Draft Paper: Global Mechanism - Comments and critique please

Since I cant attend, I thought I’d send you a few general comments in response to the paper – my main thoughts and concerns on reading through the document are below. I see that you undertook consultations, and I seem to have missed those (apologies), so this feedback may be a little late, but it’s the kinds of questions I would have raised, or points I would have tried to make, if I had been able to attend the meeting later this month,

 
The stress on demonstrating impact risks reinforcing ways of measuring impact that are not helpful and will reinforce the inability of C4D to demonstrate said impact, bit of a catch 22 situation, and this is risking reinforcing a dominant logic that we should rather be challenging. At a fundamental level, who can argue against communication being central to development, especially in the SDG era? How do we allow this, and why do we not more effectively challenge said logics?

For how many years have C4D been trying to mainstream C4d, better define it and achieve shared understanding, and demonstrate its impact through RM&E? The fact that we are still trying to do this suggests to me the need for a radical rethink… if it hasn’t worked until now, lets try and shift our perspective, not do again what we’ve tried repeatedly to do, to no avail.

There is an added issue here of whether to separate out C4D for impact analysis – C4D rarely works as a separate thing, it’s most usefully thought of as a part of a health initiative, or nutrition initiative etc etc. Understanding the importance of its contribution is what we might more usefully focus on, and we’ve made a lot of progress on how we demonstrate that – and now have a resource hub that tackles this head on (we’ll be able to share this within 2-3 months – beta version can be shared now).

Scale – a focus on ‘scaling up’ is very damaging to this field and smacks of outdated ideas about development, ignoring all the work that demonstrates the importance of context, participation, complexity, and specific approaches and solutions.

The mechanism… is bureaucratising this really the best way forward? To be quite frank, my concern would be that this would channel funds and efforts away from where they should be – I support investing in local organisations and groups, local networks who can and should speak for themselves, not rely on an external mechanism that in effect provides further hoops for them to jump through, tells them what has been universally agreed, despite what their own expertise and experience tells them – it risks silencing them.
(Rafael, our recent workshop in Malawi demonstrated clearly to me where the expertise is, the deep knowledge and real excitement for the future of C4D as well as ideas for innovative approaches – it is among local actors, even though, amazingly for me, there is a perception of lack of capacity from development brokers… extraordinary situation, that shows how important the ‘Regional Alliance’ ideas that came initially from you Rafael, are, that we are currently implementing and which chime with some parts of this document, but conflict with others).

I’d probably, if I were present in NY, argue against creating said mechanism ☺, or at least steer very much towards option 3, which is the only feasible option in my honest opinion. I think networks like CI and C4D network are doing a sterling job, and loose networking that reaches out and embraces local networks, expertise and experience is good. We all should encourage local dialogue on this, and hopefully local voices are represented through your consultations. My main point is that a one size fits all approach is unlikely to be useful and will end up being merely a bureaucratic exercise.

Right at the top of this paper (A. Stimulus), the issue is set out that in effect says that priority development goals are established and we need to change our behaviours in order to make progress, that is, to fall in behind this new agenda (SDGs, national or local development plans) and demonstrate effectiveness, and scale. (in one part of the paper it is presented as perhaps concerning that there is not more of a priority, in responses to the consultation, on the SDGs – that is telling us something interesting).

There is a fundamental issue with the Stimulus paragraph (highlighted perhaps by the lack of priority of SDGs by those consulted). It’s essentially setting out how we work within the system, demonstrate our value and use to the system, and thus achieve progress according to the system. We also need to challenge the system, our work should inform those plans, demonstrate different ways of achieving development goals, redefine ‘progress’ and stress the importance of paying attention to the processes of development.

 
I like the focus on civil society engagement, its more important than standards and universal codes etc.

 
Best wishes
 
Jo

Kudos to your team for the effort and commitment to move beyond rhetoric. The specific and concrete plan of actions you diligently worked on to address the issues re: communication for development and/or behaviour change is highly commendable. My comments are cited below. 

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.

Cleofe S. Torres
College of Development Communication, UP Los Banos, Philippines

What follows does not represent a formal, institutional response from Rain Barrel. The points below summarize feedback provided by several of our colleagues, but it does not reflect a consensus position across our 40+ Associates and Directors.  These are initial thoughts aimed at facilitating dialogue about a global mechanism and other efforts to strengthen our collective work.

We highly value and appreciate the effort that went into development of the draft options paper and look forward to participating in the meeting in NY on June 27th and 28th.  That said, we are surprised that the paper does not mention the discussions that took place on the same topic in 2012, raising concerns that the current process could meet with the same obstacles that resulted in deadlock and the abandonment of that earlier effort. We will participate in a spirit that seeks to avoid a similar outcome.

We also note the use of the phrase “communication, media, social and behaviour change strategies” in the draft options paper, in lieu of terms such as “C4D” or “development communication” or “behavior/social change communication”. This is itself indicative of the core identity problem that has bedeviled our field for decades, which discussions around a global mechanism need to take into account. For convenience, here we use the term C4D, though we also mindful of the 2018 gathering in Indonesia (in which the CI is involved), referred to as Social and Behaviour Change Communication.

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
 

b. Which mechanism provides the best organizational possibility for addressing those priority worries.

•    While Option 1 – creation of a Standing Committee of the United Nations -- is attractive in many ways, we fear that it could bog the field down in political and bureaucratic structures and procedures, stifling vital creativity, critical independence and dynamic participation by civil society and media organizations. Also, in the current global political climate, with the rise of nationalist movements and populist governments, moving towards establishment of a UN Standing Committee might even be counterproductive for the interests of our field.

•    Options 2 and 3 -- a council of existing membership-based groups and a federation of issue focused networks , respectively – are worth considering. However, the uneven current organizational landscape, the diversity of large and small players from North and South, and the reality of competition among them for scarce contracts and funds constitute a major challenge for both options.  Even with the best-intentioned commitments to act in unity to advance the field of C4D, it is unlikely that a single highly-structured organization – whether council or federation -- could operate on behalf of all its members without coming up against the vested interests of some of its constituents.  Therefore, given the overlap between membership-based and issued-based organizations in regard to the use of communication approaches and target audiences, we recommend exploring the viability of a combination of the two options, some form of association of like-minded individuals and organizations to raise awareness and advocate for public and private support. Many models exist, as we all know, from the IUHPE to the International Association of Facilitators and the International Association of Human Resources Managers.

c. What are the main steps that need to be taken to implement that mechanism and who is responsible and accountable for taking that action.

•    Ideally, an academic institution offering certified degrees in development communication would be willing to host and coordinate such a mechanism. But we would love to hear various opinions and believe this is for further discussion at the meeting in NY at the end of June.

I think the draft paper is a wonderful start to addressing a major issue in our field. The analysis that frames the paper and sets up the questions is well informed by those working in the field. It's obvious that much work has gone into crafting the present draft. I have not been engaged in the conversations around the paper before now, so please disregard these comments if they have already been addressed / dismissed at other meetings.

In my opinion the first “problem” addressed in the paper, “programming standards,” is by far the most crucial to tackle, and the others cannot be adequately addressed or strategized until the first is nailed down. The fact that many policymakers don’t really know what this field IS, or how to explain it in understandable language, is going to cripple any efforts to become more influential in the development realm. Those of us working in “this field” even struggle to define it, which is the start of our problems.

Could it be that we are trying to force a rectangle into a square hole, so to speak? In other words, is it possible that current conceptions of “communication and media for development, social and behaviour change” (as it is described in the paper) are so broad that we are actually doing ourselves a disservice by trying to lump all of our efforts under the same heading, and that it might behoove us to split these up into two or more areas (squares) each with their own set of programming standards?

The obvious division here, which many have referenced before, is that between more top-down “behavior change” campaigns and more bottom up “participatory” / social change campaigns. (I don’t mean to simplify the divide but will do so for the purposes of this comment.) Other comments below hint at different kinds of divisions. How do we create definitions, set up standards, compile an evidence base, and choose preferred evaluation strategies for groups of interventions that can be so wildly different? As Jo Tacchi says in her post below, “a one size fits all approach is unlikely to be useful.”

This is not to say that there aren’t important areas of overlap between these two areas (or others), or that projects that are able to combine them don’t offer exciting potential that has been inadequately explored, or that scholars and practitioners working in different areas shouldn’t work together to advance the communication field overall. But I’d like to see the New York meeting offer an opportunity to at least begin to try to define this space, and perhaps incorporate our thoughts into the paper, rather than solely leave this to a future “working group” as suggested in the document. Other comments below echo the idea that some kind of definition within the paper itself is warranted.

As stated in the draft paper, the survey data that went into this document shows that those working in the field are frustrated by the fact that they can’t explain what the field is in ways others can quickly understand. I think having a frank conversation about this is needed in order to address the other problem areas noted in the document. It is not possible to come up with training standards without a definition of what the field is. Defining or splitting up the field would also help frame what kind of evaluations are needed to provide better evidence of impact, and which evaluation strategies are the most appropriate. Preferred evaluation strategies will certainly be very different for projects evaluating mass media campaigns and projects evaluating a local effort aimed at raising critical consciousness through participatory processes, for example.

Other comments on the document:

On Problem option 5: Funding levels. I’m not sure this ought to be framed as a separate “problem” since it is (at least in large part) caused by the other problems listed before it. It seems like the best strategy for addressing funding problems would be to focus on the other more fundamental problems in our field.

