Abstract
Institutionalised communication for development (C4D) privileges observable, concrete, simple, and measurable outcomes of social change to the neglect of more complex, emergent, processual, and intangible outcomes. Excessive focus on tangible effects betrays an unshakeable belief in the rationality of purposive social action. The demand for tangible outcomes arises from an institutional matrix (‘a regime of power’) feeding off targets, benchmarks, and indicators. Although the global C4D enterprise has begun to acknowledge intangible outcomes, no satisfactory solutions are offered to account for them in evaluations. The concept intangible outcomes argues that this arises out of both political indifference to democratic participation and social justice, and epistemological disregard for marginalised knowledges. Recognising the intangible outcomes and accounting for them in institutional practices of impact evaluation are not only ethically warranted but also methodologically prudent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This refers to upward accountability to donors and governments rather than the more preferred idea of downward accountability to the intended beneficiaries of development interventions or, in the human rights language, the rights-holders.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Here, Santos is making the distinction between ‘knowledge-as-regulation’ and ‘knowledge-as-emancipation’, with the former gaining primacy historically.
- 5.
An inter-agency UN publication on C4D , authored by Elizabeth McCall (2011), identifies four strands within the C4D landscape: behaviour change communication, communication for social change, advocacy communication, and strengthening an enabling media and communication environment. While the last theme is largely within the mandate of UNESCO, it is agencies like UNICEF that have been driving the other models of C4D.
References
Bastiat, F. (1850). That Which Is Seen, and that which Is Not Seen. Retrieved from http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html. Accessed 10 Sept 2017.
Bates, W. (2009). Gross National Happiness, Asian Pacific Economic Literature. Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University, Canberra. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-8411.2009.01235.x. Accessed 12 May 2018.
Bhutan Country Report. (1995). The Exodus of Ethnic Nepalis from Southern Bhutan. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 14 (3), 52–78. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/14.3.52. Accessed 9 Apr 2019.
Dreher, T. (2012). A Partial Promise of Voice: Digital Storytelling and the Limit of Listening. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy: quarterly journal of media research and resources, 142, 157–166.
Dreher, T. (2017). Social/Participation/Listening: Keywords for the Social Impact of Community Media. Communication Research and Practice, 3(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2016.1273737.
Freire, P. (2001). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London/New York: Penguin.
Jupp, D., & Ali, S. I. (2010). Measuring Empowerment? Ask Them: Quantifying Qualitative Outcomes from People’s Own Analysis – Insights for results-based management from the experience of a social movement in Bangladesh. Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/countries/bangladesh/46146440.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2018
Law, A., Valiente-Riedl, E., & Celermajer, D. (2012). Measuring Social Change: Principles to Guide the Assessment of Human Rights – Best Approaches to Development. Australian Council for International Development: ACFID Research in Development Series Report No. 5. https://acfid.asn.au/sites/site.acfid/files/resource_document/Measuring-Social-Change.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2018.
Lennie, J., & Tacchi, J. (2013). Evaluating Communication for Development: A Framework for Social Change. New York: Routledge.
Lennie, J., Tacchi, J., Koirala, B., Wilmore, M., & Skuse, A. (2011). Equal Access Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit: Helping Communication for Development Organisations to Demonstrate Impact, Listen and Learn, and Improve Their Practices. Retrieved from https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/EA_PM%26E_toolkit_front_pages%26introduction_for_publication.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2018.
McCall, E. (2011). Communication for Development: Strengthening the Effectiveness of the United Nations, New York: UN Agencies. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/cbsc/files/Inter-agency_C4D_Book_2011.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2018.
McMahon, D. (2006). Happiness: A History. New York: Grove Press.
Mefalopoulos, P. (2008). Development Communication Sourcebook: Broadening the Boundaries of Communication. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Merry, S. E. (2009). Measuring the World: Indicators, Human Rights, and Global Governance. Paper Presented at the American Society of International Law, Panel on Indicators. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.524.4421&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 9 Apr 2019.
Merry, S. E. (2016). The Seductions of Quantification: Measuring Human Rights, Gender Violence, and Sex Trafficking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merton, R. K. (1936). The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904.
Pavarala, V., & Kanchan, K. M. (2007). Other Voices: The Struggle for Community Radio in India. New Delhi: Sage.
Rogers, E. M. (1983) (1962). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.). New York/London: Free Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. New York: Routledge.
Thomas, P. N. (2014). Development Communication and Social Change in Historical Context. In K. G. Wilkins, T. Tufte, & R. Obregon (Eds.), The Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change (pp. 7–19). Chichester/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tufte, T. (2017). Communication and Social Change: A Citizen Perspective. Cambridge, UK/Malden: Polity Press.
Walker, G., & Arrighi, J. (2015). The CSC Dilemma in Development: A Possible Solution. Retrieved from http://www.waccglobal.org/articles/the-csc-dilemma-in-development-a-possible-solution. Accessed 10 Sept 2017.
Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
World Bank & DFID (Department for International Development). (2006). Listening and Learning: Measuring the Impact of Communication for Development. London: DFID.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pavarala, V. (2020). Intangible Outcomes (of Communication for Social Change). In: Tacchi, J., Tufte, T. (eds) Communicating for Change. Palgrave Studies in Communication for Social Change. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42513-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42513-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42512-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42513-5
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)