Development Communication and Policy Sciences

The notion of "policy sciences" may have different connotations. According to Harold Laswell (1971), “policy sciences are concerned with the knowledge of and in the decision processes of the public and civic order.”^[1] Knowledge of decision processes points to the empirical and scientific understanding of the how policies are made and executed. Empirical knowledge pertains to those generated through scientific inquiry ad observation as applied to decision processes.^[2]

The policy sciences provide an integrated and comprehensive approach for addressing issues and problems at all levels in ways that help to clarify and secure the common interest. Helping people make better decisions is the central objective of the policy sciences, and the fundamental goal is to foster a commonwealth of human dignity for all. Alexander G. Flor,^[3] Ph.D., one of the esteemed development communicators in the Philippines and also a full professor at the University of the Philippines Open University, points out that "policy scientists or policy analysts are involved not only in the scientific design, formulation, analysis and evaluation of policies. They are also concerned with the study of the policy making process itself." Flor advocates that "if indeed communication and information are to be efficiently and effectively utilized in the development process, then policies are needed to direct their use for the achievement of the highest social good.^[4]"

The term “policy sciences” is in plural form to emphasize its interdisciplinary nature.^[5] It recognizes the multiplicity of factors affecting certain problems and multi-dimensions of certain phenomenon that is subject to decision processes.^[6] As such, the emphasis of policy sciences is on applying scientific or empirical evidences in understanding problems so that more realistic, responsive and effective interventions are identified and implemented. Since a problem is multi-dimensional, various scientific disciplines are needed to form a comprehensive analysis of a certain phenomenon.

Dutch policy science experts Mayers, van Daalen and Bots^[7] developed policy analysis styles which can be helpful to communication policy analysts and organizational policy analysts, among others. These styles are as follow:

1) Rational

This style is "shaped to a large degree by assumptions about knowledge and reality, and by a relatively large distance between the object and subject of study."

2) Argumentative

Assumes that "when analyzing policy, it is important to devote attention to aspects related to the language game that takes place around a policy problem or issue."

3) Client advice

"Besides knowledge and insights gained through research, policy analysis is largely a question of politico-strategic insight and skills including client-analyst communication."

4) Participatory

Assumed that "not all sections of the population have ready access to policy systems; researchers, economic elites, institutionalized non-governmental organizations and politicians dominate policy discussions and decisions about major social issues."

5) Process

This is based on the assumption that "substantive aspects of a policy problem are, in fact, coordinate or perhaps even subordinate to the procedural aspects of a policy problem. The analyst or process manager creates ‘loose coupling’ of procedural aspects and substantive aspects of a problem."

6) Interactive

This style assumes that "individuals – experts, analysts, clients, stakeholders and target groups – have or may have differing views of the ‘same’ policy problem. An insight relevant to policy can be obtained by bringing about a confrontation and interaction of different views."

The styles mentioned above are based on underlying values and orientations, which determine in what way a policy analyst or others will

view the quality of the policy analysis study and the criteria that will be applied to examine it. According to Mayer et al.^[8] these criteria can be made explicit by addressing the following questions:

• Rational style. What is good knowledge?

• Argumentative style. What is good for the debate?

• Client advice style. What is good for the client/problem owner?

• Participatory style. What is good for democratic society?

• Process style. What is good for the process?

• Interactive style. What is good for mutual understanding?

References

THEORETICAL APPROACHES IN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION

Today, development communication has shifted from modernization and dependency theories to more normative and holistic approaches. The modernization paradigm, which became dominant in the 1945 to 1965, supported the transfer of technology and the socio-political culture of the developed societies to the traditional societies. Development then was defined as economic growth. The main idea of the modernization perspective is the idea of evolution where development is conceived as directional and cumulative, predetermined and irreversible, progressive, and immanent with reference to the nation state. Here, the developed western societies seem to be the ultimate goals which the less developed societies strive to reach. These two sectors, the traditional and the modern, were regarded as two stages of development and in time the differences between them were to disappear because of the natural inclination towards equilibrium. The problem was to remove the barriers, which were only to be found in the traditional society. These barriers can be removed through at least five mechanisms:

    1.  demonstration, whereby the developing world tries to catch up with the more developed by adopting more advanced methods and techniques; 
    2.	fusion, which is the combination and integration of distinct modern methods; 
    3.	compression, whereby the developing countries attempt to accomplish the task of development in less time than it took the developed world; 
    4.	prevention that is, by learning from the ‘errors’ made by the developed countries; and 
    5.	adaptation of modern practices to the local environment and culture.

