Development communication policy science

From Deletionpedia.org: a home for articles deleted from Wikipedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article was considered for deletion at Wikipedia on November 29 2019. This is a backup of Wikipedia:Development_communication_policy_science. All of its AfDs can be found at Wikipedia:Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Development_communication_policy_science, the first at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Development_communication_policy_science. Purge

Template:Lead too long

Development communication policy sciences is the study of policy issues related to development communications. These two branches of social sciences are regarded as distinct and mutually exclusive areas of study but are said to be inextricably linked.[1]

According to Nora C. Quebral (2012), the University of the Philippines Los Baños defines Development Communication as the interaction of two social process—development and communication—in any given environment. Quebral, being the "mother of development communication", initially articulated that, in 1971, Development Communication was tentatively defined as "the art and science of human communication applied to the speedy transformation of a country and the mass of its people from poverty to a dynamic state of economic growth that makes possible greater social equality and larger fulfillment of the human potential" (p. 3).[2] Gonzales (no date) defines development as a "quest for an improved quality of life for all"[3] and communication is used to facilitate changes in people and society so that their full potential will be realised. Grounded on the mentioned basic meanings of development and communication, development communication is defined as "the use of communication in development work".[4] Guru (1997) adds that development communication provides a conceptual and practical framework which is meant to accelerate the process of development in all spheres of human life.[5] It is also meant to break the wall of ignorance, thus, breaking the bonds of poverty and oppression.[6] In 1993, Alexander Flor suggested to refine the definition of development communication including the perspective of cybernetics and general systems theory.[7] In 1995, Alexander Flor claimed development communication as the Fifth Theory of the Press. According to the author, it is the suitable system given "the social and political structures" of the Third World and its present universal environment.[8] In UNESCO's approaches to development communication, Jan Servaes cited "while communication on its own will not bring about change and development, neither will change happen without development communication. We need to integrate all our efforts".[9] Flor & Ongkiko (1998)[10] describe development communication in the book titled 'Introduction to Development Communication' as purposive as it primarily uses communication not merely to give information but practically to influence the people- the receivers of information. Nair (1993) adds that development communication brings change, education and inspiration toward development.[11]

In 2001, Quebral redefined development communication as the "art and science of human communication linked to a society's planned transformation from a state of poverty to one of dynamic socio-economic growth that makes for greater equity and the larger unfolding of individual potential".[12] The World Bank views development communication as the "integration of strategic communication in development projects" based on a clear understanding of indigenous realities.[13] In 2006, Bassette defined development communication as a "planned and systematic application of communication resources, channels, approaches and strategies to support the goals of socio–economic, political and cultural development".[14] In 2007, the Rome Consensus gave this definition: "Communication for Development is 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. It is not public relations or corporate communication."[15]

According to Dr. Florangel Rosario-Braid, a communication expert in the Philippines, development communication is defined as a "purposive approach to communication" that intends to bring about social and economic change in the lives of the greatest number of the population. Braid says Development Communication involves three key elements: (1) Communication involves people's participation, (2) Stakeholders are in active dialogue and consultation, (3) End goal should be to uphold the rights and needs of the people and to achieve "self-reliance and autonomy".[16]

Farmers in (North) Cotabato Province looks at their names from a list as they line up to receive rice donations during the height of El Niño Phenomenon that resulted to the bloody Kidapawan Massacre in March 2016. Braid states that communication involves three key elements, had the government (then under the presidency of Benigno Aquino III and Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala) and the farmer groups by observing or following these communication elements through policy sciences, tensions would not escalate. (Photo by Nef Luczon)

Human perspectives of development come into consciousness through communication whereby social reality is negotiated culturally and politically.[17] Communication encompasses all levels of development in society and development initiatives like in health, agriculture, family planning, etc.[18] It is a tool for mitigating global frontiers, contrasts, and divisions and landscaping structural intricacies and dynamic transformations in this sphere—the evidences of change and their social evolution. The Communication Initiative Network defines communication in models of development.[19] To study communication is no less than one way to study policy-making.[20] Communication about development ensures the sustained attention to the issues and which in turn is necessary in getting the essential commitment from world leaders and the wider public to give meaning to the process.[21]

The purpose of development communication is to support sustainable change in development operations by engaging key stakeholders, specifically, to: (a) establish conducive environments for assessing risks and opportunities; (b) disseminate information [to generate knowledge, p. 14]; (c) induce behavior and social change.[22] Communicating "development" is framed within economic growth under the Western-centric modernization for underdeveloped countries using traditional vertical (top-down), linear, one-way Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver model based on Lasswell's 1948 communication theory[23] as monologic, persuasive information and message transfer/dissemination/diffusion[24] or selling of ideas[25] through mass media (e.g., advertisements, social marketing). This dominant paradigm which was opposed by the political-economic framework of dependency is in part abandoned and has taken the perspectives of "participation", "empowerment",[26] and socio-cultural "multiplicity"[27] for sustainable or long-term economic growth stipulated by the Millennium Development Goals. Communication is underscored for meaningful participation using horizontal, two-way (dialogic/interactive) communication principles and practices to facilitate stakeholders' engagement throughout the development process.[28] These are captured by the 17 Global Goals to 2030 for sustainable development through social progress.[29]

Development communication as a field is defined by: (1) World Bank as "an interdisciplinary field based on empirical research that helps to build consensus while it facilitates the sharing of knowledge to achieve positive change in development initiatives. It is not only about effective dissemination of information but also about using empirical research and two-way communication among stakeholders" and key management tool in assessing socio-political risks and opportunities; and (2) First World Congress of Communication for Development in Rome on October 2006 as "a social process based on dialog 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. It is not public relations or corporate communication".[30] Participation refers to people's involvement from social movement and project-based perspectives[31] which could be passive (informed), consultative (provides feedback), functional (takes part in discussion and analysis by horizontal communication), and empowered (equal partners with external professionals in decision-making) along the ladder to change.[32][33] To move into sustainability, change in people's beliefs and practices take place. However, "...change cannot occur without communication".[34] Development communication accommodates three pillars of sustainable development: (1) ecological; (2) economic; and (3) social issues.[35] In addition, Paolo Mefalopulos of the World Bank, believes that a four-phase methodological framework can help formulate appropriate communication strategies in development communication through (1) research, often referred to as communication-based assessment, or CBA; (2) inputs for the strategy design; (3) production of the materials and implementation of the planned activities; and (4) evaluation.[36]

Social, cultural, economic, political, technological and environmental issues and their utterances (also known as "advocacies") in the form of gender concerns, capitalism (e.g., welfare capitalism[37]), marginalization (e.g., social welfare development[38]), poverty, health care, climate change versus sustainable development,[39][40] and social innovation[41] are brought to public knowledge, and to a consensus for action on the interests, needs and capacities of all concerned[42] through development communication. It also provides stakeholders access to national and local development goals and plans in a communication system where they can communicate horizontally and vertically to coordinate for resource and human development,[43] more so to promote equal opportunities for social welfare, to seek social change involving innovations, and a higher quality of life and values of society. It is a vital part of the political and policy processes.[21]

The interface of development communication and policy sciences is the common ground for social and political actions such as reforms in order to: (1) blur discriminatory tensions, (2) reckon the benefit of change, and (3) configure disarrays of allocating equities between the government, corporations, and social sectors. They strengthen the basic framework of management sciences by adding much needed components.[44] Policies articulate directions for their mobilization and regulatory mechanisms since it is set to be anticipatory or forward-looking [45] that is, problems have been envisioned (predicted) at vantage points (strategic) so countermeasures can have minimal consequences. 'Legitimacy' of policies can be defined in terms of their (a) effectiveness and (b) relevance in the real world to address the multidimensional and complex problems.[46]

The Policy Sciences

The policy sciences are an approach to understanding and solving problems. They provide an integrated and comprehensive set of procedures for addressing problems the local, regional, international, and planetary contexts [47]. A systematic and scientific study of public policy, Lasswell (1951) renders policy sciences as the culmination of efforts to define a discipline utilizing "socially relevant knowledge". In Lasswell's vision, the policy sciences are multidisciplinary, contextual, problem-oriented, and explicitly normative in their concerns for human values [48]. For Subrarnanian (1980, in Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2017), the policy sciences are characterized as "the practical application of all relevant knowledge in the social, physical and natural sciences, to specific policy problems identified well ahead of time". Flor (1991) explains that the term refers to the scientific study of policies and policy making. Being forward-looking or anticipatory (Flor, 1991) policy sciences aim to provide more lead time to solving societal problems. Dror (1971, in Flor, 1991) described this characteristic through the metaphor of crossing the river: Policy sciences theory states that one should not leave the problem of crossing a river until the river is reached; rather, one should survey the territory in advance, identify rivers flowing through it, decide whether it is at all necessary to cross the river --- and if so, where and how to cross it --- then prepare in advance the materials for crossing the river, and design a logistic network, so that the material is ready when the river is reached.