Likewise, I’m not sure Problem Option 6 (“Civil Society Engagement”) should be framed as a separate problem either, since it’s a problem for the development field as a whole, not specifically for our field. In fact, as indicated in the document, it’s more of an opportunity for our field than a problem. It represents an opportunity for our field to gain more visibility. Highlighting our field’s ability to engage civil society could be incorporated into strategies to achieve the other goals in the document, rather than separated out as a separate problem.

Dear all - very brief thoughts from me. 

Congrats on some hard work and interesting ideas. As I understand, this mechanism has been concieved to give C4D a stronger platform - to strengthen standards and rigour, put quality assurance on a global footing and provide more fundraising muscle in our  ever more measurement-addicted donor climate. All necessary and important.

Like some others who have commented, and as a veteran negotiator of strategy agreements btwn govts and aid actors, I'm leery of sucking up time and money trying to hammer down agreement around terminologies, and debating structures that don't in the end change much at ground level. In principle the idea of global standards is a good one - but what would it change, practically? When push comes to shove, the women and men implementing C4D strategies will often have to learn their trade from scratch. Turnover in local organizations is high - and even where it isn't many people face restrictions on their literacy, their ability to move around, their freedom to say and do what global best-practice suggests they should. Perhaps I'm biased, from only ever having worked in extremely poor and fragile settings. I'd also think very carefully about trainings and how they work. We are up to our knees in C4D trainings here in Lebanon - and while I'm sure some are worthwhile, we know that only repeated, systematic, tailored trainings for frontline workers themselves backed up by mentoring and supportive supervision makes a real difference to someone's ability to consistently deliver a good job. A significant part doing a good job in C4D is simply practice and confidence, and of course a deepening relationship with the beneficiary.

So, practically, these would be my suggestions. I support the idea of a loose global network of C4D leaders to continue to formulate ideas around standards, impact evaluation (which in my view should be integrated into overall programme evaluation, with tools developed to define the degree to which C4D interventions affected outcomes), quality assurance and advocacy with policy-makers. Structurally, this could work in ways I've seen integrated multi-party units work at country level. For example, in Iraq we had an Integrated Analysis Unit to which agencies contributed staff time and funds, hosted by the RC/HC. The IASC provides similar models. One organization would have to take on an organizing/secretariat type role - I think that's unavoidable. 

At country level, instead of the siloed approach of issue-based networks (one HIV network, one polio network, one eduation network etc) which creates headaches for beneficiaries, competition among agencies and wastage for donors, I'd look at how local actors can be better helped and better trained to invest in household relationships rather than pushing single-issue C4D. Of course we all have our local agendas, be they vaccines or girls' ed - but bitter experience teaches that these issues are usually inter-related and it doesn't help anyone except our ear-marked funders to approach them all separately. Instead a C4D network in each country could define some key priorities: which people, which issues - and pool thinking on how to tackle them in an effective and more integrated way. 

I wish I could come to NYC - but for those that do, have fun! Looking forward to the outcomes.

Thanks veryone for the effort that has gone into this. 

I tend not to be very popular when I start talking about development performance. My work in this field goes back to the 1970s and many of the issues that bothered me 40 years ago remain unresolved ... and in many cases are worse, even though there have been massive increases in the power of technology. 

There are thousands of things that need to be addressed, and communications and data mostly serve to bury the actors rather than to make their lives and work easier and more efficient. Before I did 'development work' I had been a corporate CFO and responsible for corporate management information systems. I was good at this job in part because while almost everyone was trying to speed up the data and enable real time decision making, I worked on slowing down the data so that the decision makers could understand the information, and then make good decisions that improved performance rather than merely doing something because that was the expectation. 

I have always been interested in progress and performance. For a CFO it is pretty clear that performance is measured by profit (though I now argue for True Value Impact Accounting that addresses social and environmental impact as well as investors' profit!) but in development and humanitarian relief performance is not so simple to report. The SDGs do not clarify this matter in a meaningful way ... there are around 200 different indicators and no methodology yet to report progress in a simple way that is also meaningful. 

But it is worse. A big part of the fund flows into development and humanitarian assistance are accounted for using a project form of organization. This is really convenient where failure is commonplace because after a modest amount of time everyone forgets about the project. Rather, I want to see accounting and reporting (comminicating) about the progress and performance of a PLACE. The place does no disappear after a short period of ime, but actually goes on for ever. 

I have been working on the idea that we need a new architecture for progress and performance metrics to suit the 21st century ... something that has a lot of the rigor of corporate money accounting but accounts for and reports on the progress and performance of everything that matters ... essentially things that a really important for the PEOPLE in the PLACE. 

Communications are important ... but what you are communicating maybe even more important!

Peter Burgess

Thanks to all who have devised this draft plan. I have read with great interest many of our colleagues who have contributed great comments.

Unfortunately I can not attend the conference in New York but I hope that you will try to reflect their written views to conference

C4D is what we are calling it now, so OK, after almost 40 years of doing this stuff lets settle on a name. Whatever we call it, it must receive greater and wider attention and recognition.

C4D is multi layered, complex and broad ranging practice making it a challenge to present in sound bites. It is also problematic for some people who are in powerful positions as the process we use often devolves power away to those who really should be driving and determining their own development.

C4D is about managing change for people mostly at community level but it seems harder to change the minds of some funders, politicians, governments, global companies and those in powerful positions in the media. Mainstream media are more about communication for status quo C4SQ. We must work systemically, use a consultative and participatory approach as much in the boardrooms and corridors of power and with media moguls as we do in the shantytowns and rural communities. Many of the privileged elite in power come from a village somewhere in their pasts. There must be common ground, Surely C4D is something they can respond positively to.

Let us use the undeniable strengths of C4D, the participatory approach, the inclusive methods the exciting creative events, the revelation of interconnectedness to showcase the benefits that C4D has brought to the world.

Can this conference operate within the methods and practices that it espouses?

Once I had to sit through training on participation where the trainer sat behind a table at the front and talked at the intelligence in the room that were being asked to sit in rows. Yes this stuff can still happen ,let the conference embrace the intelligence in the room and lets us use the methodologies that we know works.

On the whole, a very readable, focused, clearly written document, identifying problems, offering solutions, and providing a choice of mechanisms. Congratulations. Excellent comments by Claire Hajaj.

Here are a few suggestions (informed by my thoughts presented way at the bottom):

Suggestions

On global mechanisms, option 3 is best—less top-down.

 On problems, you have captured the important ones for the most part; some caveats:

·      We need to recognize that while the set of problems identified in the document are certainly relevant to our field and solving them will benefit our own C4D/CFSBC work, they are also framed (and thus limited) by our need to gain visibility and funding.

·      It appears that like many other fields of communication practice that do not have entry requirements, we are trying to “professionalize”, to standardize/routinize C4D/CFSBC practice. A good thing overall I think as long as we do not go into strict boundary maintenance. Is it possible to emphasize launching university level programs (at least at the master’s level), many of them, across the world, in your solutions? There are too few of them right now. I would also seriously consider an academic journal.

·      As for compelling impact data, there are two issues to consider.

o   One, change takes time, a very long time sometimes, and funding agencies need to be made to understand this. If we just take individual behavior change campaigns into consideration, not even corporate communications such as advertising and PR, with vastly more funds than C4D/CFSBC can dream of at this point for any one intervention, have limited impact. Corporations are happy with a very, very small percentage day-after-aided-recall, and they acknowledge that they do not know which 50 cents of their dollar they spent actually created the impact. Participatory social change would be even more complex in terms of time.

o   Two, we need to define success in a multitude of ways and make those ways acceptable to funders rather than be driven by a narrow evidence set that is ethnocentric and straightjacketing.

On solutions, the timeframe may be somewhat overambitious unless you are able to garner a lot of resources to make them happen quickly, and naturally success in the allotted time is to some extent dependent on the mechanism that is finally selected. More specifically, solutions that focus on organizations (I am assuming these are international and national) and governments may reproduce the modernization paradigm; these also work against getting civil society engagement.

On structural base: Option B or C.

Funding: Option A, preferably a foundation.

General feedback/fears:

·      Caution needed that this does not become another top-down system, propagating a one size fits all solution. Communication in C4D/CFSBC can be silent, interpersonal and mediated; it can be interactive or not; it can range from art to talk to video to what not. It is the local conditions that should determine which type or combination of types will be used. This flexibility must be maintained in the standards that are drafted. And we need to avoid from jumping on bandwagons when something new arrives; nothing is a panacea in and of itself, it is just part of the mix.

·      Caution needed that this does not morph into or be hugely influenced by CFBC (individual behavior change). It is important to keep much of the focus on CFSC (community level social change). In many parts of the world, in most as a matter of fact, and even in subcommunities in the US, individuals do not have agency to change their behavior. Keeping communities and their cultures at the center of this exercise is critical.

Some thoughts

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.

Development Calling: The Social Marketing Position

Submitted June 21, 2017, by  Patrick Cook and Craig Lefebvre for the International Social Marketing Association and its Member Associations

In General

The International Social Marketing Association (iSMA) and its member associations—the Australian Association of Social Marketing (AASM), the European Social Marketing Association (ESMA), the Pacific Northwest Social Marketing Association (PNSMA), and the Social Marketing Association of North America (SMANA)—welcome and appreciate the opportunity to participate in the all-interested-parties meeting to be hosted by UNICEF on June 27 and 28, 2017, in New York, NY. The following responses represents the consolidated input of the iSMA and our member associations on the draft paper, “Development Calling,” distributed May 30, 2017. For each problem/option presented in the paper, the iSMA offers both our support and recommendations for how to proceed.

Overall, the iSMA very much supports the development of a global mechanism to advance the scale and effectiveness of communication, media, and marketing strategies and actions that bring about behaviour and social change. As a field that has been at the forefront of behaviour change around the world since the early 1970s, we do see an important role for social marketing practice and practitioners.