Accordingly, the means of modernization were the massive transfer of capital, ideology, technology, and know-how. The measures of progress were G.N.P., literacy, industrial base, urbanization, and the like, all quantifiable criteria.

Communication theories such as the diffusion of innovations, the two-step-flow, or the ‘extension’ approaches are congruent with the modernization theory. According to Everett Rogers, one of the leading proponents of the diffusion theory, this perspective implies that the role of communication was (1) to transfer technological innovations from development agencies to their clients, and (2) to create an appetite for change through raising a climate for modernization’ among the members of the public (Rogers, 1986).

The Diffusion Model

The 1950s was the decade of the communication model. Interestingly, one of the earliest and most influential of these came not from the social sciences or humanities, but from information engineering. Shannon and Weaver’s linear source-transmitter-channel-receiver-destination model eclipsed the earlier, more organic, psychological and sociological approaches. Lasswell, Hofland, Newcomb, Schramm, Westley and Mclean, Berlo, and others each devised a model of communication as they conceived it. This profusion of communication models may be attributed to three reasons. Firstly, because they identified communication basically as the transfer of information, they were amenable to empirical methodology, thus establishing the basis for communication as a distinct and legitimate science. Secondly, theorists focused on the efficiency, or effects, of communication, thereby holding vast promise for manipulation or control of message receivers by vested interests, or the sources. Finally, the communication models fit neatly into the nature and mechanics of mass or mediated communication, an emergent and powerful force at that time. Therefore, in these years, the discipline of communication was largely, and most importantly, its effects. The hypodermic needle effects of media were to be a quick and efficient answer to a myriad of social ills.

Building primarily on sociological research in agrarian societies, Everett Rogers (1973) stressed the adoption and diffusion processes of cultural innovation. Modernization is here conceived as a process of diffusion whereby individuals move from a traditional way of life to a more complex, more technically developed and more rapidly changing way of life. This approach is therefore concerned with the process of diffusion and adoption of innovations in a more systematic and planned way. He distinguishes between five phases in the diffusion process: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption. The role of the mass media is concentrated on the first stage of the process, whereas personal sources are most important at the evaluation stage in the adoption process (Rogers, 1962). In a second edition of his work (Rogers,1973), there are only four crucial steps left in the process of diffusion and adoption: (a) the knowledge of the innovation itself (information), (b) the communication of the innovation (persuasion), (c) the decision to adopt or reject the innovation (adoption or rejection), and (d) the confirmation of the innovation by the individual.

Three more approaches contributed to the success of this diffusion model: that is, a psycho-sociological, institutional and technological interpretation of communication for modernization. The psycho-sociological or behavioristic perspective on communication and modernization is particularly concerned with the individual value and attitude change. Rokeach (1966) defined attitude as a relatively enduring organization of beliefs about an object or situation predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner. Attitude change would then be “a change in predisposition, the change being either a change in the organization or structure of beliefs, or a change in the content of one or more of the beliefs entering into the attitude organization” (Rokeach, 1966; cited in Servaes, 2002). Central in the view of Daniel Lerner (1958), one of the main representatives of this communication for modernization paradigm, is the concept of ‘empathy’ - the capacity to see oneself in the other fellow’s situation. The major hypothesis is that high empathy is predominantly the personal style in modern society, which is distinctively industrial, urban, literate and participant.

Wilbur Schramm (1964), building on Lerner’s idea, took a closer look on the perceived connection between mass communication and modernizing practices and institutions. The modern communication media supplement and complement the mobility multipliers- the oral channels of a traditional society. Their development runs parallel to the development of other institutions of modern society, such as schools and industry, and is closely related to some of the indices of general social and economic growth, such as literacy, per capita income, and urbanization. So he claimed that a developing country should give special attention to combining mass media with interpersonal communication (Schramm, 1964; cited in Servaes, 2002).