The policy sciences study the process of deciding or choosing and evaluate the relevance of available knowledge for the solution of particular problems. When policy scientists are concerned with government, law, and political mobilization, they focus on particular decisions. Policy scientists also study the choosing process of nongovernmental organizations and individuals and consider the significance of the current stock of knowledge for specific issues.[49]

According to Hale (2011), the central aim of policy sciences is to resolve problems [in the service of human dignity] and the diverse human, historical, and contextual element in public policy-making.[50] This is a reiteration of the Lasswellian maxim on public policy in the following key elements: "contextual"; "problem-oriented"; "multi-method inquiry" or diverse empirical methods;[46][51] "political";[52] "normative, welfare-oriented" in the case of social policy goals;[53] and posing "interdisciplinarity" or moving between humanities and social sciences.[54] Policy sciences improve decision-making by reinforcing and supporting human dignity to elide the blinders of instrumental reason by addressing the manifold of human experience.[54]

According to Laswell (1971), an adequate strategy of problem solving in policy sciences encompasses five intellectual tasks. These five tasks are performed at varying levels of insight and understanding: goal clarification; trend description; analysis of conditions; projection of developments; and invention, evaluation, and selection of alternatives.[55] With this, the policy sciences integrate philosophy, history, science, prophecy, and commitment.[49]

Policy is the "plan of action" for administration, management and control of resources.[56] The Evidence-Based Policy in Development Network[57] and Overseas Development Institute[58] provide a mirror of policy sciences on development by information exchange between stakeholders. Policy-making involves analysis of data and options to determine the "best" possible solution to the problem, weighing between welfare, health, expediency, efficiency, justice, and rights, among other things at par with understanding value judgments.[59] The Lessons Database[60] by the Independent Evaluation Department of the Asian Development Bank frames the rigors of balancing a variety of factors in the context of organizational and operational effectiveness. Prioritization towards sustainable development is actually based on estimates of economic and social costs, interests and power structures, scientific information, and ethics.[61]

Nair (1987) emphasized that communication can be utilized in providing service to the people. It is essential for mobilizing initiatives and providing information required for action in all fields of development such as agriculture, health and family planning, education and religion.[62] However, MacBride Commission (1980) highlighted that adequate financing must be given to development projects. Without funds, programs of governments will not succeed.[63] Apart from funding, there are other equally important aspects in implementing projects. Communication for Asia (CFA) shares their 5I's methodology in development communication: Inform, Instruct, Inspiration, Insist and Involvement. The 5I's means informing all stakeholders of concerns and priorities to achieve collaboration and cooperation of everyone in mutually sharing expertise and talents in serving the people.[64]

The term "policy sciences" was originally coined by Harold D. Lasswell and Daniel Lerner as an approach to understanding and solving problems that draw on and contribute to all fields of knowledge.[65] It is a set of procedures in an integrated and comprehensive form to help clarify and secure common interests. The term "policy sciences" is in plural form to emphasize its interdisciplinary nature.[66] Fraser (1998) elucidated the purposive nature of both development communication and policy sciences, thus intertwining their functions. Policies will greatly aid in the successful implementation of projects as they provide directions on what necessary steps to take.[67]

In the work of Alexander Flor, the term "development communication policy sciences" was not used as a whole phrase but was mentioned separately as development communication and policy sciences. He discussed the term according to the linkage of development communication and policy sciences as fundamental and traceable even before either area was afforded the status of science.[1]

Communication policy research evolved from the outset as a multi-disciplinary field and domain of various academic disciplines from sociology and political science to law and economics, resulting in the coverage of a myriad of multi-faceted topics. The choice of subjects in communication policy research is affected by sociocultural, political, economic and technological forces that determine the overall framework for communication policy and regulation as well as by the many regulatory objectives in communication.[68]

The place of communication in the development process was given a boost when Lerner (1958) [no citations needed here] wrote his famous treatise 'The Passing of the Traditional Society', in which he acknowledged that mass media growth was one of the three phases of democratic political development (Moemeka, n.d). He pointed out that the mass media had the power to create opportunity for empathy which 'disciplined western men in skills that spell modernity'.

Development communication is basically communication for social change to achieve one's potential. This is embodied in Nora Quebral's (1971) definition which states that development communication is the "art and science of human communication applied to the speedy transformation of a country and the mass of its people from poverty to a dynamic state of economic growth that makes possible greater social equity and the larger fulfillment of the human potential." Quebral (2001) redefined development communication to "the art and science of human communication linked to a society's planned transformation from a state of poverty to one of dynamic socio-economic growth that makes for greater equity and the larger unfolding of individual potential."

McKee (1992) emphasized that people's involvement is the key to the desired changes. Unless people see themselves as the driving force of their own development, no amount of investment or provision of technology and inputs will bring about any lasting improvements in their living standards.[69]

An important and founding impetus for communication policy research came from Harold D. Lasswell, who also figures prominently as a founding father of communication science and policy science (Rogers 1994). He argued that future advances in communication study depended upon the development of a policy focus and upon being a third voice supplying 'a competing appraisal of the images spread by self-serving sources' (Lasswell 1972:307).

The conception of the policy sciences on the other hand, is more refined and extended today than at any time in the colorful history of man (Lasswell, 1971).[70] Giving a working definition for it, he noted that policy sciences are concerned with knowledge of and in the decision processes of the public and civic order.

Development communication and the policy sciences

Although development communication and the policy sciences, according to Flor (1991), are generally regarded as two distinct and mutually exclusive fields of study, the two stem from the same principle: the need to actively apply knowledge from and principles of the social sciences in solving societal problems under the conditions of social change.

Flor and Ongkiko (1998), in their book- Introduction to Development Communication, state that development communication is purposive as it primarily uses communication not merely to give information but practically to influence the people- the receivers of information. Coyle (2008), in his article- Theory of Development Communication, articulates that where people have options to change their ways of life, communication becomes important in informing, persuading, listening, data gathering, educating, training and managing change. Communication then becomes an instrument in facilitating changes in people in order for them to realize their full potentials. Through it, people would improve their ways of thinking, their ways of acting and their ways of living resulting in a higher quality of life. In agreement, McKee (1992) explicated that the central objective of policy sciences is helping people make better decisions.[69]

To Mahaldar and Bhadra[71] (2015) development communication refers to the use of communication to facilitate social development. It involves the strategic use of communication for the alleviation of social problems in evolving societies (Wilkins, 1996)[72]. It is an area where questions about the role(s) of media in encouraging or inhibiting social change are fundamental.

Development communication techniques include information dissemination and education, behaviour change, social marketing, social mobilization, media advocacy, communication for social change and community participation (Mahaldar and Bhadra, 2015)[73].

