project. It did this by reviewing relevant literature in development communication. The review done showed that literature is replete with arguments critical of the dominant paradigm due to its top-down nature of communication. Scholars critical of dominant paradigm argue that participatory communication should be given a prominent role to ensure that stakeholders work in concert to realise the stated objectives of their development project. The study highlighted many contentious issues surrounding the nature and practices of participatory communication. It pointed out that the issues have played themselves out in literature in the form of different typologies of participatory practices, which were dealt with extensively in this study. The discussion of participatory communication in literature is also mindful of different models of communication and the space they occupy in participatory communication practices. In this study, there was a discussion of transactional communication models as depicted by Nair and White (1993:52) and Steinberg (1997:19). Both scholars emphasise that participatory communication will not achieve its stated purpose without mutual agreement of the parties in communication. They equally stress the recognition of the possible effects of some contextual factors which may have bearing on the prevailing nature of communication. A review of different communication tools used by participatory development communicator was given in the study. These different communication tools were discussed in view of how these tools can be used to advance participatory practice in a development project, especially with reference to the project examined in this study. Using qualitative research method, different and appropriate interview methods such as semi-structured, focus group and post-survey interviews were used to collect data from the respondents in this study. The analysis and discussion of the data revealed that different challenges on the ground could affect participatory communication practices in a development project. With regard to the project examined in this study, the analysis showed that there is a weak stakeholder relationship, especially stakeholders identified in this study as field officers. The study highlighted that stakeholders such as the agricultural extension officers and animal health technicians are not very active in the implementation process of the project. Some of the reasons pointed out is the fact that the secondary stakeholder such as the Provincial Department of Agricultural (PDoA) to which these field officers belong is not playing active role in ensuring that they complement the efforts of other field officers such as the IDC representatives. The second reason is the fact that the participatory focus of the project was not properly communicated to the beneficiaries. This also transpired in their inability to reflect participatory practice in their relationship with the beneficiaries and other stakeholders of the project. Other challenges, among others, as pointed out in the analysis showed that participatory communication practice requires expert personnel to be successful. In the case of the project examined, apart from the fact that there is shortage of manpower to handle the challenges mentioned in the study, there is no communication expert among the few active personnel in the field. The findings of this study showed that there was no clear role and identification of responsibilities let alone coordination of all actors involved in the project. Through the selected case study, this study has not only provided avenue to explore both theoretically and practically participatory communication, but has added to participatory communication discourse that there is no easy answer to challenges field officers encounter in practice. This is the reason the different participatory practices characterising nature of the project this study has investigated was given.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:ufh/vital:11370 |
| Date | January 2011 |
| Creators | Usadolo, Sam Erevbenagie |
| Publisher | University of Fort Hare, Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Doctoral, PhD (Com) |
| Format | 313 leaves; 30 cm, pdf |
| Rights | University of Fort Hare |
Page generated in 0.0026 seconds