The Participatory Model

The participatory model incorporates the concepts in the emerging framework of multiplicity. It stresses the importance of cultural identity of local communities and of democratization and participation at all levels—international, national, local and individual. It points to a strategy, not merely inclusive of, but largely emanating from, the traditional receivers. Paulo Freire (1983; cited in Servaes, 2002) refers to this as the right of all people to individually and collectively speak their word. Consequently, no one can say a true word alone—nor can he say it for another, in a prescriptive act which robs others of their words. In order to share information, knowledge, trust, and commitment a right attitude in development projects participation is very important in any decision making process for development. This entails a new attitude for overcoming stereotyped thinking and to promote more understanding of diversity and plurality, with full respect for the dignity and equality of peoples living in different conditions and acting in different ways. (International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, 1980; cited in Servaes, 2002) This model stresses reciprocal collaboration throughout all levels of participation. Listening to what the others say, respecting the counterpart’s attitude, and having mutual trust are needed.

Participation involves the more equitable sharing of both political and economic power, which often decreases the advantage of certain groups. Structural change involves the redistribution of power. In mass communication areas, many communication experts agree that structural change should occur first in order to establish participatory communication policies. In fact, Mowlana and Wilson (1987) made this clear by stating that “Communications policies are basically derivatives of the political, cultural and economic conditions and institutions under which they operate. They tend to legitimize the existing power relations in society, and therefore, they cannot be substantially changed unless there are fundamental structural changes in society that can alter these power relationships themselves”.

Since dialogue and face-to-face interaction is inherent in participation, the development communicator usually spend more time in the field as rapport and trust take time to develop. This is the reason why continued contact, meeting commitments, keeping promises, and follows up between visits are important. Development of social trust precedes task trust. Both parties will need patience. It is important to note that treating people the way we would like to be treated, we learn to work as a team, and this brings about rural commitment and motivation too. Further, honesty, trust, and commitment from the higher ups bring honesty, trust, and commitment for the grass-roots as well bringing about true participation. And true participation brings about appropriate policies and planning for developing a country within its cultural and environmental framework. Consequently, the perspective on communication also changes. It is more concerned with process and context, that is, on the exchange of meanings, and on the importance of this process, namely, the social relational patterns and social institutions that are the result of and are determined by the process. With this shift in focus, one is no longer attempting to create a need for the information one is disseminating, but one is rather disseminating information for which there is a need. Experts and development workers rather respond than dictate, they choose what is relevant to the context in which they are working. The emphasis is on information exchange rather than on the persuasion in the diffusion model.

                                         Two Major Approaches to Participatory Communication

There are two major approaches to participatory communication. The first is the dialogical pedagogy of Paulo Freire, and the second involves the ideas of access, participation and self-management articulated in the Unesco debates of the 1970s. Every communication project which calls itself participatory accepts these principles of democratic communication.

The Freirian argument works by a dual theoretical strategy. It is argued that subjugated peoples must be treated as fully human subjects in any political process. This implies dialogical communication. Although inspired to some extent by Sartre’s existentialism—a respect for the autonomous personhood of each human being --, the more important source is a theology that demands respect for otherness—in this case that of another human being. The second strategy is a moment of utopian hope derived from the early Marx that the human species has a destiny which is more than life as a fulfillment of material needs. Also from Marx is an insistence on collective solutions. Individual opportunity, Freire stresses, is no solution to general situations of poverty and cultural subjugation.

The second discourse about participatory communication is the Unesco language about self-management, access and participation from the 1977 meeting in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The final report of that meeting defines the terms in the following way: Access refers to the use of media for public service. It may be defined in terms of the opportunities available to the public to choose varied and relevant programs and to have a means of feedback to transmit its reactions and demands to production organizations.

Participation implies a higher level of public involvement in communication systems. It includes the involvement of the public in the production process, and also in the management and planning of communication systems. It may be no more than representation and consultation of the public in decision-making. On the other hand, self-management is the most advanced form of participation. In this case, the public exercises the power of decision-making within communication enterprises and is also fully involved in the formulation of communication policies and plans. These ideas are important and widely accepted as a normative theory of alternative communication: it must involve access and participation. However, one should note some differences from Freire. The Unesco discourse includes the idea of a gradual progression. Some amount of access may be allowed, but self-management may be postponed until sometime in the future. The Unesco discourse talks in neutral terms about “the public”. Freire talked about the oppressed. Finally, the Unesco discourse puts the main focus on the institution. Participatory radio means a radio station that is self-managed by those participating in it.