Moreover, Erskine Childers defined it as development support communications which is a discipline in development planning and implementation in which more adequate account is taken of human behavioural factors in the design of development projects and their objective (Colle, R., 2002)[74].

Similarly, policy sciences are purposive as these are anchored on the fulfillment of the aim of improving policy making to provide, as highlighted by Flor (1991), as much "lead time" as necessary in the solution of societal problems. Policy analysts or policy scientists have to be driven in their pursuit of effectively designing, formulating, analyzing, evaluating policies and most importantly of studying the policy making process in order to create a substantive impact on policymakers. Through communication, they would be able to exert a great influence in the decision making process of the policy makers who are responsible in making policies that would become the guiding principles in resolving concerns, dilemmas or issues with the end in view of effecting societal changes.

Cires (2015)[75] asserts that the term “policy sciences” refers both to a distinctive tradition within the policy movement and to the broader policy movement itself. According to him, while the generic use of this term is sure to persist, the community of policy scientists trained in the tradition founded by Harold Lasswell[76] and Myres S. McDougal faces challenges to its sustainability as a distinctive tradition of the policy movement.

Also, Gale (2008)[77] confirmed that the policy sciences study the process of deciding or choosing and evaluate the relevance of available knowledge for the solution of particular problems. Considering the significance of the current stock of knowledge for specific issues, an official decision or a private choice is considered a problem-solving activity. He identified five intellectual tasks that are performed by policy scientists at varying levels of insight and understanding: clarification of goals; description of trends; analysis of conditions; projection of future developments; and invention, evaluation, and selection of alternatives. The policy sciences integrate philosophy, history, science, prophecy, and commitment.


Communication is therefore central to development communication and policy sciences. As Allen (1978), cited by Flor (1991), states:

"Since communication permeates every facet of a person's behavior, the study of communication is no less than one way to study policy making. Communication is a useful concept, precisely because it is one more handle whereby we can effectively study policy making. Communication is one of those few variables through which any policy decision is dependent."[78] Awa (1989) adds that communication sparks participation. Apart from having good policies which will direct projects to the grass roots level, people's participation is becoming the central issue of our time.[79]

Communication and policy sciences link in societal change

Undeniably, development communication and the policy sciences are generally regarded as inextricable links in recognizing change in the society. Their engaged roles encourage and support research, practice, and education, and disseminate knowledge and information for the people through various means of communication. Such engagement leads to this further focus on these two's main target: Change. The Rome Consensus emphasized that for significant progress, development policies should integrate communication for development and strengthen communication capacity within countries and development organisations at all levels.[15]

Lasswell’s (1971)[80] concept of the Policy Sciences roots back from the socio-political events in the history with the conception of knowledge as problem solving. He favoured the use of scientific approach of solving problems – an application of practical science. Policy science is concerned with knowledge of and in the decision process of the public and civic order which implies systematic, empirical studies of how policies are made and put into effect.

The empirical criterion is to specify that general assertions are subject to discipline of careful observation (a distinction between science and non-science). The decision process accentuates the difference between policy sciences and other forms of intellectual activity.

On the other hand, Development Communication puts prominence on communication as a powerful tool to facilitate social change or development. It is the practice of applying the communication processes, strategies and principles to achieve social progression. It involves the process of communication to invite community participation through information dissemination, social mobilization and advocacy awareness and call to action.

Flor (1991)[81] echoed the need for Third World societies for effective communication policies to keep up with the world’s fast changing demands for information.

It has been widely established that mass media could fetch and cater education, essential skills, social harmony, and a desire to reach modernization. As stipulated in Walt Rostow's theory in Boado's[82] (2000) article, societies progress through specific stages of development on their way to modernity, "the age of high mass consumption." Meanwhile, Lerner suggested that exposure to media would generate empathy for modern culture, and a desire to move from long-established to contemporary ways.[83] However, one needs to be made to understand the fallacy of the notion that communication is an all-embracing area.

Being the most used tool for development communication, mass media technologies have become the eyes and hands of the society in examining its social conditions, and to dissect and plot solutions through policy sciences, accordingly. In fact, in some instances, mass media technologies, including television, have been magic multipliers of development benefits. Educational television has been used effectively to supplement the work of teachers in classrooms in the teaching of literacy and other skills, but only in well designed programs which are integrated with other educational efforts. This insight regarding the integration of technology in the education set up basically creates a step-on-the-ladder of achieving change and development. Consequently, media play a significant role in the conduct of development communication projects. Communication media are agents of social change and indicators of national development.[84]

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), 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.[85] 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.[86]

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.[87]

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.[88] Schramm (1964) stated that the task of mass media for information and the new media for education is to speed up and ease the long social transformation required for economic development, and, in particular, to speed up and smoothen the task of mobilizing human resources behind the national effort.[89]

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.[90]

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.[90]

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 the 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.[91]

Newspapers, radio and television are found to be effective media in information dissemination and education of people. They serve as instruments in bridging the government, non-government organizations and the people for project implementation.[89]

In India, television is used as a medium for social education, weapon against ignorance and awareness among the people, through its different programs like Educational Television (ETV), Countrywide Classroom (CWC) and Teleconferencing.[92]

Apart from traditional media, today, social media have gained popularity in all social classes. They have gained a great deal of attention and research for their ability to raise awareness on issues, improve monitoring of environmental and social realities and as social networking for better governance and development. Social media have been used extensively by social movements to communicate, educate, organize, share cultural products of movements and build coalitions.[93]

Social networking sites (SNS) offer news and opinion, promote discussion and a sense of community, and connect users with similar interests and viewpoints. They have enabled individuals to learn about new ideas and social movements as their friends and colleagues become involved in them.[94]

Guardian (2011) reports that Facebook has revolutionized communication by bridging distances and other factors which has impeded the process of communication in the past.[95] Hashtags on Twitter added a new dimension to the process of participatory communication across the globe. While YouTube (2011) has been committed to the localization of its services.[94]

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).[96] 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. It is seen as a way to amplify voices, facilitate meaningful participation and foster social change.[92] 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.[97]

Similarly, the interpersonal communication skills of field workers is very important in attaining triumph in projects.[98] The interpersonal relationship of the project owner and the intended recipients will pave the way for participatory development—a two-way, dynamic interaction between grass roots receivers and the information source mediated by the development communicators.[99]

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.[100]

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 more fundamentally a question of whether giving 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 disciplines with often conflicting priorities (including political science, communications, media studies, and development studies). At the same time, there has been a dearth of practical guidance available to policymakers on understanding and using communication in governance reform.[101]

In spite of its relative under-prioritisation in development assistance, few dispute the power of communication, 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 citizen participation 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 in how communication can contribute to state-building by improving state-citizen relationships and helping to (re)build social contracts in conflict-affected states.[101]

The process of development is expedited by mobilizing human resources. The Development Support Communication (DSC) states that an organization plans the use of information and communication resources to help achieve its goals.[102]

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:[103]

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.[104] 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 the 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 a freer government may also promote participation and communication."[104]

Policy engagement in development communication

The engagement between development communication and policy science is linked to their end goal for development. Policymaking is viewed as a function of power that is socially beneficial to the micro (institutional) or the macro (national) level considering interplay of interests amongst the stakeholders.

These stakeholders include the government, the church, the education sector, communication industry, the private, foreign sectors and the consumers. Conflicting interests is viewed as one of the main challenges of the 21st century policy-making. There are a lot of voices that demands deliberation. With the emerging power of technology in the Third World society, the media has a significant influence in its portrayal as a unifying tool for development.

Policy engagement in development communication is essential. From the start, development communication practitioners must build relationships with those they seek to inform, influence, and work together with for change. Policy scientists, in turn, must constantly look at how they will move their knowledge not just outward to broad audiences, but directly into practice.