Therefore, we would recommend that, in addition to the specific recommendations and suggestions below, that “marketing” be added to the next draft of the paper: that is, “communication, media, and marketing social and behaviour change strategies and actions. This addition will reflect the full range of the approaches represented in this initiative and available to the development community. We also note that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been sponsoring a conference for over ten years entitled “Health communications, marketing and media:” the three can and do co-exist quite well when given the opportunity.

K. The Options – specific problems on which to focus (with goals and possible strategies)

Problem Option 1: Programming standards

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

Goals: This could lead to the following goals:

➢    Within 2 years, 500 organisations and relevant government units commit to a common set of quality standards for those elements of their work.

➢    Within 5 years, 250 organisations and relevant government units have received an external assessment of the quality of their work gauged against the agreed-upon quality standards.

Yes, the International Social Marketing Association (ISMA) and its member associations around the world agrees in principle to developing a common set of quality standards and are willing to participate in this effort. We have several recommendations on how to proceed:

•    We may not want to talk about them as “programming standards.” By doing so, we could be restricting ourselves to focus on programs only, potentially excluding communication initiatives focused on creating policy, systems, and environmental change.

•    Social marketing has a set of ‘benchmarks’ that are applied to the design and presentation of various activities. These include a focus on behavioural objectives, having a customer orientation, use of behavioural and social change theory to inform the activity, research to discover customer insights, consideration of competition to adopting and maintaining new behaviours, segmentation and tailoring, use of a marketing mix (or a mix of methods), considering costs and benefits to adopting and maintaining new behaviours, having monitoring system in place for the activities, and evaluation research. We suggest these as discussion starters.

•    Consider the following three resources that have already been developed or in development as the basis for these proposed standards:

o    The consensus principles paper developed by the member associations of the ISMA.

o    The Assess, Do, and Describe (ADD) Framework developed by the WISH Communicating Complex Health Messages Forum 2015
o    The National Occupational Standards developed by UK-based National Social Marketing Centre (NSMC) in conjunction with the Chartered Institute of Marketing and the British Standards Institute.

•    Ensure that development space is large enough to meet the target numbers recommended in the draft Goals.

Strategies: Some possible strategies to reach those goals could include (these are exemplary only at this stage):
a.    Bring together a working group to develop the standards criteria.
b.    Broker a negotiation process to come to an agreement and ensure wide consensus across this field of work related to the standards criteria developed.
c.    Train people in the application of the standards.
d.    Undertake an overall audit of the quality standards across a cross-section of the action focused on communication and media (and/for) development and social and behaviour change programmes.
e.    Provide guidance for communities and peoples being engaged, boards and other decision-making forums, funders, technical experts, external and internal evaluators, media, etc. to assess the quality of the work with which they are involved.

The ISMA supports (a) bringing together a working group and will put forward names from our member associations to. As we have recommended above, we support (d) undertaking an audit of existing quality standards, and recommend that these existing standards should inform the development of the quality standards proposed here. The member associations of the ISMA will support (e) providing guidance for communities and peoples being engaged.

Problem Option 2: Training standards

Problem to solve: Anyone can be a communication, media, social and behaviour change practitioner in the development context.
Goals: This could lead to the following goals:

➢    Within 2 years of the training standards being proposed, 200 training institutions (across the spectrum from short-course to post-graduate) have committed to work towards those standards, with appropriate national and local variations.

➢    At the conclusion of a 5-year period, 50% of a sample of people working in relevant roles have passed a course recognised as meeting training standards for this field of work.

iSMA supports these goals. We have several recommendations on how to proceed:

•    Revise the Problem to Solve to read: “Anyone can be a communication, media, social and behaviour change practitioner in the development context with effective training and support.”

•    Tie this work to an exemplar such as the US-lead Healthy People 2020 objectives to increase social marketing education and training within public health schools and programs.

•    Our work in promoting standards for programs that teach social marketing uncovered the resistance of university professors to have their curricula ‘dictated’ to them and pride themselves on developing courses that they believe are useful for their students. We pursued an approach to academic competencies that are guidance for instructors of academic courses and designers of academic and non-academic certificate programs in social marketing.

•    Build on the work begun by the ISMA to develop a comprehensive directory of courses and supervision in social marketing programs. For example, the Australian Association of Social Marketing (AASM) has developed a Social Marketing Masterclass programme offering training in social marketing based on core principles and good practice which may soon receive accreditation from the Australian Marketing Institute and the Australian Government.

•    The member associations of the ISMA can help coordinate access to and delivery of such training programmes. We would also consider providing the certification.

Strategies: Some possible strategies to reach those goals could include (these are exemplary only at this stage):

a.    Work with a group of people undertaking trust, equity, engagement, gender, voice, and/or accountability or people and change programmes, strategies, and learning to develop a set of training standards.

b.    Broker a negotiation process with the wide range of institutions providing training to agree to a proposed set of standards.

c.    Undertake an overall audit of the training standards in a sample of the institutions providing such training.

d.    Provide guidance and support to training institutions in order that they can engage in quality standards review of their own training initiatives. 

iSMA will support this roll out and audit activity. We have several recommendations on how to proceed:

•    Because these proposed strategies could prove onerous for those institutions already subjected to one or more accreditation processes (e.g., Schools and Programs of Public Health), we recommend that these standards be developed in consultation with stakeholders and institutions already delivering training and training certifications. The WHO Global standards for the initial education of professional nurses and midwives could serve as one model in this area.

•    We recommend providing the guidance and support to training institutions, so they can engage in their own quality standards review. This approach seems more manageable from a resource perspective as the onus falls on training institutions rather than the professional association. Currently, ISMA and our affiliate associations do not have the capacity and resources to conduct these audits, so we believe that the key will be providing incentive for training institutions to perform the audits and reviews of their training.

Problem Option 3: Policy voice

Problem to solve: At the global level, it has been difficult for the communication for development, media (and/for) development, and social and behaviour change community to find a common and prominent voice that can influence local, national, regional, and global policies.

Goals: This could lead to the following goals:

➢    Within 2 years, there is a 50% rise in both: our perspectives and ideas being included in major policy documents; and our people being at the table for those policymaking processes.

➢    At the conclusion of a 5-year period, it is possible to assess that our perspectives have had a major influence on important international development strategy development.

iSMA supports these goals. We have several recommendations on how to proceed:

•    In order to achieve the united voice considered in the problem statement above, we recommend using a common voice and vocabulary to influence—and change—local, national, regional, and global policies. As a practice, social marketing and social marketers use the strategies under discussion—communication, media, and behavioural and social change strategies—to achieve behaviour, social, and, increasingly, policy change.

•    Consider putting emphasis on measuring positive policy response not just policy change in general, some which may be neutral or negative.

Strategies: Some possible strategies to reach those goals could include (these are exemplary only at this stage):

e.    Developing and publishing a major annual critique of development (or a particular aspect of development) from a communication and media (and/for) development and social and behaviour change perspective and analysis.

f.    Undertaking a coordination process (using established and ongoing networks, for example) to agree on the spokesperson(s) for this field of work on a particular issue.

g.    Forming and supporting interest groups (small groups of interested people and organisations) to pursue particular policy areas – for example, a group to focus on any reviews of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change should this be a priority policy concern.

h.    Designing a common branding process for the policy engagement work that would take place. As an example, when UNICEF released several years ago its “Structural Adjustment with a Human Face” paper, the “human face” became common branding for a number of policy processes that critiqued different elements of development. That phrase resonated, and resonance is a tricky communication “thing”. But the principle remains.

The iSMA supports these strategies. We have several recommendations on how to proceed:

i.    Consider an annual review of progress report.

j.    Consider differentiating communication and media from more holistic behaviour change strategies like social marketing.

k.    Consider media and promotions training for the spokespeople (b) and briefing for them so they present a unified message.

l.    Consider developing code or guide to good practice that can inform practitioners, commissioners, and researchers.

m.    For US-based organizations, be aware that there are rules governing our ability to engage in lobbying/advocacy within the US.

Problem Option 4: Credible and compelling evidence

Problem to solve: “Prove that you have impact.”

Goals: This could lead to the following goals:

➢    Within 2 years, to have general consensus across this field of work on the 30 most compelling and credible pieces of impact data.

➢    At the conclusion of a 5-year period, to be able to cite 100 instances of at least one of those pieces of data being included in local, national, regional, or international development policy and strategy papers.

The iSMA supports these goals. We have several recommendations on how to proceed:

•    Pursue having a single access point to or portal for sources of evaluation data, case study material and systematic and meta-analytic reviews. Recommend reviewing existing databases and similar portals before beginning development to inform any future portal development.

•    Many systematic and meta-analytic reviews of various topic areas in communication, marketing and media for health are already available. These reviews should be a priority to capture, synthesize and serve as a foundation for future actions.

•    Consider the entire hierarchy of evidence (e.g., case studies, RCTs, systematic reviews, etc.) when deciding what should be considered credible and compelling evidence.

•    Because it may be challenging to agree on how impact is measured across different approaches and in different contexts, consider setting up a working group that is charged with develop a consensus on collating credible and compelling evidence.

Strategies: Some possible strategies to reach those goals could include (these are exemplary only at this stage):

a.    For each element of, for example, people and change, trust, equity, engagement, gender, voice, and accountability, identify the main credible and substantive research “pieces” with significant impact outcomes – positive or negative.

b.    Develop packages of that research and evaluation data relative to specific groups, organisations, communities of interest, and other development actors to engage with around the agreed-upon data. For example, there may be one package for local communities in order that conversations can take place concerning the demonstrated value of this work. Moving across the spectrum, another package could be for the 50 largest funders of development action in order to facilitate conversations with that important group of stakeholders. The same could apply for others – governments, bilaterals, technical experts in other fields, leaders of community and social movements, UN agencies, etc. Each would need a tailored product.

