Inclusive Rural Communication Services: Building Evidence, Informing Policy

“Underpinned by Communication for Development principles, RCS [Rural Communication Services] are based on the assumption that rural communities contribute a dynamic knowledge base and life-long experience to development. Participation of rural people is, therefore, essential at each stage during planning, implementation and evaluation of a change process.”

This scoping study seeks to document evidence of good communication for development initiatives and to provide some recommendations on how to assess its impacts on development, in particular rural development. As explained in the paper, “Most evaluation processes mainly assess economic outcomes of an initiative, disregarding how these outcomes were achieved and how sustainable they are. They also frequently overlook the complex social dynamics and how they are affected by communication processes and activities for development programmes. Consequently, there is a lack of reported evidence to convince policy makers to invest in communication for development programmes that put in the metaphorical extra mile to establish the human and social capital required for sustainable change.”

The research draws on a literature review and 19 cases from across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean to compare, analyse, and document convincing evidence of evaluative approaches, methods, and outcomes of what the paper classifies as ‘Rural Communication Services’ (RCS). Case studies include, among others, the African Rural Radio Programme Analysis (ARRPA) project, which investigated farmer radio programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa; Shamba Shape Up in Kenya, an edutainment television reality show focusing on rural entrepreneurship; the Knowledge Network for Rural Development in the Asia-Pacific Region (ENRAP), a knowledge-sharing and networking project using information and communication technologies (ICTs); TRadeNet in Sri Lanka, which was designed to improve price transparency and collaborative trading of agricultural products for small holder farmers; Farmer Field Schools in Thailand; the Starfish Project in Guatemala, which was designed to empower girls through education and mentorship groups; and the El Chambita Medidor programme in El Salvadore, which supported communication and knowledge sharing of the land registration process through radio and other communication activities (Appendix II of the report offers details on all 19 case studies) Specifically, the objectives of the study were to: 1) Explore main trends, key issues, and cases with proven and compelling methodologies that can inform RCS policies and initiatives; and 2) Compare and analyse the evaluative approaches and methods used in these cases in order to understand and document the impacts (or lack thereof) of RCS and provide recommendations for practitioners and policymakers.

The paper begins by defining what is meant by RCS: “RCS are ‘sustained two way processes delivered regularly to the rural population. They are intended to enhance rural livelihoods by facilitating equitable access to knowledge and information, social inclusion in decision-making and stronger links between rural institutions and local communities’. As such, RCS involve facilitated, deliberate and planned processes, characterized by a strategic use of interpersonal and mediated communication methods to facilitate stakeholder participation”. The paper also defines what is meant by institutionalisation and building evidence. These three concepts are the basis for further exploring how rural communication initiatives are operationalised and evaluated in order to identify the processes that make innovation and impact of communication for development possible. The paper notes that “both RCS and evidence-based approaches for assessing RCS are concepts that are still being developed, making this paper a marker in time that is expected to feed into future deliberations.” To provide some context for this discussion, the paper also provides an overview of the recent trends and methods in evaluation of communication and development initiatives, in general.

The paper then continues with an overview and analysis of the cases reviewed to illustrate the characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of different evaluation approaches for demonstrating evidence. To compare and analyse the effectiveness of the approaches and methods used in the 19 cases, the study identifies key themes that exemplify appropriateness and effectiveness of evaluation. These themes are (1) frameworks for evaluation; (2) evaluation approaches and methods; (3) evaluation outcomes; and (4) reporting formats. The paper summarises the findings as follows: “[T]he analysis shows marked inconsistencies in evaluative frameworks, approaches, methods and the corresponding reported outcomes. Cases that used linear or vertical approaches and methods tend towards documenting quantifiable evidence to demonstrate accountability of project outcomes to funders with less possibility for adaptive learning processes and long-term sustainability. Additionally, initiatives that cross pollinated approaches and methods reported mixed outcomes, making it difficult to determine the extent to which some initiatives support sustainable rural communication services. Compelling evidence of rural communication service initiatives, however, emerged from cases that used solely horizontal, participatory evaluative approaches. These cases showed convincing outcomes for policy consideration such as increased participation of key stakeholders in design, implementation and evaluation of RCS initiatives. It also showed equitable information and knowledge access, social learning, and sustainable impact.”

In conclusion, the paper highlights the need for policy that takes into account all aspects of RCS initiatives, including the focus on investing in stakeholders’ capacity development to participate at all levels of RCS initiatives, and strengthening rural knowledge institutions and farmer organisations. It calls for longer term impact assessment processes that apply a learning-based approach to provide a mechanism to sustain change; however, funding structures and policies will have to be adapted to accommodate activity beyond the usual project lifecycle. The paper lists a number of policy recommendations related specifically to evaluation. These include:

• Evaluation strategies should be defined during the early planning phase of an RCS initiative, including the type of evidence being sought for formative evaluation and summative evaluation.
• Evaluation strategies must themselves be evaluated.
• RCS evaluation should include primary stakeholders and also expand to include project leaders and managers, as they have the power to influence policy and introduce reforms based on the evaluation. The use of diverse formats for reporting to clearly target different stakeholders is vital.
• For evidence to be considered for incorporation in rural development policy and practice, a public awareness strategy for the dissemination of evaluation findings should target audiences at all levels, from participants, wider rural communities, project staff, through to policymakers, using appropriate media and platforms.
• Sharing of evidence-based results could be supported through development of a community of practice (CoP) for RCS evaluation within countries, regions, and globally. Findings, methods, and strategies should be exchanged and results published online, not only within journal articles, dissertations, or conferences.

This document was published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and The University of Queensland, and presents the results of a collaborative research project undertaken by a group of academics from The University of Queensland, Australia; Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands; Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences; University of the Philippines Los Baños; University of Guelph, Canada; and University of Reading, United Kingdom; who identify as the Global Research Initiative for Rural Communication (GRI-RC).