The rationale for policy engagement in development communication is well understood:

  • Decision makers are more likely to consider the recommendations if they have been consulted and involved at various stages.
  • Building awareness in the public leads to both advocacy for and receptivity to policy changes.

The participatory approach in policy engagement is key in ensuring that the public and stakeholders have been involved at various stages. Waisbord (2002)[105][106] presented the paradigm shift of development communication from the dominant paradigm of Modernism theories which focus on behavior change models to the more critical Dependency and Participatory theories and approaches. According to Waisbord (2002), participatory theories considered necessary a redefinition of development communication and one set of definitions stated that it (development communication) is the "systematic utilization of communication channels and techniques to increase people's participation in development and to inform, motivate, and train rural populations mainly at the grassroots." Further, a decisive role can be played by communicating policies in promoting human development in today's climate of social change. It is vital to stimulate their awareness, participation and capabilities.[67]

Mefalopulos (2008), author of the book "Development Communication Sourcebook: Broadening the Boundaries of Communication" points out the importance of "meaningful and significant participation" which is made possible mainly through communication. The author observes that "many development programs, including community-driven ones seem not to pay similar attention to participation and communication." He notes that "while paying attention to participation,communication which is intended as the professional use of dialogic methods and tools to promote change as an aspect is overlooked" (p. 7). These views further advance that dialogues and interactions among various stakeholders are crucial in the participatory approach of policy making.

Wilson (2007) further stated that, "All forms of participation are essentially communication processes."[106] In a society, communication contributes to healthy political processes whether in drafting policies or keeping governments in check. Flor (2011)[8] identified that the interplay of interests of "the government, the education sector, the communication industry, the private sector, the church, foreign vested interests and the consumers" make up the stakeholders of communication policy. In line with this, the inter-relatedness of societal problems using the problematique technique points out that the different sectors of the society should be encouraged to participate in policy-making. In this manner, policy-making becomes participatory in nature.

Consequently, Lagerwey's (1990)[107] assertion on the importance of DevCom as a 'discipline born out of people's need for information and education that brought about planned growth intended for human think critically, cultivate proper attitudes, skills and values, and contribute to the welfare of the community development' paves way for policy scientists to come into picture, utilize these information and communication to improve society's desire for social, economic, and political changes and engage in the decision-making process with sound judgment. As it assists developmental and national goals, the scope of DevCom motivates individuals to become productive and engaged stakeholders.

Eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, n.d).[108] In fact, the convening of the high-level representatives and heads of states from the different part of the world that gave birth to the so-called 'Sustainable Development Goals' or SDGs in 2015 seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom, is resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty, heal and secure our planet, and is determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path.

The need to translate the principles of policy sciences into the helm of development is a challenge to policy makers. As coined by Harold Lasswell, policy sciences draw on and contribute to all fields of knowledge (PSC, Inc).[109] This is because the variety of problems and issues to which the policy sciences have been applied is vast and thus, helping people make better decisions is the central objective of the policy sciences, it pointed out.

Communication policy science

The history of communication policy-making can be traced back from the rise of telegraphy, telephony and wireless communication.[110] According to Braman (2003c),[111] the idea originated from the emergence of the bureaucratic welfare state in the late nineteenth century, where telegraph and postal service are prominent. Consequently, problems about technological change comprise the bulk of communication policy (Rowland, 1984).[112] Thus, "most of the discussions of public policy for the mass media during the past fifteen years have been driven by questions about the role and promises of the "new technologies" (Rowland 1984:426).

Communication policy science involves the communication policy making of an organization intended members of a society, mostly the media consumer. It can initiate media education in the formal or non-formal modes; facilitate in the conduct of research and development outfits; establish a network involving the church, academic, communities and cause-oriented groups; and can be used by politicians as "think tanks" serving the government.

Communication policy

Communication policy pertains to the set of norms established to guide, regulate, and influence the communication processes to include various interpersonal communication activities within the context of various development sectors such as health and education and also the behavior of mass communication media. Such policies do not only guide the behaviors and activities of institutions operating various media channels but also other services and factors involved in interpersonal and social communications.

Communication policy and media is made for the benefit of the public (McCann, 2013).[113] The public is a social creation that is not biased toward government administrative goals nor individual freedom, but the product that reflects consequences of social, political, and economic considerations we all share (Dewey, 1927).[114] In a study by MCann (2013), she highlights that the general components of public interest should encompass social, political and economic considerations, which are necessary for guiding communications policy. In the same study, McCann proposes an integrative policy model that offers a platform for the analysis of the policy implications and decisions, analyzes the existing policy imposed to achieve diversity goals, and suggests alternative ways of responding to current regulatory challenges in communication policy for strengthening policymaking.[113]

"Communication policy" is the merging of two concepts: communication and policy' According to Mwaura (1980)[115] and Udomisor (2009 in Udomisor and Akoje (2013),[116] communication policy refers to the "sets of principles and norms established to guide the behaviour of communication systems. They are shaped over time in the context of society's general approach to communication and to the media. Emanating from political ideologies, the social and economic conditions of the country and the values on which they are based, they strive to relate these to the real needs for and the prospective opportunities for communication". A framework that ensures the members and stakeholders of the organization of their roles and responsibilities as fully informed individuals and communication practitioners, this policy reflects not only the communication infrastructure[117] and channel but more on its supporting capability in the 'systematic planning, development and use of the communication system, and its resources and possibilities, and for ensuring that they function efficiently in enhancing national development' (National Resource Management and Environment Department, 2002).[118][119] Communication policy needs conscious involvement at several levels: Government executive, legislative bodies, authorities in charge of social and economic planning, individual, ministries and their planning boards, communication enterprises, professional organizations, the citizen, the social scientist, and economists.[120]

Digitalisation needs an active communications policy because it will serve as tools for an effective and efficient delivery of service in both the private and public sector. Today, there is an increasing attention to the utilisation of information and communications technology and digital services in the promotion of employment and economic growth.

Analysis

In the performance of development communication and policy science studies, a communication policy analysis is developed. The analyst performs proactive posture, focusing on development communication. Several methods were mentioned in the works of Flor (1991) such as: communication technology assessment, social cost benefit analysis, problematique analysis, scenario construction, and policy delphi.

One of the policy analysis methods discussed by Flor (1991) is the Communication Technology Assessment (CTA) technique which measures the impact of a particular technology to the individuals and society. The result of the assessment serves as the basis for qualifying which technology can be adopted, which ones are constructive, and which are deemed damaging to the society.[8] On the other hand, the Collingridge dilemma questions the impact of technology assessment in general. It argues that we can only predict the effect of technology if they are extensively developed and widely used in the society. However, the implication of such wide testing and application can lead to difficulties in controlling and changing the technology that has already been embedded in the society.

According to Flor (1991), Scenario Construction and Analysis could be used in analysing communication policy. Scenario is a description technique that has been attracting a lot of attention from practitioners and from researchers. Several disciplines have been using scenarios for some time now, but recently the information system community has dedicated special attention to the possibilities that this description technique provides to enhance understandability of task-related descriptions and communicability among stakeholders.[121]

Scenario construction is an assessment of what could happen in the future based on input assumptions. It is not a prediction of what will happen in the future, and is therefore an ideal tool to use to create thought provoking content in markets and sectors that have many variable influences. A scenario report can be deterministic or stochastic, historical or hypothetical. Analysis based on deterministic scenarios typically considers just a few scenarios which might be historical or hypothetical. Although, scenarios tend to be mostly quantitative, they can be used to develop alternative views of the future that are meant to offer strategic thinking about how a company might best respond to rapid changes in the business environment. These scenarios, developed through an internal and external review process, are qualitative and descriptive.[122]

Analysis itself is the breaking up of a policy problem into its component parts, understanding them, and developing ideas about what to do. [123]

Research

The coinage of the terminology "communication policy research" was done by Harold D. Lasswell, the founding father of communication science and policy science (Rogers, 1994).[124] Policy-related research flourished after World War II (Braman 2003c:38; McQuail 1994:40).[125] The war encounters resulted to the interest in applying science in the service of transforming society. For Bar and Sandvig (2008:532),[126] the "history of communication policy is characterized as 'a story of inertia and incrementalism'".

