Manifesto for Development Communication

This article was downloaded by: [University of Hyderabad]On: 19 March 2015, At: 18:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asian Journal of CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajc20

Manifesto for DevelopmentCommunication: Nora Quebral andthe Los Baos School of DevelopmentCommunication EDITOR'S NOTE: THISARTICLE GIVES A CRITICAL REVIEWOF THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPTDEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION INTHE 1970S UNDER THE INFLUENCE OFPROFESSOR NORA QUEBRAL. AS PARTOF THIS RETROSPECTIVE, WE ALSOREPRINT THE ORIGINAL 1971 ARTICLEDEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONIN THE AGRICULTURAL CONTEXTBY NORA QUEBRAL, WITH A NEWFOREWORD BY HER.Linje ManyozoPublished online: 17 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Linje Manyozo (2006) Manifesto for Development Communication: Nora Quebraland the Los Baos School of Development Communication EDITOR'S NOTE: THIS ARTICLE GIVES ACRITICAL REVIEW OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION IN THE1970S UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF PROFESSOR NORA QUEBRAL. AS PART OF THIS RETROSPECTIVE, WEALSO REPRINT THE ORIGINAL 1971 ARTICLE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION IN THE AGRICULTURALCONTEXT BY NORA QUEBRAL, WITH A NEW FOREWORD BY HER. , Asian Journal of Communication,16:1, 79-99, DOI: 10.1080/01292980500467632

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01292980500467632

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajc20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01292980500467632http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01292980500467632

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

RETROSPECTIVE: DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION

Manifesto for DevelopmentCommunication: Nora Quebral andthe Los Banos School of DevelopmentCommunicationLinje Manyozo

EDITORS NOTE: THIS ARTICLE GIVES A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THEEVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONIN THE 1970S UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF PROFESSOR NORA QUEBRAL.AS PART OF THIS RETROSPECTIVE, WE ALSO REPRINT THE ORIGINAL1971 ARTICLE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION IN THEAGRICULTURAL CONTEXT BY NORA QUEBRAL, WITH A NEWFOREWORD BY HER.

How did the discipline and practice of development communication begin? Who were the

founders and how were the first experiments implemented? Rejecting the ideologically

populist views that locates development communication origins within western

development scholarship, the following postcolonist expose appraises various commu-

nication uses in development that emerged from different parts of the world in the past

50 years. The discussion holds that the pioneering development communication

experiments were located between postcolonial and underdevelopment theories, and as

such, to understand its origins, a study must focus on the earliest non-commissioned and

community-originated experiments, as this study purports to do.

Introduction

This critique seeks to outline a manifesto of development communication as

developed by the pioneers of the practice at Los Banos from the 1950s under the

leadership of Nora Quebral. The discussion contends that Quebrals role in

conceiving and shaping up development communication practice, education and

training cannot be discussed in isolation from the University of Philippines College

Correspondence to: Media Studies Programme, La Trobe University, Bundoora, 3086, Melbourne, Australia. Tel.:

/61 3 9479 3650; Fax: /61 3 9479 3638; Email: [email protected]

Asian Journal of Communication

Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 79/99

ISSN 0129-2986 (print)/ISSN 1742-0911 (online) # 2006 AMIC/SCI-NTU

DOI: 10.1080/01292980500467632

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

of Agriculture. Even though Quebral herself has been acknowledged by the Clearing

House on Development Communication (CHODC) as the originator of the term

development communication and for having defined it for the first time (Bessette &

Rajasunderam, 1996; Lent, 1977) in death, Everett Rogers (1962, 1993) was termed

the father of development communication or the pioneer in the field of

communication for development (Communication Initiative, 2004; Adhikarya,

2004: 123). The discussion propounds two hypotheses. First, it contends that

different development communications emerged in other parts of the world

independent of Paulo Freire, the dominant modernization paradigm and even before

Latin American scholars challenged the dominant paradigm. Second, the 1950s Los

Banos pioneering reflexive, method-driven and theory-based nature of development

communication experiments were participatory and conceived as rural development

interventions in themselves, concepts that formulate foundation stones of modern-

day global discourse in development communication.