'Reference(s)' ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1. Berrigan, F. (1979). Community Communications: The Role of Community Media in Development, Paris: UNESCO.

2. Freire, P. (1983). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seaburg Press.

3. Freire, P. (1970). Cultural Action and Conscientization. Harvard Educational Review 40(3)

4. Lerner, D. (1958). The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York: Free Press

5. Lerner, D. and Schramm, W. (1967). Communication and Change in the Developing Countries. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

6. Mowlana, H. and Wilson, L. (1987). Communication and Development: A Global Assessment. Paris: UNESCO.

7. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

8. Rogers, E.M. and Schoemaker, F. (1973). Communication of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

9. Rogers, E.M. (1976). Communication and Development. Beverly Hills: Sage.

10. Rokeach, M. (1966). Attitude Change and Behavioral Change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (4)

11. Schramm, W. (1964). Mass Media and National Development: The Role of Information in the Developing Countries. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

12. Servaes, J. (2002). Approaches to Development Communication. Paris:UNESCO.

13. Servaes, J. (1983). Communications and Development. Some Theoretical Remarks. Leuven: Acco.

Development Communication, Policy Advocacy, and Governance

Since media and communication play a critical role in development, relevant communication policies are important for good governance to succeed. People engagement and participation in policy advocacy through dialogue are important to gain trust, acceptance and cooperation from all stakeholders. According to Jan Servaes (2010)[1], since public policies must be viewed as an integral part of the social and economic development process, the kind of advocacy that is ideal is that which is participatory.The focus in this approach is on ‘listening’ and ‘cooperation’ rather than on ‘telling what to do’ and presumes a dynamic two-way approach to communication.

In general, one can distinguish between (a) advocacy for policy design and decision-making aimed at ensuring political, social and legislative support for development issues (e.g. protection of the environment); and (b) advocacy for policy implementation which requires intensive efforts for mobilizing social forces, individuals and groups for development actions. Both are important and must be addressed. . The aim in advocacy strategies is to foster political and public engagement as well as professionals in development issues through the process of social mobilization. There is no universal approach which can be used in all circumstances, flexibility is required in selecting appropriate strategies.[2]

The communication media are critical in creating awareness, generating public interest and demand, and placing the issue on the public agenda and building social support. They can play two kinds of advocacy roles: (a) they can support development initiatives by the dissemination of messages that encourage the public to support development-oriented projects; and (b) they can provide decision makers with the information and feedback needed to reach a decision. Policymakers usually respond to popular appeal, to pressure groups, and to their own social network of policy- and decision makers. Therefore, advocacy, political commitment and supportive policies are often themselves a product of social support systems and empowerment of people. Advocacy should therefore be viewed in conjunction with social support and empowerment strategies.[3]

Jan Servaez (2009) affirms that the importance of a free and balanced flow of information to an engaged civil society, through independent media and transparent government, has long been acknowledged. He sees that communication plays a pivotal role in improving governance in developing countries.[4]

Governance may be defined as: (1) the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced, (2) the capacity of the government to formulate and implement sound policies effectively, (3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic, political, and social interactions among them, and (4) the capacity for active and informed economic, social, and political dialogue among citizens within a public sphere.[5]

Governance implies the ways through which citizens and groups in a society voice their interests, mediate their differences and exercise their legal rights and obligations. Good governance includes notions of greater participation by civil society in decision making, instituting the rule of law, anti-corruption, transparency, accountability, poverty reduction and human rights. Good governance links government to the notion of responsibility for and to the citizenry as opposed to the traditional idea of authority over a nation—legitimacy emanating from popular assent to and participation in government, which is concerned with the welfare of its citizens.[6]

The role of the media in promoting good governance is clear. All aspects of good governance are facilitated by a strong and independent mediascape within a society. Only when journalists are free to monitor, investigate and criticize the public administration’s policies and actions can good governance take hold. Independent media are like a beacon that should be welcomed when there is nothing to hide and much to improve. Indeed, this is the concrete link between the functioning of the media and good governance—the media allow for ongoing checks and assessments by the population of the activities of government and assist in bringing public concerns and voices into the open by providing a platform for discussion. Instead, all too often governments devise laws and informal means of keeping their activities hidden from public view or only available to media favorable to their viewpoint. In recent years, many governments have tried to co-opt journalists by paying part of their salaries or by giving them certain kinds of access on condition that they will not report from other perspectives. If the media are to function in the public interest, governments have to protect the independent functioning of the media and allow various viewpoints to flourish in society.[7]