Lasswell asserts that the future progress in communication study rests on the development of a policy focus and on acting as third voice supplying 'a competing appraisal of the images spread by self-serving sources' (Lasswell 1972:307).[127]

Since communication policy research springs forth as a multi-disciplinary field, its focus and framework also largely depends on various forces multi-faceted fields such as sociocultural, political, economic and technological forces.[128] For Lasswell (1970),[129] communication policy research performs twofold functions, first, it concerns the subject(s) of communication policy research and second, it informs communication policy-makers (Harms 1980:5)[130] [touches upon the role of communication policy research in communication policy-making).

Rowland (1984:423)[112] defines communication policy research as the "investigation of those issues centering around the way in which – and – why societies and governments make choices they do regarding the purpose, ownership, control, support and guidance of their media institutions and services".

Kunkel and Farinola (2001:413)[131] claim that research into communication policy traditionally implies studying the policy-making process and examining the patterns and trends in communication policy over the years. It further involves providing pragmatic, action-oriented recommendations and making information available to decision-makers (Majchrzak 1984:12)[132] For these communication researches to be utilized and implemented, a close communicative relationship between the policy researcher and policymaker must exist (Majchrzak, 1984).[133] Aside from the maximization of communication policy research output, the following benefits are also bound to happen if constructive, open, active and productive communication between parties will occur:

  • Policymakers will appreciate constraints and realities of research to reduce the skepticism with which research is viewed;
  • Policy researchers will learn about constraints and realities of the policy-makers' world;
  • Policymakers will be knowledgeable about information that may be relevant at future times; and
  • Policy researchers will be knowledgeable about changes in the policy arena that may affect the study.

To increase the likelihood of research utilization, the communication policy researchers are advised to follow these guidelines when communicating their recommendations (Majchrzak, 1984):[133]

  • Communicate throughout the study;
  • Communicate to different study users;
  • Presentation may mean everything in effective communication; and
  • Oral communication is generally more effective than written.

Bridging research and policy

There is a need to bridge research and policy especially the science-policy interface. Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) programme focuses to increase the use of research in development policy. John Young, one of the originators of RAPID, states that "Research, policy and practice is complex, multifactoral, non-linear, and highly context specific."[134] Jones and Walsh (2008)[135] conducted a research which focused on how information is accessed for development policy making. In this work Jones and Walsh (2008) identified 11 major obstacles to making use of available scientific information in development policy making: scientific understanding of policy makers is low, limited openness by politicians, lack of dissemination of research findings, lack of incentives, lack of institutional channels for incorporation, economic and social data more relevant to policy making, scientific research findings not relevant to policy, scientific data not perceived as credible evidence, jargon does not correspond with policy environment, too little scientific information available, and too much scientific information available. McQuail (2003) elucidated that effective policies must adhere to measures and means of implementation (mainly embodied in laws, regulations, self-regulation or market practices).[136] The MOST programme, which is part of Social and Human Science Sector of UNESCO, launched in March 1994, was designed to steer reflection and action in the vast field of linkages between social science knowledge and public policies. Its primary purpose since the beginning of its activities has been to transfer social research findings to public decision-makers. Milani (2009) demarcated knowledge here means what is produced within universities and academia, but also non-scholar experience and knowledge. At the same time, the making of public policies involves governmental and governmental actors. [137]

Dimensions of development communication policy science; models of development-policy science interface

Dimensions of development communication policy science (Bellu, 2011):

  1. Economic – Development geared towards improvement of the way products and services are utilized by or within a system to generate new products and services in order to provide additional consumption and/or investment possibilities to the members of the system.
  2. Human – people-centric development where the focus is placed on enhancing various dimensions of well-being of individuals and their relationships with society (health, education, entitlements, capabilities, empowerment, etc)
  3. Sustainable – development which factors in a longitudinal perspective of the socio-economic system, and ensuring that the benefits run beneficial for the present as well as predicted future progress or development in the social, environmental, financial aspects
  4. Territorial – development specific to a locality or space achievable by exploring the comprehensive institutional factors in relation to external situational scenarios

Models of sustainable development

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)[138], research inquiry and decision making through policy sciences are interwoven processes which integrate economic, social and environmental issues.

The policy sciences' relevance to the present day SDG’s international initiative cannot be denied.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Lasswell's framework of policy sciences commit to three similar attributes. According to McGovern and Yacobucci[139] (2018), these attributes include contextuality, problem orientation and diversity. Both SDG and policy sciences deals with the idea that decisions are part of a larger social process (contextuality), the recognition that the policy making approach must be rational and purposeful (problem orientation) and methods employed are not of limited, narrow range (diversity).

With broader scope for the 2030 SDG Agenda[140], the issues on implementation, measurement, monitoring and accountability pose several challenges. Identifying knowledge gaps through initiating solutions- oriented research with multiple stakeholders can be beneficial to the decision-makers (UN, 2016). According to Schmalzbauer (2018)[141], it can help in identifying critical interactions between policies aimed at achieving specific SDGs and how it can be mitigated through synergy and possible multipurpose actions.

Panos (2007)[142] agrees as he describes the media as a forum for political debate and accountability, and help shape social attitudes such as women’s equality. The essentials of public service media are accessibility (including by poor and marginalised people) and quality content that is accurate, informative, and reflects varied perspectives. According to him, the media, and information and communication can contribute in particular to four key areas of development: Inclusive political processes, good governance, a vibrant civil society, and an efficient and more equitable economies.

Sustainable development (SD) is a highly intricate socio-ecological endeavor, for the simple reason that the science-policy interface (SPI) is often underdeveloped or totally non-existent, as the latter is oftentimes unprioritized and neglected at the level of country-level policy-making. The dynamics of science-policy interface for SD policies can be classed into 7 models in a comprehensive typology developed by Kaaronen (2016):

  1. Independent model – Heterogeneous group or panel of experts from various fields conduct scientific advice, assessments and monitoring; the strength of this model is impartiality as a watchdog, with the true impact of their reporting is subject to further scrutiny.
  2. Integrated model – The players are diverse groups from both scientific and non-scientific stakeholders, who work in proximity with government officials and often give ear to muted voices
  3. Assignment model – Usually these are demand-driven scientific support done by task forces for short-term remedies, but generally lacks comprehensiveness sufficient to act as major solutions to problems
  4. Nested model – Scientific support is organized around institutionalized arrangements of nested expert hierarchies. The strength is that it occurs within a highly professional milieu (Kaaronen, R (2016) Scientific Support for Sustainable Development Policies: a typology of Science-Policy Interfaces with Case Studies, media.sitra.fi, pp. 8–9) with high-level impact yet confronted with challenges of external network capabilities
  5. Adviser model – Scientific experts directly inform the top political actors via advisory offices, wherein the selection process is not transparent and therefore is not appropriate for complicated high-profile issues.
  6. Platform model – This model incorporates deliberative and co-productive knowledge brokering arenas for science-policy interaction , often organized by third parties ; the interaction may be too short-lived to provide credibility to results and outcomes
  7. Mixed/hybrid model – There are models in which a combination of above frameworks operate, which may be inevitable if the solutions demand complex responses and occur in unpredictable scenarios.

Approaches to evaluating impacts and outcomes

The task of evaluating impacts and outcomes of development communication, or its new form, communication for development (C4D) is as complex as the issues it tries to solve. It requires a shift from the traditional results-based approaches that put premium on accountability to funding institutions to more innovative, complexity-based approaches that allow for greater stakeholder participation. Evaluating C4D calls for more flexible techniques other than the quantitative and linear evaluation approaches.

