Communication for Social Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process and Its Outcomes

The Communication for Social Change Working Paper Series: No.1
This working paper was developed by Johns Hopkins University's Center for Communication Programs for the Rockefeller Foundation as part of their Communication for Social Change Grantmaking Strategy
Copyright © 2002 The Rockefeller Foundation and Johns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs. All rights reserved.
Published in 2002 by The Rockefeller Foundation
420 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10018-2702
Edited: Brian I. Byrd
Report design: Langton Cherubino Group, Ltd.
Communication for Social Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process and Its Outcomes/Maria Elena Figueroa, D. Lawrence Kincaid, Manju Rani, Gary Lewis.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN: 0-89184-065-6
1. Social change - indicators - measurements - outcomes.
2. Communication - indicators - measurements - outcomes.

Prepared for the Rockefeller Foundation. Available with permission of the author and per a license agreement with the Communication for Social Change (CFSC) Consortium.

Click here to download a PDF version of this document

Table of Contents

Foreward

Acknowledgements

Preface

Executive Summary

Section One
An Integrated Model of Communication for Social Change

Introduction

Communication as Dialogue

Community Dialogue and Collective Action

Catalyst

Community Dialogue

Collective Action

Outcomes

Section Two
Social Change Process Indicators

Introduction

Community Definition

Social Change Process

Community Dialogue and Action Process Matrices

Section Three
Social Change Outcome Indicators

Introduction

Leadership

Degree and Equity of Participation

Information Equity

Collective Self-Efficacy

Sense of Ownership

Social Cohesion

Social Norms

Bibliography

Foreword

I have spent my entire professional life working in communication of some sort: journalism, audio and video production, broadcasting, publication writing and editing, public relations, marketing communication, and now communication and administration for a large global foundation. Each experience has reinforced something I've known, instinctively, since childhood; when one is able to express her ideas persuasively with force and intelligence, and to respond sensitively to reactions to her opinions, change can happen.

My professional and volunteer activities have also taught me the power of collective action. While one person can "move a mountain" (just ask Mohammad), I believe that a well-intentioned, well-prepared group can also "build a mountain."

Such is the way I like to think of the body of work known as communication for social change. Those working in this field often move mountains, as partners with the people of local communities and villages across the globe. Through communication for social change they move mountains of apathy, mountains of hopelessness, mountains of cynicism and even mountains of public inefficiency, waste and corruption.

Buoyed by communication for social-change principles and skills they can also build mountains of empowerment for those who have previously been voiceless or seemingly invisible.

This working paper, Communication for Social Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process and Its Outcomes, takes a big step forward in refining the practice of communication for social change. It is part of a larger strategy to spread communication for social-change thinking and ways of working broadly: to poor communities that have never thought about communication as a tool they can control for improving their lives; within aid and donor organisations that are more comfortable being in control than in sharing control; or within academic institutions that are preparing the next generation of professional communicators.

As we looked at the CFSC process, we knew that a big question remained: how do we know when communication for social change is working? Traditionally, when measuring communication effectiveness, professionals focus on end-products or outcomes. How many people viewed a public service announcement? How much newspaper coverage was generated? What is the level of message retention?

Yet communication for social change is valued as a process in and of itself. The act of community problem identification, group decision making, action planning, collective action and implementation are critical to how a community grapples with a serious issue. When a village or group uses the communication for social-change process to address a critical issue they have already affected positive outcomes. They have shown people how to think critically at a group level, they have worked together to identify problems and to come up with solutions.

This direct, many-to-many communication cannot be a one-time activity or characterised merely by a series of inputs; it is a continuous process which underlies a project's progress. CFSC, in general, cannot be adequately understood using traditional gauges that only isolate and analyse quantitative results. Rather it demands a more qualitative assessment.

In other words, the CFSC process is equally as important as the outcomes. The act of people coming together to decide who they are, what they want and how they will obtain what they want — the definition of communication for social change — demonstrates success, especially for poor, previously marginalised or excluded people.

It is our hope at the Rockefeller Foundation that the integrated CFSC model and process indicators explained in this paper will be easily understood and applied to a myriad of social issues, big and small. The development team of scholars and practitioners who worked on these concepts — or reviewed them and offered substantive improvements — is large, diverse and inclusive. Inspired by the academic rigor of the team at Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs — Maria Elena Figueroa, Larry Kincaid and Jose Rimon — we all learned more about the field of study in which we work during this process than we might have first imagined.

I must also point out that this model and the set of indicators are certainly not the only way to evaluate CFSC. Many other methods will emerge...of that I am certain. If this paper sparks a good debate within the community of practitioners, we will be pleased.

When reading this paper we ask that you jot down your insights and share your comments with us so that the process model and social indicators can get better. This is a work in progress — a process that began in 1999 when a group of very smart professionals came together in Cape Town, South Africa, to figure out just how communication for social change should be practiced and what it can, potentially, accomplish. Special thanks go to James Deane, Warren Feek, Sushmita Ghosh, Alfonso Gumucio Dagron and Adelaida Trujillo for being with us in the beginning and sticking with us.

To the people in the dozens of villages in Africa, Asia and Latin America who inspired this work, we hope we are in some small way helping.

Denise Gray-Felder
The Rockefeller Foundation
New York City, U.S.A.
June 2002

Acknowledgments

The preparation of this report was made possible through the joint financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs. We would like to acknowledge the Rockefeller team, Denise Gray-Felder and Brian Byrd, as well as Warren Feek from the Communication Initiative, for initiating this process and for their participation in the course of the work. We also would like to thank the following people for their comments in different versions of this work: our JHU/CCP colleagues Dr. Luis Ramiro Beltrán, regional adviser for Latin America, based in Bolivia; Carol Underwood from the Research and Evaluation Division; Patricia Poppe, chief of the Latin America Division; the CCP local office in Nicaragua; the Community Mobilisation Task Force members, Lisa Howard-Grabman from SAVE and Robert Ainslie from JHU/CCP; and our technical consultant on participatory communication and communitywide development, Marcela Tapia. We also thank Phyllis Piotrow, professor and former director, and Jose Rimon II, senior deputy director, respectively, of JHU/CCP, who were very involved in the development of the model. Finally, we are grateful to the Communication for Social Change reviewers selected by the Rockefeller Foundation for their input and observations throughout this process.