The iSMA supports these strategies. We have several recommendations on how to proceed:

•    Develop a common portal of guidelines and evidence for behaviour and social change programs. Prior to establishing the portal, review existing portals for accessing case studies of social marketing approaches that have worked (e.g., Tools of Change).

•    Consider funding comprehensive meta-reviews of existing research and evaluation data to inform good practice.

Problem Option 5: Funding levels

Problem to solve: Raise the substantial additional funds required for this field of work

Goals: This could lead to the following goals: 

➢    Within 2 years, engage 50 major global funders in order to highlight the analysis, strategy, track record, impact, future plans, and added value of your field of work.

➢    Within 5 years, see a 50% increase in funding from the 30 largest global funders.

➢     Ensure that 50% of these funds flow directly to Southern initiated, developed, and fully managed organisations.

The iSMA supports these goals. We have several recommendations on how to proceed:

•    Clarify “Southern initiated, developed, and fully managed organizations” to ensure that developing countries within North and Central America are not disadvantaged.

•    Ensure investments from these funds flow to both practice evaluations and the theory development.

Strategies: Some possible strategies to reach those goals could include (these are exemplary only at this stage):

a.    Form a formal alliance of major Northern and Southern agencies to guide the work of a secretariat.

b.    Create a common “bucket” into which funders can place funds. This could be based on a mechanism such as GAVI.

c.    Develop a set of criteria for the allocation of those funds and manage that mechanism.

The iSMA supports these strategies.

Problem Option 6: Civil society engagement

Problem to Solve: From the perspective of the major development organisations, the overall development process has struggled to incorporate civil society organisations and perspectives in its consultation and decision-making processes.

Goals: This could lead to the following goals:

➢    Within 2 years, to create 3 spaces at the highest levels in the UN system and in 5 national settings to systematically listen to community voices and perspectives.

➢    Within 5 years, to be able to demonstrate 20 examples of the significant contribution of communication, media, social and behaviour change civil society processes to regional and global decision-making.

The iSMA supports these goals. We have several recommendations on how to proceed:

•    Carefully consider which strategies to choose so we do not overpromise and under deliver as has been done many times before with development work.

•    While we recognize that high-level support for civil society engagement is important, consider also including outreach programs that involve engaging, consulting and working with communities on the ground.

•    When identifying the 20 examples, focus on how they achieve behavioural and policy outcomes, resource efficiencies, reducing inequities, improving sustainability of outcomes, their potential for scalability, as well as their short term impact and longer-term outcomes - not just on process measures or narratives.

Strategies: Some possible strategies to reach those goals could include (these are exemplary only at this stage):

a.    Monitoring and noting the major decision-making process that will take place – coming up, for example, are likely reviews of progress against the SDGs, World Bank reviews of poverty strategies, assessments of HIV/AIDS progress, and many more.

b.    Identifying Southern organisations and networks (and specific people within) who are interested and available to provide input into regional and global development decision-making forums.

c.    Providing them with relevant briefings and documents related to future regional and global decision-making events.

d.    Brokering access and engagement for relevant Southern organisations and networks into the decision-making and review processes.

e.    Developing and publishing a series of policy documents highlighting Southern communication, media, social and behavioural change perspectives, analyses, and ideas on selected priority issues, for example related to poverty, gender, HIV/AIDS, child mortality, or the environment.    

The iSMA supports these strategies. We also recommend that we explore ways to enable the widest range of organisations and voices to participate, including bringing the perspective of communities to the decision-making forums through engagement and consultation with these communities prior to the forums.

L. The options - Operating mechanisms

Operation Mechanism Option 1:  A Standing Committee of the United Nations

The iSMA and its member associations do support this option. 

Operation Mechanism Option 2:  A council of existing membership-based groups

In general, the iSMA and its member associations do not support this option. 

Operation Mechanism Option 3:  A federation of issue focused networks

The iSMA and its member associations do support this option as a supplement to Option 1 above, but recommend that the networks find ways to cut across issues to ensure that the networks do not funnel people back into their silos (e.g., one network for gender-based violence, another network for food security, etc.).

M. Structural and funding base for the mechanism

Structural Base

Structural Base Option A:  Embed a small staff team within a major organisation in this field of work. Any staff would be part of that organisation’s personnel and administrative system. 

In general, the iSMA and its member associations do not support this option unless there is a way for spreading the learning beyond that one major organization (e.g., create a ‘living university’).

Structural Base Option B: Establish a small virtual team who are all working from home wherever they may be and use online coordination tools. All staff would be on consultancy contracts, perhaps to different organisations in this field of work. 

The iSMA and its member associations do support this option and recommend establishing a federated or network model in order to ensure that different perspectives will be acknowledged and shared.

Structural Base Option C:  Establish a new NGO with a small office in a key city. Being an NGO, it would require a constitution, Board of Directors, etc.

The iSMA and its member associations do support this option as a supplement to Option B above.

Structural Base Option D: There is no dedicated staff team. Organisations in this field that are centrally involved in this process agree on lead roles and either dedicate their own staff or assume responsibility for contracting people with relevant skills, knowledge, and/or contacts.

The iSMA and its member associations do not support this option.

Funding Base:

Funding Option A:  That one organisation (bilateral, technical, NGO, UN, or foundation, for example) agrees to raise or provide new money to support a small 2-year funding arrangement for start-up purposes. 

The iSMA and most of its member associations do not support this option.

Funding Option B: That there is no core budget. The organisations that assume roles as outlined – for example, in Structural Option D above – fund financial requirements from their own resources related to the roles they assume.

The iSMA and most its member associations do not support this option. One member association does support it as a supplement to Option C, below.

Funding Option C:     That one organisation (or multiple organisations with good coordination) agree to build the tasks required into their core work plan(s) with appropriate costs incorporated into their budget(s) for the first 2 years of operation.

The iSMA and most its member associations do not support this option. One member association does support it as a supplement to Option B, above.

Initial consolidated comments:

The Options Paper is covering a very broad area and in the effort to include everything from media to social change the mechanism may be unable to be targeted and specific in what this effort is to accomplish. If it includes everything then the mechanism will have to create smaller "sub-mechanisms" to tackle the many technical areas encompassed in "communication, media, social and behavior change strategies."  Additionally,  the Options paper's focuses substantially on civil society and the power of community voices. This is woven throughout the paper. What is missing, however, is a recognition that the power of "voices" is a means to an end (and important one, but not an end in and of itself) so how does this paper reflect the importance of people's voice while maintaining that for our field this is to accomplish specific development goals?

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

Operating Mechanism

If this goes forward the most practical operating mechanism is the Standing Committee within the UN and the influence that may provide with country governments.

The Options Paper is covering a very broad area and in the effort to include everything from media to social change the mechanism may be unable to be targeted and specific in what this effort is to accomplish. If it includes everything then the mechanism will have to create smaller "sub-mechanisms" to tackle the many technical areas encompassed in "communication, media, social and behavior change strategies."  Additionally,  the Options paper's focuses substantially on civil society and the power of community voices. This is woven throughout the paper. What is missing, however, is a recognition that the power of "voices" is a means to an end (and important one, but not an end in and of itself) so how does this paper reflect the importance of people's voice while maintaining that for our field this is to accomplish specific development goals?

General comments

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.

 
Sections:

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.

 
Problem options:

It is important to add a ‘localization’ lens to all options, from ensuring we have training institutions in developing countries to help support local actors, empower local organizations to gather the evidence needed for local action, beside data for global advocacy, to funding options that ensure local actors can sustain effective C4D/community engagement actions and scale it up in case of crisis.

 
In particular:
 
·         Option 1: while standards could help quality assure communication and community engagement approaches, we would not recommend ‘audit’ approaches which are already creating an unnecessary burden on local organizations having to perform multiple audits linked to humanitarian standards and donors/partners specific standards.

·         Options 6 refers to CSO or civil society in general? The goal and strategy is mixing ‘listen to community voices’ with engaging southern CSOs.  We might want to split the two and ensure we have adequate focus on local organizations support and engagement on one side and ‘listening and amplifying people’s voices’ on the other, which is a key component of the IFRC community engagement approach.

 
We will feedback on the operating mechanisms at the meeting next week.
 
 
 
Ombretta Baggio
Coordinator, Community Engagement

IFRC

C4D Network Response A

Dear Colleagues, on behalf of the C4D Network I would like to offer our brief response to the C4D Mechanism research and the options put forward. I am Angelo, newly started as Network Manager, and my background is in radio, specifically in Mozambique.

[For those who may not know the C4D Network is a professional social network of people engaged in communication for development (from academia, civil society, public and private sector) around the world; with over 3,000 members and emerging country chapters in locations such as Nairobi, Bangkok, Brisbane, London, Barcelona, Kampala, Harare etc. Our emphasis is on meeting, learning and exchanging with the goal of improving C4D practice, with a strong focus on in-country expertise and C4D capacity development. www.c4d.org].

Our response is in two parts -  for ease of reading: firstly, focusing on the consultation research and secondly on the proposed mechanisms and ways forward.

It should be noted that these initial responses are preliminary and we would want to consult the Network membership fully to advance a representative response regarding specific recommendations about a C4D Mechanism from this New York meeting.