The new approach acknowledges the contextual challenges and issues attendant to development interventions. Among the issues identified are the changing information and communication landscape, geographic and cultural barriers, need for compliance to requirements of funding agencies, political instability, among others.

Other issues identified from the survey responses for the Inter-Agency Resource Pack includes insufficiency of time, funding and resources, highlighting the need for more time to design evaluation tools for diverse programs, lack of capacity, awareness of research, evaluation and social change and for designing and implementing M&E, and the prevailing preference for more quantitative approaches even if these are found wanting in surfacing answers to deeper,fundamental questions.

Lennie noted that there are also issues with attribution, because impacts cannot readily be attributed to C4D given the complexity of issues, and because the programs are shared by a number of partner agencies working together towards a larger development initiative.[143]

Development Communication is focused on economic projects, inventions in science and technology, agriculture and other livelihood programs. It engages with key stakeholders, establishing conducive environments, assessing risks and opportunities, disseminating information, and inducing positive behavioral and social change. As the Fifth Theory of the Press, it was conceptualized based on the Third World realities, and with “social transformation and development,” and “the fulfillment of basic needs” as its primary purpose (Flor, 2007).

Having the function role rather than the purpose, campus press can serve as the link in addressing strategies to accelerate the progress of development by taking a part in the inclusions of articles that will imbibe development. These articles can be aligned with the development goals in eradicating extreme poverty, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowerment of women, safeguarding child mortality and maternal health, promoting environmental concerns and developing partnerships.

