even when it is an organic initiative, rising from the community, and external agents are not involved.

The same can be said for a grand theory of communication for development/social change. Communication works in its own multitude of ways, with similar results.

So what does this mean for practice in the field, assuming we are not talking about grassroots initiatives of the communities themselves? Simply that we have to allow for a multiplicity of means and ways, that are fully locally grounded, use knowledge on the ground knowledge, and are participatory. And to temper our expectations for a grand change or C4D/CFSBC theory.

The worries: As noted above, these are all interrelated and intertwined, and any response must take this into consideration. As noted in the paper, it is not so much an "absence of compelling impact evidence data" but rather that the data is not packaged in a usable and compelling way. The quality fo the data is also a key issue - not only on the type sof research methodologies used and the quality of the study but the quality of the interventions themselves (again, here is a case in point of how these "worries" are intertwined). Also, the communication for development language used in research is so diffuse that it is difficult to compare and synthesize.

I strongly disagree that we lack a valid change theory. Yes, there is no single change theory that guides everything - social and behavior change is too complex for any single theory to articulate. We also have several guiding processes and models for how to carry out quality social and behavior change communication work. That being said, the use of these theories and frameworks is not universal (again, tied to the issue of common professional standards)

What seems to tie most of these worries together is the lack of recognitin of social and behavior change communication as an essential element of development. making the case for this is the broader goal it seems, and we can do that by building and sharing the evidence base, establishing common standards, conducting advocacy etc.

The opportunities: One thing I see missing here is the growing interest in mainstream media and among the general public about behavioral sicence. How can we leverage that to get better at telling our impact story and get more attention in mainstream media about the work that we do? Also, the use of neuropsychology in consumer marketing is an interesting tool for behavior change work but has not been applied to the development agenda.

The priorities: As noted above, the issue is less ot produce the evidence, and more to define standards for what it is and how it is packaged and shared. In the health arena, the focus is on impact evidence for behavioral objectives (moving beyond knowledge etc)

On the point of the SDGs, as somone noted above, it is interesting that these were less used as an overarching framework. They have not gained traction in the same way as the MDGs for various reasons, but there is still potential to leverage them in this cause.