A key aspect of governance is how citizens, leaders and public institutions relate to each other in order to make change happen (Haider Huma, et al., 2011).[8] Communication structures ensure the two-way exchange of information between state and citizens, It allows the citizens to enter into dialogue with the state on policies issues that matter to them. This environment develops trust between state and society which lays the foundation of good governance.

Development communication has brought to the fore the evolution of communication for development (C4D)which has mirrored broader shifts in theories and models of economic and social development. For much of the post-World War II period, C4D was informed by the ‘modernization’ paradigm, which sought to transform ‘traditional’ societies into modern, Western societies through the transmission of attitudes, practices and technologies. Correspondingly, communication initiatives adopted a diffusion approach, which uses communication to carry out a transfer of information. This includes large-scale media campaigns, social marketing, dissemination of printed materials, ‘education-entertainment’ and other forms of one-way transmission of information from the sender to the receiver. Proponents of diffusion theory recognised the limitations of mass media, however, in promoting sustained behavioral change. The theory also incorporated interpersonal communication: face-to-face communication that can either be one-on-one or in small groups. The objectives are to share information, respond to questions, and motivate specific behavioral practices. The belief is that while mass media allows for the learning of new ideas, interpersonal networks encourage the shift from knowledge to continued practice.[9]

Criticism of the modernization paradigm grew in the 1970s and 1980s. The one-way flow of information and communication from the North to the South was criticized alongside calls for greater representation of voices from the South. At the same time, there was a push for more ‘participatory’ approaches to development. This triggered the emergence also of participatory development communication, which aims to empower the community towards collective decision-making and action through enhanced knowledge and skills to identify, prioritise and resolve problems and needs. Communication for development has thus come to be seen as a way to amplify voice, facilitate meaningful participation, and foster social change. The 2006 World Congress on Communication for Development defined C4D as ‘a social process based on dialogue using a broad range of tools and methods. It is also about seeking change at different levels including listening, building trust, sharing knowledge and skills, building policies, debating and learning for sustained and meaningful change’. Such two-way, horizontal approaches to communication include public hearings, debates, deliberations and stakeholder consultations, participatory radio and video, community-based theatre and storytelling,and web forums. Diffusion and participatory approaches have been increasingly integrated or adopted in parallel in C4D initiatives. Such combinations allow agencies to reach broad audiences through large scale campaigns, while promoting local community development, empowerment and ownership through participation.[10]

However, while the role of communication in supporting development and stimulating economic growth has increasingly been recognized in international policy statements, communication is relatively under-prioritized in the ‘good governance’ agenda. Some attribute this to a lack of robust evidence demonstrating communication’s impact on governance, others argue it is morefundamentally a question of whether support to communication – which typically encompasses the development of an independent media sector, improving access to information, and the strategic use of media and political communication tools to influence behavior and social change – is a legitimate area for donor funding, given the often highly political nature of such interventions. What is clear is that the available research on the role of communication in governance is fragmented across multiple disciplineswith often conflicting priorities (including political science, communications, media studies, anddevelopment studies). At the same time, there has been a dearth of practical guidance available to policymakers on understanding and using communication in governance reform.[11]

In spite of its relative under-prioritisation in development assistance, few dispute the power ofcommunication, and in particular the catalytic role of the media, in influencing governance relationships and processes: communication is widely seen as vital for connecting states with society, facilitating inclusive political systems, giving ‘voice’ to poor and marginalised groups, and enabling citizenparticipation and social accountability. Communication advocates also argue that the strategic use of political communication tools and methodologies can influence the attitudes, opinions and behaviour of key stakeholders and secure the political will necessary for reforms to be successful on the ground. With the recent rise of the fragile states agenda, there has been increased academic and donor interest inhow communication can contribute to state-building by improving state citizen relationships and helping to (re)build social contracts in conflict affected states. [12]*