In general, in response to the stated ‘core question’ in the options paper (The question was: ‘… are there ways in which the people and … can work together through an agreed mechanism that will enhance the impact and reach of all of our work?’) our answer would be ‘Yes’ and we would support such an effort.  

*Note: We are using C4D as the umbrella term, and we mean by this the whole gambit of BBC, SCC, Advocacy, Media Development, CWC, RU and more.

C4D Network Response Part 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.’

Regarding what are the main issues that need to be addressed in order to be more effective in all our C4D work we would echo many of the findings of the research put forward in this options paper.

These also echo many of the findings we also have found during our recent 50-country C4D mapping study, in which C4D practitioners in-country meet and discussed what is key for them I their work, and what is happening on the ground with C4D in their countries.  (http://www.comminit.com/global/content/c4d-network-country-mapping-stud…)

Issue: C4D profile

The issue of C4D as an area of practice being under-recognised within the development sector is the key one and the one from which most other challenges flow. The Options Paper notes that the problem to solve is ‘the lack of agreed-upon standards for communication and media (and/for) development, and social and behaviour change programme initiatives.’

We would agree.

We would go further and say that it is not just agreed standard (we imagine this is meaning standards about how to research, plan, implement and evaluate C4D); it is also primarily about a lack of share understanding and agreed presentation of this field to others – and amongst ourselves as practitioners and theorists.

This lack of a ‘shared language’ as noted in the Paper we agree is the main issue and we echo the finding that this ‘undermines’ the understanding and appreciation of the ‘added value’ of C4D in development.  A key finding in our C4D Mapping study was that practitioners felt their work was often misunderstood, invisible and under-appreciated. [Mapping Finding: C4D is often invisible and unnamed, but it is present ‘on the ground’.]

Therefore, we would fully support a sector wide effort to better communicate what C4D is in order to raise its profile and engaged our other development colleagues more effectively.

Issue: Training standards

The Options paper identifies a key problem to solve being that ‘Anyone can be a communication, media, social and behaviour change practitioner in the development context.’

We agree that there is a certain free for all in this area, but also we know from the community of practitioners that there are many well-trained people coming from different disciplines, ours is a multi-disciplinary area after all.

We also note that there is a great increase in the number of masters courses, and now some undergraduate and short/vocational course in different aspects of C4D, this is to be celebrated. But indeed ‘training standards’ or a common base of core curriculum is a perennial issue, and one we – like other groups – are very much focused on addressing.

But is this about training standards completely though? Or more about the whole package of C4D being under-recognised within the development sector (and this due to our own collective inability thus far to communicate what C4D is – its aim, principles and modalities).

Issue: Credible and compelling evidence

The Options paper identifies a key problem to solve being proving C4D impact. We agree that this is clearly a perennial issue and relates like all the issues to C4D profile. We agree this is a key issue. The solutions however are not necessarily a ‘One C4D’ solution, but better coordination and signposting about where evidence is gathered, and better synthesis of this evidence. (Like DFID Systematic Reviews of Evidence out of the Research and Evidence Division).

There are two separate issues here, firstly ‘lack of impact data’ and secondly ‘poor C4D research methodologies and knowledge of methods’. These should be addressed separately.

·       Lack of impact data: could be supported by more targeted collaborative research (and indeed a central funding basket for this would be useful).

·       Poor C4D research know-how: could be addressed by improved C4D capacity development, and the support and structures that are needed to make sure C4D practitioners have the greatest access to training and resources in an on-going way. There are many resources, but most C4D people do not know about them, because there are weaknesses in prioritising their needs.

Issue: Policy voice

The Options paper identifies a key problem to solve being the lack of a ‘common and prominent voice that can influence local, national, regional, and global policies’. We wholeheartedly agree.

We would just caution however against a North American / EU – led ‘solution’, that is not the voice that is needed; there needs to be better ways for our voices to be articulated around our varied C4D practice – and that includes practitioners such as community radio people, community mobilisers, youth bloggers, activists of varies types; not just the ‘usual suspect’ INGOs and UN agencies.

If the issue is about lobbying for C4D to policy actors (and we agree that is vital) then there needs to be caution about western appropriation of that lobby voice in a way that has characterised the sector (and all of development?) for too many years already. We need to be living the participatory principle of C4D, as it were, in our own actions.

Issue: Civil society engagement

The Options Paper identifies a problem to be solved as the ‘incorporation of civil society orgs and perspectives’ in major dev organisation’s consultation and decision-making processes.

We agree. But on the whole, believe that engagement in-country between C4D people and others is the way to promote civil society engagement from grassroots up, it is not necessarily something that requires a Western-based centralist solution.

Our Mapping Study found that C4D practitioners had very varied experiences regarding engagement by civil society as well as other actors such as government and donors in their countries. There is clearly variable knowledge about C4D which translates into variable levels of engagement and support. Again, this boils down to C4D profile, or lack of it in-country.

Thank you. We welcome the forthcoming discussions and look forward to working together as a community in addressing these issues for the betterment of the C4D field.

C4D Network Response B

Dear Colleagues, on behalf of the C4D Network I would like to offer our brief response to the C4D Mechanism research and the options put forward. I am Angelo, newly started as Network Manager, and my background is in radio, specifically in Mozambique.

Our response is in two parts, for ease of reading: firstly, focusing on the consultation research (ED - see posted below as A from Angelo) and secondly on the proposed mechanisms and ways forward. This is the second part:

C4D Network Response Part B: ‘Which mechanism provides the best organizational possibility for addressing those priority worries & what are the main steps that need to be taken to implement that mechanism and who is responsible and accountable for taking that action.’ 

Operation Mechanism Option 1: A Standing Committee of the United Nations

•    We would support this option.

•    Whether it is feasible or not however is another issue.

•    We also wish to highlight the need to acknowledge and work within the existing UN Round Table on C4D structure. This mechanism has been on-going for two decades and has great value, and strangely is missing from the Options Paper.

•    We would also note that this option addresses the UN level of C4D coordination, but not the C4D practitioners level on the ground; that requires other solutions, possibly ones that simply need better coordination between existing social/knowledge/platform/thematic focus networks such as CI, AMARC, CDAC, C4D Network and others.

Operation Mechanism Option 2: A council of existing membership-based groups

•    We might support this option, based on fuller information.

•    A council of existing networks seems somewhat exclusive; what is the joining criteria, who are the gatekeepers?

•    If it did proceed it would need to be independent of any existing network/organisation.

Operation Mechanism Option 3: A federation of issue focused networks

•    We would not support this option.

•    It is our view that there are already networks and structures that work in this space, bringing together others in the C4D sector.

We would like to propose a fourth option:

Operation Mechanism Option 4: A Global Association

•    We would propose a Global C4D Association, that is a professional association for those working or engaged in communication for development in its broadest definition.

•    This Global Association will have its mandate from voting members. The membership would be composed of dues-paying individuals and institutions.

•    The mission of the Association would be the promotion of C4D as a respected and resourced area of practice in development.

•    The outputs of the Association would be: (i) A set of global ‘standards and definitions’ about what C4D is: the principles, the definition(s), the description. (ii) A set of global resources about C4D: a compilation of C4D research & evaluation theirs and frameworks; a compilation of C4D training courses and resources etc. (iii) An accreditation system for C4D curricula and training. 

•    The representative structure of the Association would be a bi-annually changing two/three person ‘Global Representative Team’ voted for by the membership. This Representative Team would be the prominent focal point for C4D advocacy and lobby.

•    The Global Association will be guided by a Board, composed of member organisations, voted for by the whole membership. 

•    The Representative Team and the Association would be supported by a small Secretariat, providing administrative support. This would be cyber-based or based in the South.

•    Support would include a) responding to inquiries, and directing inquirers to the most relevant members regarding information or connection, b) synthesis research – collating C4D experience, c) managing accreditation system, d) collating resources, e) producing core materials regarding standards and definitions.

Thank you. We welcome the forthcoming discussions and look forward to working together as a community in addressing these issues for the betterment of the C4D field.

[For those who may not know the C4D Network is a professional social network of people engaged in communication for development (from academia, civil society, public and private sector) around the world; with over 3,000 members and emerging country chapters in locations such as Nairobi, Bangkok, Brisbane, London, Barcelona, Kampala, Harare etc. Our emphasis is on meeting, learning and exchanging with the goal of improving C4D practice, with a strong focus on in-country expertise and C4D capacity development. www.c4d.org].

Thank you so much for including me in this discussion. I’m really excited to get more involved. Please take my comments for what they are worth---my background is in Child Development with an emphasis on media effects on children (and families) and I’m relatively new to Communication Initiatives and what you do but I have read many different articles on the site. I’ve been doing what I do for over 20 years now—so I’m not new to behavioral science but I likely don’t know the lingo etc in which you are speaking so please excuse my lack of knowledge on the issue. I’m assuming you want this document to be understand by a broad range of people, yes? I’m taking the tough love approach here and I don’t know the crowd so I don’t know if this will be received with scorn or appreciation—but here goes:

 
1)      The line “frustration in trying to explain what you do in ways that others quickly understand” is incredibly important. As I read this document, I couldn’t tell you what you actually do other than “we seek to change behavior.” Behavioral, social, communication change…isn’t that what everyone who does any kind of work with people think they do? (teachers, social workers, advertising executives, artists, etc) I think it’s important that you outline what this group DOES do and what it DOESN’T do and how it differs from other groups that think they do intervention work. Your core question “J” seems so large that I don’t know what’s in this category and what’s not in this category. Anyone who is working to change attitudes, knowledge and behavior at the Local, national, regional, international level seems to fall into this group. So then the very question is “who does this not apply to?”