See also

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Flor, A. (1991). "Development Communication and the Policy Sciences." Asian Institute of Development Communication (Kuala Lumpur). Journal of Development Communication.
  2. Quebral, N. C., (2012). Development communication primer. Penang, Malaysia: Southbound.
  3. Velasco, 1999, p. 2
  4. Velasco, 1999, p. 10
  5. Guru, Mahesh Chandra B.P. (1997) Ambedkar as a Journalist, Communicator, XXXII (2):33–38
  6. Narula, Uma (1994). Development Communication: Theory and Practice. New Delhi, India: Har-Anand Publications. 
  7. Flor, Alexander (1993). "Upstream and Downstream Interventions in Environmental Communication". Institute of Development Communication.
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 Flor, Alexander G. (1991). "Development Communication and the Policy Sciences". Journal of Development Communication. https://www.academia.edu/578845. 
  9. Jan Servaes, ed. (2002). "Approaches to development communication". http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/approaches_to_development_communication.pdf. Retrieved November 2, 2016. 
  10. Development Communication and the Policy Sciences. Journal of Development Communication. Asian Institute of Development: Kuala Lumpur
  11. Nair, K. (1993). The Development Communication Process: A Reconceptualization. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications. 
  12. Quebral, N.C. (1971). "What Do We Mean by 'Development Communication'?" International Development Review. 15(2): 25–28.
  13. Manyozo, Linje (March 2006). "Manifesto for Development Communication: Nora C. Quebral and the Los Baños School of Development Communication". Asian Journal of Communication 16 (1): 79–99. doi:10.1080/01292980500467632
  14. Bassette, Guy. 2006. People, Land, and Water: Participatory Development Communication for Natural Resource Management. London: Earthscan and the International Development Research Centre.
  15. 15.0 15.1 "The Rome Consensus Communication for Development A Major Pillar for Development and Change". http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVCOMMENG/Resources/RomeConsensus07.pdf. 
  16. Rosario-Braid, Florangel (1993) .Social Responsibility in Communication Media. Quezon City: Katha Publishing Co., Inc. page 103
  17. (Carey, 1989 & Deetz, 1994 in Craig, R. T. (2007). Pragmatism in the field of communication. Communication Theory; 17(2): 127–128). Retrieved at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227537737_Pragmatism_in_the_Field_of_Communication_Theory.
  18. Servaes, J. (2008). Communication for development and social change. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, p. 101. Retrieved at http://rasaneh.org/Images/News/AtachFile/10-2-1391/FILE634713029852060234.pdf.
  19. "The Communication Initiative Network – convening the communication and media development, social and behaviour change community". http://www.comminit.com/. 
  20. Allen, 1978 in Flor, A. (1991). Development communication and the policy sciences. Journal of Development Communication. Asian Institute of Development Communication (Kuala Lumpur), pp. 1–8. Retrieved at https://www.academia.edu/578845/Development_Communication_and_the_Policy_Sciences.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). Good practices in development communication. P. 5. Retrieved at http://www.oecd.org/dev/DevCom%20Publication%20Good%20Practices%20in%20Development%20Communication.pdf.
  22. Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, p. 5. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6439/446360Dev0Comm1ns0handbook01PUBLIC1.pdf;sequence=1.
  23. Tufte, T. & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, p. 1. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/5940/499270PUB0comm101Official0Use0Only1.pdf?sequence=1.
  24. Tufte, T. & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, p. 22. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/5940/499270PUB0comm101Official0Use0Only1.pdf?sequence=1.
  25. Tufte, T. & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, p. 18. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/5940/499270PUB0comm101Official0Use0Only1.pdf?sequence=1.
  26. Mefalopulos, 2003 in Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, pp. 1–244. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6439/446360Dev0Comm1ns0handbook01PUBLIC1.pdf;sequence=1.
  27. Servaes, 1999 in Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, pp. 1–244. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6439/446360Dev0Comm1ns0handbook01PUBLIC1.pdf;sequence=1.
  28. (Mitchell & Gorove, Module 4, 4.6 in Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, p. 9. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6439/446360Dev0Comm1ns0handbook01PUBLIC1.pdf;sequence=1.
  29. Green, M. (2015). How we can make the world a better place by 2030? TED Talks. Retrieved at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o08ykAqLOxk&t=738s.
  30. Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, p. 8. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6439/446360Dev0Comm1ns0handbook01PUBLIC1.pdf;sequence=1.
  31. Tufte, T. & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, p. 4. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/5940/499270PUB0comm101Official0Use0Only1.pdf?sequence=1.
  32. Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, p. 11. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6439/446360Dev0Comm1ns0handbook01PUBLIC1.pdf;sequence=1.
  33. Tufte, T. & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, pp. 6–7. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/5940/499270PUB0comm101Official0Use0Only1.pdf?sequence=1.
  34. Mitchell, 2005 in Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. Washington D. C., USA: World Bank, p. 14. Retrieved at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6439/446360Dev0Comm1ns0handbook01PUBLIC1.pdf;sequence=1.
  35. Willner, S. (2006). Strategic communication for sustainable development: A conceptual overview. Bonn, Germany: GTZ Rioplus – Environmental Policy and Promotion of Strategies for Sustainable Development, p. 25. Retrieved at https://www.cbd.int/cepa/toolkit/2008/doc/strategic%20communication%20for%20sustainable%20development.pdf.
  36. Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. World Bank Publications.
  37. Gough, I. (2013) Social policy regimes in the developing world. In: Kennett, Patricia, (ed.) A handbook of comparative social policy. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham UK, pp. 205–224. Retrieved at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/51023/1/Gough_social_policy_regimes_2013.pdf.
  38. Tang, K. L. (1996). The marginalization of social welfare in developing countries: The relevance of theories of social policy development. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare; 23(1–5): 41–57. Retrieved at http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol23/iss1/5/.
  39. "Home .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform". https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/. 
  40. "Stories – David Suzuki Foundation". Davidsuzuki.org. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/. Retrieved 2018-07-11. 
  41. Yang, C. F., & Sung, T. J. (2016). Service design for social innovation through participatory action research. International Journal of Design; 10(1): 21–36. Retrieved at http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/2456 Template:Webarchive.
  42. Servaes, J. (2008). Communication for development and social change. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, pp. 1–429. Retrieved at http://rasaneh.org/Images/News/AtachFile/10-2-1391/FILE634713029852060234.pdf.
  43. Ahmed, H. A. (n. d.). Development communication-An Indian perspective. Retrieved at http://pib.nic.in/feature/fe0499/f0904991.html
  44. Dror, Y. (1970). From management sciences to policy sciences. Pp. 11–13. Retrieved at https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P4375.pdf.
  45. Flor, A. (1991). Development communication and the policy sciences. Journal of Development Communication. Asian Institute of Development Communication (Kuala Lumpur), pp. 1–8. Retrieved at https://www.academia.edu/578845/Development_Communication_and_the_Policy_Sciences.
  46. 46.0 46.1 deLeon, P. & Steelman, T. A. (2001). Making public policy programs effective and relevant: The role of the policy sciences (Curriculum and Case Notes). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management; 20(1): 164. Retrieved at http://southasiainstitute.harvard.edu/website/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Making-Public-Policy-Programs-effective-and-Relevant.pdf Template:Webarchive.
  47. "Policy Sciences". http://www.policysciences.org/. Retrieved April 30, 2019. 
  48. Indira Gandhi National Open University. "Unit-5 Policy Sciences". http://egyankosh.ac.in/handle/123456789/25789. Retrieved April 30, 2019. 
  49. 49.0 49.1 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences . (2008). Applied and Social Sciences Magazines. Retrieved April 24, 2017 from International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Web Site: http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/policy-sciences
  50. Hale, B. (2011). The methods of applied philosophy and the tools of the policy sciences. International Journal of Applied Philosophy; 25(2): 215–232. Retrieved from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2011.37.pdf.
  51. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. American Elsevier Publishing, pp. 1–4. Retrieved at http://www.policysciences.org/classics/preview.pdf.
  52. Shi, T. (2003). Ecological economics as a policy science: Rhetoric or commitment towards an improved decision-making process on sustainability. Ecological Economics; 48(2004): 25. Retrieved at https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.004.
  53. Gough, I. (2013) Social policy regimes in the developing world. In: Kennett, Patricia, (ed.) A handbook of comparative social policy. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham UK, pp. 209. Retrieved at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/51023/1/Gough_social_policy_regimes_2013.pdf.
  54. 54.0 54.1 Hale, B. (2011). The methods of applied philosophy and the tools of the policy sciences. International Journal of Applied Philosophy; 25(2): 221. Retrieved from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2011.37.pdf.
  55. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A Pre-view of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier.
  56. Jones, N. et al. (2009). Knowledge, policy and power: Six dimensions of the knowledge-development policy interface. Overseas Development Institute, p. 9. Retrieved at https://www.odi.org/resources/docs/4919.pdf.
  57. "Partner Platform – Login". https://partnerplatform.org/ebpdn/. 
  58. "Home". https://www.odi.org/. 
  59. Hale, B. (2011). The methods of applied philosophy and the tools of the policy sciences. International Journal of Applied Philosophy; 25(2): 222. Retrieved from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2011.37.pdf.
  60. "Lessons by Independent Evaluation, Asian Development Bank – A searchable database of evaluation lessons.". https://evaluation-lessons.org/. 
  61. Shi, T. (2003). Ecological economics as a policy science: Rhetoric or commitment towards an improved decision-making process on sustainability. Ecological Economics; 48(2004): 23–36. Retrieved at https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.004.
  62. Nair, K., White, S. (1987) Participation is the Key to Development Communication, Media Development.
  63. MacBride International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems (1980). Many Voices, One World, Report to the UNESCO, Paris.
  64. "Introduction to Development Communication: Its Philosophy". http://cfamedia.org/main/?p=2427. 
  65. Quebral, N.C. (2001). "Development Communication in a Borderless World". "Paper presented at the national conference-workshop on the undergraduate development communication curriculum, "New Dimensions, Bold Decisions"". Continuing Education Center, UP Los Banos: Department of Science Communication, College of Development Communication, University of the Philippines Los Banos, pp 15–28.
  66. Allen (1978), cited in Flor, Alexander (1991).