The intertwining relationship of development communication, policy advocacy and governance is aptly described in the concept of strategic communication of GIZ, a Germany-based international non-governmental organization. In 2006, the GIZ, (then the GTZ) published in 2006 an article on Strategic Communication for Sustainable development: A Conceptual Overview which is summarized here below:[13]

Strategic communication is not just disseminating information; it is the active gathering of stakeholders’ views. It is a pre-requisite and an instrument of effective policy making and public participation, facilitating information exchange and establishing consensus among divergent opinions and interests. It facilitates the building of know-how, decision making and action capacities at the heart of the delicate cooperation between government, civil society groups and the private sector. Both internal and external factors influencing human communication require consideration. Internal factors include norms and values, attitudes and behaviour. External factors include the ‘vehicles’ that bring the material to the target audience. Five branches of strategic communication are particularly applicable to sustainable development:

Development and environmental communication: Breaking down complex information into understandable elements in a socio-culturally relevant way for different audiences is a prerequisite for consensus building and change. A particularly successful model is the problem-oriented, participatory and focused Strategic Extension Campaign (SEC) developed by FAO. Social marketing: This involves gathering input from intended beneficiaries to design communication campaigns promoting socially beneficial practices or products in a target group. Audience segmentation is a crucial element. Non-formal and environmental education: These involve promoting awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behaviour for sustainable development and effective participation in decision-making. Civil society mobilisation: This involves listening as well as ‘talking’, and combines vertical and horizontal social interaction through community-controlled media. Conflict management and negotiation: Mediation, conciliation or arbitration can help to address communication deadlocks and power imbalances, and increase trust. In 2007, Coffey International Development of London published The Role of Communication in Governance: Detailed Analysis. [14] This paper analyses the positive and negative contributions of communication to governance. In theory, effective communication can help to promote good governance; however, a solid evidence base is lacking and a positive correlation should not be assumed. Existing studies suggest that it is not enough to create the means of communication; enabling factors must be in place so that voices can be heard and citizens can hold government to account. Here below is the summary of this paper: If good governance requires an inclusive public space based on informed dialogue and debate, a positive relationship between communication and governance seems plausible. However, communication can further poor governance (when used to protect the state rather than serve as a voice for the people, for example, or when subject to elite capture). In addition, it is difficult to establish a clear evidence base to support positive connections between communication and governance. There are also challenges relating to causality where the link between communication and governance is thought to be reciprocal; for example, communication may help to promote good governance, but freer government may also promote participation and communication.

This paper analyses the role of communication in governance using a range of evidence including empirical data and case studies. Contributions to government capability, accountability and transparency are considered by analysing the effect of communication strategies on corruption. Contributions to government responsiveness are considered by analysing whether formal citizen feedback mechanisms lead to improved service delivery.

Jump up ^ Jan Servaes, 2010, Advocating for Peace, Article in Media in Development (January 2010). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/2808366/Media_for_Social_Transformation_Advocacy_for_Peace, p. 1 Jump up ^ Jan Servaes, 1993. Development communication in action: Report of the Inter-Agency Meeting on Advocacy Strategies for Health and Development. WHO Conference, Geneva, 9–13 November 1992, World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, p. 5. Jump up ^ Jan Servaes, 2009, 'Communication Policies, Good Governance and Development Journalism', Communication, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 55. Jump up ^ Ibid., p. 50. Jump up ^ Ibid., p. 64 Jump up ^ Ibid. Jump up ^ Barry James (2005). Media and good governance. UNESCO.Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001463/146311e.pdf Jump up ^ Haider Huma, et al., August 2011. Topic Guide on Communication and Governance. Produced by Governance and Social Development Resource Center (GSRDC)in collaboration with the Communication for Governance and Accountability Program (CommGAP), p. 10. Jump up ^ Ibid., p. 8. Jump up ^ Ibid, pp 7–8 Jump up ^ Ibid., p. 9 Jump up ^ Ibid. Jump up ^ GIZ (2006) Strategic Communication for Sustainable development: A Conceptual Overview. Retrieved from http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=3755 Jump up ^ Coffey International Development, 2007, ‘The Role of Communication in Governance: Detailed Analysis’, Coffey International Development, London. Retrieved from http://www.gsdrc.org/go/display&type=Document&id=3757