 
2)      This is a group of communication and social change agents---of all people who have expertise in influencing other people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavior wouldn’t this group be better than anyone else to convince others of the importance of its work? Have any studies been done demonstrating how to effective in the field? I think a large study with policy makers, etc do see what messages this community needs to start using in order to be heard would be a good next step.

 
3)      The department of Education has a what works clearinghouse for gold standard education---is there an equivalent here? Gold standard methods of behavioral change?

 
4)      There is mention of no training standards and no formal courses that get people ready to be communication, social, behavioral change agents. Is that perhaps because anyone who takes social psych, behavior analysis, or media courses already think they know this kind of work and think about how to effect change? And would they be wrong in thinking that they have a sense of how to do this? What about all of the books on habits, persuasion, nudges, etc…..are those not highlighting the very behaviors you are trying to influence as well? Is it less about defining this work as vastly different from what people think they are doing and more about having a place for all good insights to get an audience? The whole field of behavioral economics is in the spotlight at the moment but it seems to me that a lot of what those best practices are were things I learned about in the 1990s in graduate school about sustainable programs. To me if feels like a rebranding of an old concept.

 
5)      What can you learn from the for-profit/business world about how they implement behavior change and how they convince clients to buy products, adopt behavior, etc?

 
6)      Problem 4: Compelling evidence—compelling that a particular method of behavior change works? Or that a systematic approach to behavior change works? It’s unclear what evidence is needed here…

 
7)      Problem 6: This is about including voices…which seems to be a different voice than the behavior change field issue. Both seem to be important but this is a different issue altogether (unless I’m missing something entirely which is possible)

 
8)      In general I think there are a lot of good ideas here but I personally think there needs to be a clearer and more specific ASK…what’s the two minute elevator pitch to a funder with a lot of money to spend on this? I’m really excited to be part of the conversation and offer helpful thoughts. 

 
 
Let me know what you think!

Jen
 
 
 

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.

Section K – the options

I am rather torn on the description of problems (particularly problem 2) and potential solutions. On the one hand, it makes sense to talk about standards and training and so forth. But what I also see in my field is the potential for this to further “silo” this work.  In the governance and peacebuilding world, we have very few people who are able to understand and work confidently in this area and a sense that it is something different and should be left for others, instead of a broad understanding that it is fundamental to how political processes (defined broadly) operate. I think we need to think about how “literacy” (if not specialism) in this field becomes a core competence, which we do not shy away from (in the way, for example that most of us are not specialists in electoral systems, but we do understand the basic landscape).

I don’t have a solution….but thought I would put this aspect of the problem on the table!

thanks

Dear Warren,

Thanks for the email.  I also completed the survey following the link at the end of the page.

Here are my comments, suggestions to the core paper: Thanks for outlining the issues and making it simple to review in the paper.

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.

The Options section: all valid goals, perhaps ambitious, but doable. A Health Promotion principles and competencies might be considered here to complement the proposed goals.

With kind regards,

Bojana

Dear Warren and Rafael,

Thank you very much for this very timely and important initiative. I think such a global mechanism would be very useful for countries that I are in process of implementing reforms.

For example, in the Kyrgyz Republic, we are initiating a major national development strategy Taza Koom or Smart Country. The strategy is aimed at improving the lives of Kyrgyz people through the use of innovations and new technologies. Communicating to the people of the country the necessity of such a strategy has proven a challenging task. Many countries around the world have implemented such smart country strategies or currently are implementing. Sharing communications experience would be very helpful for countries around the world.

Therefore, I believe, today’s topic of setting up a global mechanism is very timely and necessary. As for Operation Mechanisms, perhaps, for the first two-years the Option 1 would be most effective. Once, the idea gains momentum and support, it could be more sustainable. At that point Option 2 or 3 could be considered.

Best regards,

Talant Sultanov

Taza Koom Expert Group (www.tazakoom.kg)

Kyrgyz Republic

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

CORE: Is “worries the correct word here? I suggest Challenges or concerns

2.    Which mechanism provides the best organizational possibility for addressing those priority worries.

CORE: Existing mechanism or a new one?

➢    A survey completed by 500 people from 87 countries responding to questions asking them to identify their priorities, opportunities, and challenges.

CORE: What languages? Did it include people with disabilities? What is the gender breakdown?

➢    The consultation questions were also asked of The CI’s Soul Beat network of people active in this field in Africa – 15 substantive contributions were received and discussed.

CORE: Why weren’t other SBC platforms used?

CORE: General comment: Suggest to include in these principles: Priorities of  respect and a focus on quality, that is inclusive in relation to gender, age, disability, sexuality, religion, etc.

CORE: Quality is missing from this document it seems; Equity approach to access should be included : Access must also include platforms that are available in different languages and platforms; Access must include platforms for people with disabilities

In many cases, these are exclusively people-related issues, so the major strategic options available are related to communication, media, social and behaviour change

CORE: Can we add some economic contributions of these SBC effects?

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?

a.    Bring together a working group to develop the standards criteria

CORE: Or review existing standards

e.    Provide guidance for communities and peoples being engaged

CORE: Ensure the working group has communities present

➢    At the conclusion of a 5-year period, 50% of a sample of people working in relevant roles have passed a course recognised as meeting training standards for this field of work

CORE: Need to define this a bit more- are there certain roles that are more appropriate than others?

c.    Undertake an overall audit of the training standards in a sample of the institutions providing such training.

CORE: Need to define this a bit more- are there certain roles that are more appropriate than others?

c.    Undertake an overall audit of the training standards in a sample of the institutions providing such training

CORE: Important !!! yes!! This can be done for the standards section also.

b.    Undertaking a coordination process (using established and ongoing networks, for example) to agree on the spokesperson(s) for this field of work on a particular issue.

CORE: The partnership “discussion” as a strategy has not been included in this document- for example- the secretariat model for Polio Eradication, was an effective coordination/collaboration mechanism; what other partners need to be involved- lawyers ( for the policy element); private companies ( for branding and marketing)- just as examples

c.    Forming and supporting interest groups (small groups of interested people and organisations) to pursue particular policy areas –

CORE: I think this is a great idea and helps streamline interests and expertise, to ultimately focus on the policy.

Problem Option 5: Funding levels

CORE: I would suggest listing the Problem options, in order of priorities from the consultation, then expanding on the other problem options

resonate strongly with those contexts.

CORE: Does the Funding issue tie in to capacity of Southern organizations to manage funds, financial  and reporting skills, etc? Does the “funding problem” need to be unpacked and broken down into the key areas of the funding problem? The next paragraph outlines the grant mechanisms, but not the other issues.

➢    Within 5 years, see a 50% increase in funding from the 30 largest global funders

CORE: If the issue is large grants- then, does there need to be a small grants program for CBOs that addresses capacity building in financial management, as well as the SBC activities they will undertake?

a.    Form a formal alliance of major Northern and Southern agencies to guide the work of a secretariat

CORE: I would like to see how you define this and then, how do we include the “non-major” agencies in the dialogue?

b.    Create a common “bucket” into which funders can place funds. This could be based on a mechanism such as GAVI.

CORE: My suggestion is that the every large Fund, should have a “SBC Bucket”

Three of the top 6 opportunities identified were: Rising importance of the voices of the people with whom you work; Growing levels of engagement by the people with whom you work; and Proliferation of citizens’ voices.

CORE: This is one of the largest problems- CSO engagement in a meaningful and country-driven manner

The UN Forum on Indigenous Issues and its equivalent on People with Disabilities

CORE: Yes- Disabilities made it finally!!

Dear Warren

 
Apologies for not sending my comments sooner. As mentioned earlier; I will not be joining you as it was not possible for me to secure a visa appointment. A few thoughts I have are:

 
Introduction: It would be great to have deliberations around informal systems such community debates; the role of community champions both of whom may not necessarily utilise  formal media to influence social and behaviour change. How can impact pf such communication efforts be measured?

 
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.

 
Options:

Programming standards: Although there is lack of agreed upon standards; we need to think about models that work and can be documented for replication by partners

Training standards: An important aspect to be considered is the establishment of a "community of practice" that will continue to deliberate on standards and advise partners and actors.

Policy voice: There is so much that has been done around C4D; advocacy has emerged as an important area in development work. How do we link C4D with Advocacy?

Funding levels: This has remained a major challenge. In some cases; there is preference for "hardware" programming and not "software" i.e  SBCC work

Hopefully I will participate virtually on line if possible.

 
Wishing you a fruitful meeting.

 
Susan Ajok MPH, Executive Director

Dear Warren

 
Here are some overall comments from me. Since I have not been involved in this process up to now, I don’t feel I can our should get too much into the weeds. Please feel free to share or not as you think appropriate. Please note these are my own views and not those of OSF.

·         As others have acknowledged, this is a really interesting and important document that sets out a number of key issues in the field. However as others have also pointed out, there is a fundamental issue of definition that needs to be addressed – it is not at all clear what ‘the field’ is. The terms used in the paper seem to try to be very inclusive – but this reinforces one of the worries identified – the problem in defining the boundaries of the field. An example of this comes in the discussion of issue based networks – where it is stated that the work of such networks is almost exclusively ‘communication, media, social and behavioural change in nature’.  So everyone involved in working on a development issue is part of this field? Unless this definitional problem is addressed it seems difficult to see how other issues such as measurement, or development of common standards can be resolved.

·         There seems to me to be a fundamental tension between the desire to ‘professionalise’ the field – to develop common standards, agreed qualifications and so on, and the emphasis on ‘bottom up’ processes, on civil society voices and perspectives. I do understand the need and desire to ensure certain standards are met, but there is also a risk here of reinforcing and entrenching an ‘expert’ class versus people in communities who are engaged in social and policy change efforts, with implications for who gets to speak where and when, who gets taken seriously, who gets to control funding and so on. At the very least this tension needs to be acknowledged.