  67. 67.0 67.1 Fraser, C. (1998). Communicating for Development: Human Change for Survival. New York, USA.
  68. Just, Natascha; Puppis, Manuel (2012). Trends in Communication Policy Research: New Theories, Methods and Subjects. Intellect Books. ISBN 978-1-84150-467-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=J70K-zhMxZwC&pg=PA13. 
  69. 69.0 69.1 McKee, N. (1992). Social Mobilization and Social Marketing in Developing Countries: Lessons from Communicators. Malaysia: Southbound.
  70. Harold D. Lasswell (1971). "A Pre-View of Policy Sciences". http://www.policysciences.org/classics/preview.pdf. Retrieved November 2, 2016. 
  71. Mahaldar,O. and Bhadra,K (2015). ICT: A Magic Wand for Social Change in Rural India Source Title: Handbook of Research on Cultural and Economic Impacts of the Information Society Copyright: © 2015 |Pages: 25 DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8598-7.ch021. Accessed from: https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/ict-a-magic-wand-for-social-change-in-rural-india/135863
  72. Karin Gwinn Wilkins (1996) Development communication, Peace Review, 8:1, 97-103, DOI: 10.1080/10402659608425936
  73. Mahaldar,O. and Bhadra,K (2015). ICT: A Magic Wand for Social Change in Rural India Source Title: Handbook of Research on Cultural and Economic Impacts of the Information Society Copyright: © 2015 |Pages: 25 DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8598-7.ch021. Accessed from: https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/ict-a-magic-wand-for-social-change-in-rural-india/135863
  74. Colle, R. (2002). Chapter 6. Threads of Development Communication. In: SERVAES, J. (ed.), Approaches to Development Communication, Paris: UNESCO.
  75. Cires, Roger A. Pielke Jr. (2004). What future for the policy sciences? (2005) Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1333 Grandview Avenue, UCB 488, Boulder, CO 80309-0488, U.S.A. Policy Sciences (2004) 37: 209–225 DOI: 10.1007/s11077-005-6181-x C Springer 2005. Accessed from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227326995_What_Future_for_the_Policy_Sciences
  76. Lasswell, Harold D. (1971).A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. (New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., 1971. Pp. 173.) https://doi.org/10.2307/1956564 Published online: 01 August 2014 Accessed from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/a-preview-of-policy-sciences-by-harold-d-lasswell-new-york-american-elsevier-publishing-co-inc-1971-pp-173-750/F99A0D18D15D45E92213A0124D82F0B4
  77. Gale, Thomson (2008). Policy Sciences International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Accessed from: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/policy-sciences
  78. Ongkiko, I. and Flor, A. (1998). Dev Com and the Policy Sciences. Introduction to Development Communication. UP Open University and South East Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture.
  79. Awa, N. (1989). Participation and Indigenous Knowledge in Rural Development, Knowledge, Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 10(4):304–316.
  80. Lasswell, Harold D. (1971).A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. (New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., 1971. Pp. 173.) https://doi.org/10.2307/1956564 Published online: 01 August 2014 Accessed from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/a-preview-of-policy-sciences-by-harold-d-lasswell-new-york-american-elsevier-publishing-co-inc-1971-pp-173-750/F99A0D18D15D45E92213A0124D82F0B4
  81. Flor, Alexander (1991). Development Communication and The Policy Sciences. Published in the Journal of Development Communication, December 1991. Asian Institute of Development Communication (Kuala Lumpur). Accessed from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301584726_Development_Communication_and_the_Policy_Sciences
  82. Boado, P. G. (2000). The Need for Self-Directed Learning. Phil: CLSU Research Vista
  83. Lerner, D. (1958) "The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East." New York: Free Press.
  84. Bhatnagar, S. (2000). Information and Communication Technology in rural development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  85. Servaes, Jan; Mai, Chiang (19 October 2009). Media for Social Transformation: Advocacy for Peace. https://www.academia.edu/2808366. 
  86. 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.
  87. Servaes, 2009, p. 55.
  88. Servaes, 2009, p. 50.
  89. 89.0 89.1 Schramm, Wilbur (1964). Mass Media and National Development: The Role of Information in the Developing Countries, California, USA: University Press.
  90. 90.0 90.1 Servaes, 2009, p. 64.
  91. Barry James (2005). Media and good governance, UNESCO.
  92. 92.0 92.1 Anwar, R. (1975). A Catalyst for Development Media Asia. Indonesia: Rural Press.
  93. Willard, T. (2009). Social Networking and Governance for Sustainable Development, International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/social_net_gov.pdf.
  94. 94.0 94.1 Ramirez, R. (1998). Communication: A Meeting Ground for Sustainable Development. In Richardson, D. and Paisley, L. The First Mile of Connectivity. Advancing Telecommunications for Rural Development through a Participatory Communication Approach. Rome: FAO
  95. Guardian (2011). Facebook buys mobile startup snaptu, Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/21/facebook-buys-snaptu
  96. Huma, 2011, p. 10.
  97. Huma, 2011, p. 8.
  98. Read, H. (1972). Communication Methods for All Media Campaign. USA: University of Illinois, Press.
  99. Gujral, I. (1975). Role of Communication in Developing Society, Indian Press, 24(4):15–18
  100. Huma, 2011, pp 7–8
  101. 101.0 101.1 Huma, 2011, p. 9
  102. Gecolea, R. (1982). Primer on Development Support Communication Asia and Pacific Programme for Development Training and Communication Planning. UNDP, Bangkok.
  103. GIZ (2006) Strategic Communication for Sustainable development: A Conceptual Overview.
  104. 104.0 104.1 "The Role of Communication in Governance: Detailed Analysis", Coffey International Development, London, 2007.
  105. Waisbord, S. 2002. Family Tree of Theories, Methodologies and Strategies in Development Communication. The Rockefeller Foundation.
  106. 106.0 106.1 Mark Wilson (2007). "At the heart of change". http://panos.org.uk/wp-content/files/2011/03/heart_of_change_weby2wvJO.pdf. Retrieved November 2, 2016. 
  107. Lagerwey, F. C. (1990). Introduction to development communication: Its philosophy and approach. In Communication Foundation for Asia: Media for Total Human Development. Retrieved http://cfamedia.org/main/?p=2427.
  108. "Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform". 2015. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. Retrieved November 2, 2016. 
  109. "Policy Sciences". http://www.policysciences.org/. Retrieved November 2, 2016. 
  110. Just, N. & Puppis, M. (2012). Trends in Communication Policy Research: New Theories, Methods and Subjects.
  111. Braman, S. (2003a), 'Introduction', in S. Braman (3d.). Communication Researchers and Policy-Making, Cambridge and London: MIT Press, p. 1-9.
  112. 112.0 112.1 Rowland, W.D. (1984), ' Deconstructing American Communications Policy Literature,' Critical Studies in Media Communication, 1:4, pp. 423–435
  113. 113.0 113.1 McCann, K. (2013). The Diversity Policy Model and Assessment of the Policy: Debates and Challenges of (Media) Diversity. Sage, 2, 1–12. Retrieved May 4, 2017, from SAGE Open Web Site: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244013492780
  114. Dewey, John (1927). The public and Its Problems. Chicago: Swallow Press.
  115. Maura, P. (1980). Communication Policies in Kenya, UNESCO
  116. Udomisor, I. W., and Akoje, S.P.E. (2013). Religion as a repository of Nigeria national communication policy. In New Media and Mass Communication, 16, 88–94.
  117. Hirschman, A. (1958). 10.1111/b.9781405131995.2008.x International encyclopedia of communication.
  118. National Resource Management and Environment Department. (2002, April). "Methodologies for Designing and Implementing Multimedia Communication Strategies and National Communication Policies". In The Design and Implementation of National Information and Communication Policies for Sustainable Development in Africa: Issues and Approaches . A bilingual regional workshop conducted at Niamey, Niger
  119. UNESCO (1972). Working Paper for the Meeting of Experts on Communication Policies and Planning. Paris: UNESCO
  120. Lee, John A. R. (1976). "Towards realistic communication policies : recent trends and ideas".The UNESCO Press.
  121. Leite, J., Hadad, G., Doom, J & Kaplan, G."A Scenario Construction Process. Requirements Engineering, July 2000, Volume 5, Issue 1
  122. "Scenario Construction and Analysis." Retrieved from http://www.eliteeconomics.com/services/scenario-construction-analysis
  123. Patton, Carl. "Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning". https://msu.edu. Retrieved 30 April 2019. 
  124. Rogers, E.M. (1994), A History of Communication Study. A Biographical Approach, New York: The Free Press. Rowland, W.D. (1984), 'Deconstructing American Communications Policy Literature, Critical Studies in Media Communication
  125. McQuail, D. (1994). MediaPolicy Research: Conditions for Progress, in C.J. Hamelink and O. Linne (eds.), Mass Communication Research: On Problems and Policies. The Art of Asking the Right Questions, Norwood: Ablex, pp. 39–51.
  126. Bar, F. and Sandvig, C. (2008), 'US Communication Policy After Convergence', Media, Culture & Society, 30:4, pp. 531–550
  127. Lasswell, H.D. (1972), 'Communication Research and Public Policy', Public Opinion Quarterly, 36:3, pp. 301–310.
  128. Just, N. & Puppis, M. (2012). Trends in Communication Policy Research: New Theories, Methods and Subjects
  129. Lasswell, H.D. (1970). The Emerging Conception of the Policy Sciences,' Policy Sciences, 1:1, pp. 3–14
  130. Harms, L.S. (1980). Appropriate Methods for Communication Policy Science: Some Preliminary Considerations', Human Communication Research, 7:1, pp. 3–13
  131. Kunkel, D. and Farinola, W. J. M. (2001). Underestimating Our Own Weight? The Scope and Impact of Communication Research on Public Policy', in W.B. Gudykunst (ed.), Communication Yearbook 24, Thounsand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Safe, pp. 411–431
  132. Majchrak, A. (1984). Methods for Policy Research, Newbury Park: Sage.
  133. 133.0 133.1 Majchrzak, A. (1984). Methods for Policy Research. Applied Social Research Methods Series Volume 3. Sage Publications. The International Professional Publishers Newbury Park, London, New Delhi
  134. Overseas Development Institute. (2013). "Research & Policy Development Template:Webarchive."
  135. Jones, Nicola and Walsh, Cora, (2008). Policy Briefs as a communication tools for development research. Background Note, Overseas Development Institute, 8 pages.
  136. McQuail, D. (2003). Media Accountability and Freedom of Publication. New York: Oxford University Press.
  137. Milani, Carlos. "Evidenced-based policy research: critical review of some international programmes on relationships between social science research and policy making.". https://unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 30 April 2019. 
  138. United Nations Official Website (2019).About the Sustainable Development Goals Accessed from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
  139. McGovern and Yacobucci (2018). Lasswellian Policy Sciences and the Bounding of Democracy Accessed from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.531.7363&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  140. United Nations Official Website (2019).About the Sustainable Development Goals Accessed from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
  141. United Nations Official Website (2019).About the Sustainable Development Goals Accessed from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
  142. Panos (2007), 'At the Heart of Change: The Role of Communication in Sustainable Development', Panos Institute, London. Accessed from: https://gsdrc.org/document-library/at-the-heart-of-change-the-role-of-communication-in-sustainable-development/
  143. Lennie, J. and J. Taachi (2015). Tensions, Challenges and Issues in Evaluating Communication for Development. Nordic Review, 36.

Sources

External links