·         Policy voice: I find the description of this problem puzzling – that it has been difficult for the communication/media for development, and social and behavior change community to find a … voice that an influence policies. How can we hope to work with communities to assist them influencing policies if we cannot do this ourselves? Or does this mean that the work of this field is limited to helping communicate policy decisions already made? If so, what does that mean for our claims of raising community voices?

·         The section on civil society engagement seems to lack an important political analysis. While there may be proliferation of citizens’ voices, it needs to be acknowledged that these voices seem to have less and less power. Increasingly, decisions are made behind closed doors, and private interests seem to have increasing sway, with civil society consultation formalized but not taken seriously. The absence of civil society perspectives in major development organizations should not be seen as understandable!

·         I was startled by the statement later on in the document stating that there are ‘increasingly open societies’, except for a few places (p20). On the contrary, societies are increasingly becoming closed – with space for civil society increasingly restricted. We see this in Russia, in India, in South Africa, in Hungary, Poland, in the US – I could go on. This is one of the key problems we are grappling with at OSF at the moment. This must surely be of key concern to those involved in social change?

·         The paper does not acknowledge another issue that it seems to me is at the top of mind of those involved in strategic communication in policy and political processes – the so-called ‘post truth era’ – in which ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’ seem to have become irrelevant and the powerful cynically make use of communication strategies and manipulate media and the whole idea of ‘truth’ in order to achieve their goals. Surely this must be one of the fundamental problems facing the communication for social change community too? How do we convey important information/ educate people/ facilitate informed discussions in such an environment? Proliferation of social media does offer interesting and exciting communication and participatory communication possibilities, but as we are seeing it also carries great threats – of proliferation of falsehoods, manipulation and so on. Surely this is an issue that has to be discussed in a paper of this nature?

 
All best
Brett
 

The report is an excellent effort to advance the work of development communication. I’ll address at some length one main topic it raises.

The lack of a valid change theory, does seem a pressing problem. However, I can’t help but think the problem is not posed in the best possible way, simply because of its singularity, i.e. “a” valid change theory. Some years ago now, Silvio Waisbord addressed the welter of factions (my term) in the field of development communication, i.e. participatory “vs” behavior change, entertainment education, media advocacy, etc. He suggested that each of these approaches has its appropriate uses; the implied trick being to know when each was appropriately used. He made this suggestion in an article entitled the “Family Tree of Theories, Methodologies and Strategies in Development Communication.” Waisbord also suggested that the possibility might exist for theoretical and empirical convergence. This convergence would include, perhaps at a minimum, acknowledgement of the following principles: The need for political will, a “tool-kit” conception of strategies; integration of “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches; integration of multimedia and interpersonal communication; and the idea that personal and environmental approaches should be integrated.

The possibility for a well elaborated theoretical convergence in the properly academic sense remains an open question, and productive, suggestion rather than an accomplishment. But as a practical guide for work in the field, a family tree of theories, methodologies and strategies seems unquestionably useful. Back to the question of “a” valid change theory. Isn’t is likely that it would be more useful to hope for a family tree of change theories rather than a valid change theory?

Consider the variety of ways in which communication itself is defined: as message sending, as persuasion, as uncertainty reduction, as dialog, as dialog for personal transformation and empowerment, and more. Consider as well the various kinds of aims that various development projects can have:

• Projects that have short term goals

• Projects that have longer term goals

• Change that involves politics in the sense of political institutions, like parties, or municipalities, or other political entities

• Small scale change where political institutions are not at all involved.

• Large scale processes fundamentally related to cultural values.

• Pure persuasion campaigns, whether short or long term (these should probably not be forbidden entirely.)

• Fully participatory processes that are probably small scale, but can range up to non-local scale as well.

• “Strategic” campaigns, in the sense of being thoughtful and well planned, which can possibly include both outright persuasion campaigns and/or fully participatory processes that are probably small scale, but can range up to non-local scale as well.

• Campaigns that aim to achieve non-communication goals such as improved health outcomes, where communication is merely a tool.

• Campaigns that include substantial building of the capacity, or capability, to communicate.

• Participation campaigns whose goals are entirely devoted to individual or community empowerment.

• Campaigns that do not aim for immediate individual or community empowerment, but aim rather improving the responsiveness of government institutions such as service delivery.

• Campaigns that do not aim for immediate individual or community empowerment, but aim rather improving the responsiveness of government institutions such as the political process itself.

Some of these aims may overlap. But no matter. The list is offered only to indicate that the variety available in definitions of communication along with the variety of different kinds of change processes undertaken in the development sector comprise an extremely wide variety. It is a variety that is too broad to squeeze into “a valid change theory.”

Acknowledging this variety need not imply that the definitional challenge, whether of communication itself or of change theories, is overwhelming. The variety implies only that the effort to compress this variety into a single change theory is perhaps is likely to be fruitless. My suggestion would therefore be to pursue a family tree of change theories. Different organizations would find change theories in some branches of the tree useful more useful than others. Together the tree might be able to express the full variety of work undertaken in the field of development communication.

I would support the second option. It could be a virtual enterprise using the power of the internet to create a virtual team, thus bringing in the groups that may have limited access to travel funds etc. The more flexible the mechansim and open to change the better. I was luck to attend one of the first meetings of the roundtable on development communication in Ottowa, which was a very rewarding exercise. But as the roundtable sought to formalize its structure it lost some of its creative input as well. If the goal is to have more visibility for the dev comm sector at the top levels of the UN, then more than a federation might be needed. But I quite frankly would not know where to begin on that one. All the best for the meeting in New York which alas I cannot attend. Let me know if it is being livestreamed or facebook live or pericsope and happy to join

Dear Warren and Rafael,

Thank you for being such an ambitious powerhouse that brings us as a field together and allows us to develop a global mechanism in a truly collaborative effort. PCI Media Impact looks very much forward to the two-day meeting and we would like to share our comments and thoughts on questions raised in advance.

Question 1: Which specific priority worries and issues need to be addressed in order for this field of work to become more effective at greater scale?

Before going into our answer, let me just share that we did start the discussion around the question itself. If we strive to be more effective at greater scale, we most likely mean having more impact, longer-lasting impact, impacting more beneficiaries of our work. What we are missing in this articulation of a goal is the process of our work. Following C4D's core principles. We will certainly address the principles across the outlined Problem Options, however we do miss the foundational role of our principles in the paper overall. 

We do agree on the necessity of standards. The focus of such standards, again, should be on the processes that need to be in place for good C4D, for global and national work. For us, it is more important finding the minimum specifications of good C4D design, implementation, and evaluation, based on our principles, than it is to spend resources in order to agree on how we name ourselves. We would situate the ability to create a good theory of change within the programming standards. Being able to create a strong Theory of Change is important for every successful communication program, but it is also a chance for C4D to visualize how C4D can bridge between thematic areas, helping to break down silos and leverage program resources.

Trainings are important, but we will need to make them accessible and practitioner-friendly across the world. More relevant than having institutions offering specific C4D courses, that might be expensive and hard to attend, is to create a fostering environment that allows us to share lessons learned, be not afraid talking about failures or questions, focus on program design and not only outcome.

Overall, we are communicators and sometimes that is not obvious. We use language that is not inclusive, we present data in tables and curves, we might not be interested in the latest tech development and left to react to an ever-changing media landscape. Let's become our own role models and communicate in a clear, simple and accessible way, using visuals and entertaining features. That might help our program's beneficiaries, our funders, and us.

Question 2: Which mechanism provides the best organizational possibility for addressing those priority worries?

For all three options, it will be important to be transparent that the platform is for C4D practitioners across issue sets, including health, environment and social justice.

A council of existing C4D membership-based organization is an option, as is a federation of issue focused networks. Implementing a standing committee of the United Nations might add a lot of bureaucracy into the mix. Ideally, the mechanism allows us as a field to set and implement holistic development agendas, leverage program resources and learn from each other.

Question 3: What are the main steps that need to be taken to implement that mechanism and who is responsible and accountable for taking that action?

We are in support of Option B. A virtual team will allow us to select from a larger pool of potential team members and is more inclusive. We can see the benefit of Option A of adding a small team within an existing organization by having already structures and systems in place, however, we feel the mechanism should be independent and not an add on to a major player in the field. Option C to create a new NGO seems to require a lot of additional resources to get off the ground. Option D is the least favorable with having volunteer members, as we are all super busy and this is a heavy lift that requires full-time hands on in order to be successful.

We look forward seeing you all,

PCI Media Impact

Carina Schmid
Director, Global Health Programs
PCI Media Impact

These are my views which don’t at this stage necessarily reflect those of BBC Media Action.

 
Inevitably in any process like this, a series of concerns tend to predominate but I see real potential value in this.   The Communication for Development contribution to 21st century development challenges remains woefully underprioritised, poorly understood, often poorly integrated into development programming.  The international mechanisms that exist to address this remain poorly developed.  So the paper is much valued as is the broader initiative.  I also recognize how difficult it is to synthesise strategy from multiple consultations and what I say here somewhat challenges the message of those consultations so needs to be read in that context.

 
I think it’s worth starting by laying down why I think the communication community has always over many decades struggled to gain traction with the mainstream development community.  Some of the reasons are well explained in the paper (issues of evidence, confusion around what communication is, lack of clear professional standards etc).

 
But the biggest single reason, in my view, is that communication for development has been poor at making its arguments core to the development issue they seek to address and have focused on having a communication conversation rather than a development conversation.

 
My principal concern with the paper is that, despite efforts it makes to the contrary, it risks repeating this mistake by outlining what could be perceived as a cookie cutter approach - the communication skills, approaches, methodologies and capacities look like they are to be applied across the development agenda but will, in reality,  look very different in the context of, for example, conflict mitigation and maternal and child health.  Commanding credibility in these fields can’t be achieved by having communication qualifications.  It is just as important to understand and be able to command credibility in the issue itself.

 
This becomes apparent in the section on Development Goals where the underlying expectation is that the mechanism would command credibility to the very well established accountability and transparency communities; fragile states, conflict and dfstability communities; media freedom and access to information communities; education community; water and sanitation, maternal and child health and other health communities; the emergencies community – among others.

 
That is difficult enough (and something most C4D organisations manage all the time) but gets even harder if one is trying to establish an evidence base sufficiently compelling to each of these.

 
So whatever this ends up being, I’d suggest it needs:
 
·        A clear focus and framework;

·        That it delivers clear value to the development community and challenge it seeks to address (i.e. that if it is valued only by the communication and not the broader development community it will have failed).

·        That it recognizes that different development problems require different communication approaches

 
So on the first of these, a clear framework, and notwithstanding the results of the consultation, I think any Mechanism should be framed clearly within the SDG framework and establish a small number of priorities within those of what it will help to deliver on/contribute to.

On the second, the paper is concerned principally at trying to engage and change the perceptions of other parts of the development sector.

 
I think the mechanism should start by looking closer to home and try and better organize – or at least make intelligible – the communication sector and work to make what it does more understandable, useful and credible to the priority areas of the development sector.   The communication sector is broad and messy and very difficult for those outside it to make sense of, determine the best value from and establish effectives strategies to support.

 
For example, as well as the traditional communication for development sector, there are well established Nudge/Behavioural Economics communities, well established tech/ICT initiatives, media freedom, media development, strategic communication actors and many others.   Equally there are different and often divergent approaches and learnings from different regions (e.g. Latin America) that provide richness and diversity but are difficult to make sense of by non communication specialists.

 
The mechanism could take a small number of development challenges (maternal and child health or improving accountability are two examples, not suggestions), convene processes with the relevant development sector (e.g. the Transparency and Accountability Initiative) to understand the problem to be solved, explore which approaches are most relevant to addressing that problem, and what needs to happen to make communication and more respected and credible component of the response.  In this way, a clear coherent communication offer can be established, a clear framework of cooperation and contribution to that sector made, a clear set of strategies developed and a clear evidence agenda conceived.

 
And then, over time, it can help contribute to a clearer, more crystalline understanding within specific development sectors of which strategies offer most (and least) to particular development challenges, what kinds of partnerships need to be established, what kind of research agenda makes most sense to invest in etc.

 
And beyond that it can work to be not so much a standard setting but a norm setting sector, making it clear that certain types of communication approaches are less valuable and appropriate than others (according to the challenge), it can act as a peer review community and it can, perhaps, call out examples of communication that clearly do not/have not learned from earlier experience.

 
This makes me not that keen on a standard setting approach (I think it could hamper innovation, establishing standards could be very fraught and time consuming, and I’m not so sure they could easily be implemented/policed without a lot of cost.  A peer review/peer community might be better.

 
When it comes to training standards, our challenge is as much about training in project management and knowledge of the issue/dynamics/context of the issue people are working on as on communication training.  This is such a diverse, fast changing field that this risks being a static, bureaucratic solution to a problem that is more caused by people funding/supporting poor communication.  And some of our best work happens not necessarily by putting highly trained communication people on an issue but mixing highly creative people with good research and a strong understanding of the development problem (to generate a good theory of change) as well as the communication skills….it requires a mix not always easily found in one community.

 
I very much like some of the policy recommendations especially producing a regular (annual?) critique of development.  I think a better approach would be to encourage the establishment of two or three clear academic/practise centres of research which could command credibility in their field.  Currently practice research is not taken seriously by much of the academic community, and academic research is only occasionally useful to the practice, and neither is properly shifting the needle on policy.

 
On a common bucket of funding, I’m skeptical that donors would contribute to this.  The analogy with GAVI is not quite convincing – GAVI has an impact impact indicator around vaccine development and delivery which has a more concrete outcome than more effective communication.  The communication has to be tied to the development issue it offers value to.
 
 

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.

Dear Warren and Rafael, Dear All

I write as someone from the CDAC Network - so we are primarily concerned with humanitarian emergencies, the planning for natural disasters and the recovery period. We advocate strongly for communication and meaningful engagement with those affected and for their inclusion in responses. There are however many cross over areas- obviously!

1) First and foremost I would agree with those who say that there has to be linkage in this document with the SDGs and the Grand Bargain components of the WHS- most notably the spirit and implications for the Participation Revolution, as well as those who want to see more profile given to local and national entities and to support their networks.

2) The CDAC Network and the Standing Committee on Humanitarian Response have just concluded a Global Forum that looked at authenticity issues around the Particpation Revolution and the resulting document '12 Essentials for System Change' includes many of the overarching issues that need to be tackled if people are to feel communicated with and fully involved in a humanitarian response for their own disaster. The paper is available here http://www.cdacnetwork.org/tools-and-resources/i/20170626100606-jfw4i 

3) I also very much like the approach of DMI who have posted very good results for a child mortality effort using radio in Burkina Faso http://www.developmentmedia.net/impact.html while also giving reasons why other efforts have failed  e.g. in the DRC http://www.developmentmedia.net/news/-lessons-from-a-campaign-that-didnt-change-behaviours   This surely is the way to go as much as possible

4) To also help thinking for the whole complexity of comunication and engagement in a crisis, we have also produced a policy paper http://www.cdacnetwork.org/tools-and-resources/i/20170531072915-3fs0r  'The Role of Collective Platforms, Services and Tools to support Communication and Community Engagement in Humanitarian Action'.

Best wishes to all of you in New York and prfitable discussions!

Martin

Dear Warren and Rafael,

Thanks for your message and apologies for being late with commenting. As you both know I am traveling this month.

First, congratulations on the draft, which reflects the conversations we have been having on this forum as well as the consultations in which I participated both at The Hague and in New York City. It's great to see this moving forward!

A few comments and suggestions:

Priorities: As many excellent frameworks and experiences already exist, I believe that key priorities to move this agenda forward may include: 1) Capacity building, professional development and training, so that current and future practitioners across different sectors and disciplines can be empowered to effectively use Communication and Media for Social and Behavioral Change; 2) A stronger emphasis on resources and tools for program evaluation, so that social and behavioral results can be rigorously attributed to communication and media interventions: 3) Advocacy efforts, so that the accrediting bodies/institutions that are responsible for developing and enforcing core competencies for graduate and undergraduate programs will include Communication and Media for Social and Behavioral Change among their core recommended topics. The new entity/network can play a key role on all of these priorities.

Focus: As a professional who has been working for more than two decades at the intersection of global health, health equity, communication, and international development, as well as in my role as Founding President, Board of Directors, of Health Equity Initiative (a member-driven multisectoral membership organization dedicate to health equity - with 200+ members and 11,000+ subscribers/followers), I felt that the focus on equity should be strengthened within the paper. This is also important to engage a variety on new players on communication and media issues that are key to socioeconomic and community development, health equity, poverty alleviation, etc.

Mechanism: While a UN Standing Committee would provide strong visibility to communication and media for social and behavioral change, I am concerned about the potential time and energy this strategy may take. I view the UN Standing Committee as a long-term strategy. In the interim, a council of existing professional associations with a formal Secretariat and Partnership Steering Committee, along with a virtual network, may help advance this agenda just as well.

I look forward to next steps and to continuing so staying involved.

Cheers,

Renata Schiavo

www.renataschiavo.com

Dear Warren and Rafael,

Thanks for your message and apologies for being late with commenting. As you both know I am traveling this month.

First, congratulations on the draft, which reflects the conversations we have been having on this forum as well as the consultations in which I participated both at The Hague and in New York City. It's great to see this moving forward!

A few comments and suggestions:

Priorities: As many excellent frameworks and experiences already exist, I believe that key priorities to move this agenda forward may include: 1) Capacity building, professional development and training, so that current and future practitioners across different sectors and disciplines can be empowered to effectively use Communication and Media for Social and Behavioral Change; 2) A stronger emphasis on resources and tools for program evaluation, so that social and behavioral results can be rigorously attributed to communication and media interventions: 3) Advocacy efforts, so that the accrediting bodies/institutions that are responsible for developing and enforcing core competencies for graduate and undergraduate programs will include Communication and Media for Social and Behavioral Change among their core recommended topics. The new entity/network can play a key role on all of these priorities.

Focus: As a professional who has been working for more than two decades at the intersection of global health, health equity, communication, and international development, as well as in my role as Founding President, Board of Directors, of Health Equity Initiative (a member-driven multisectoral membership organization dedicate to health equity - with 200+ members and 11,000+ subscribers/followers), I felt that the focus on equity should be strengthened within the paper. This is also important to engage a variety on new players on communication and media issues that are key to socioeconomic and community development, health equity, poverty alleviation, etc.

Mechanism: While a UN Standing Committee would provide strong visibility to communication and media for social and behavioral change, I am concerned about the potential time and energy this strategy may take. I view the UN Standing Committee as a long-term strategy. In the interim, a council of existing professional associations with a formal Secretariat and Partnership Steering Committee, along with a virtual network, may help advance this agenda just as well.

I look forward to next steps and to continuing so staying involved.

Cheers,

Renata Schiavo

www.renataschiavo.com