Development Communication: The Politics of Definition

Defining development communication (devcom) has varied with time and place

since Quebral coined the term in the 1950s, to an extent Keval Kumar (1994) laments

the extant confusion over the lack of agreement on the concept. Such confusion

exists because scholars attempt to fix and locate devcom definitions within Western

development scholarship, post-war aid projects and the dominant paradigm.

Whereas devcom used to be seen as communicating development to illiterate

societies, non-Western and modern development communications have focused on

right-based, gender-sensitive and method-informed approaches, focus being on the

involvement of local people in making their own road (Freire & Horton, 1990).

Concurring with Kwasi Ansu-Kyeremehs (1994) rejection of post-colonial euro-

centralization of knowledge, Linje Manyozo (2004) deliberates devcom in plural and

in six schools: Bretton Woods, Latin American, Los Banos, Anglophone Africa,

Indian School and the Participatory Development Communication School.

The Bretton Woods School of devcom can be located within the post Second World

War Marshal Plan economic strategies and the subsequent establishment of the World

Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1944 (Melkote & Steeves, 2001).

This Hampshire conference marked the beginning of Western-driven systematic and

strategic employment of linear communications in Third World development

experiments. Led by scholars like Daniel Lerner (1958), Wilbur Schramm (1964)

and Everett Rogers (1962, 1993), the Schools development paradigm propagated

production and planting of development in indigenous and uncivilized societies

(Melkote & Steeves, 2001). Failure of many development projects from the 1960s,

despite increasing donor aid, compelled the School to re-evaluate its top/downmethods. Today, the Schools largest institution, the World Bank (nd), conceptualizes

devcom as an integration of strategic communication in development projects that

is based on a clear understanding of indigenous realities. The Schools other financial

80 L. Manyozo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

and academic institutions have, over the years, comprised UNESCO, FAO, Rockefeller

Foundation, DFID, Ford Foundation and universities like Michigan State, Texas,

Cornell, Ohio, Wisconsin, Leeds, Colombia, Iowa, Southern California, and New

Mexico. Among the Schools major publications have been the works of Wilbur

Schramm and Everett Rogers as well as important Development Communication

Report which was published by the USAID-funded Clearing House on Development

Communication under the Academy for Educational Development (AED).

Emerging in the 1940s and independent of the Bretton Woods School, the Latin

American School can be traced to Colombias Radio Sutatenza , and Bolivias Radios

Mineras which pioneered the employment of systematically designed radio commu-

nications in empowering economically and socially marginalized campesinos , helping

them to lead decent and healthy lives (Gumucio, 2001; Vargas, 1995). These

community-based radios implemented radio-based rural development education,

which in some cases was supported with print material. The Sutatenza-Radios

Mineras model of radio-based adult literacy was joined on the scene in the 1960s by

Paulo Freire and his theories on critical pedagogy and Miguel Sabidos 1970s

entertainment-education method, itself a change-based approach in the design and

production of educational broadcast dramas focusing on social development issues

(Melkote & Steeves, 2001). Other theorists of the school are Juan Daz Bordenave,

Luis Ramiro Beltran, and Alfonso Gumucio Dargon.

The African School emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s, out of the

continents post-colonial and communist movements, which provided a partial

springboard from which African scholars began to rethink concepts of culture,

communication and development (Kamlongera, 1988; Mlama, 1971). Early studies

from the continent point to the employment of radio and theatre in community

education, adult literacy, health and agricultural education. Whilst African rural radio

was slowly being developed in Francophone and West Africa as a devcom component,

Anglophone African Universities were swiftly developing the concept taking theatre

to the people, known as theatre for development and locating it within rural

development (Kamlongera, 1988).

The Indian School can be traced to the late 1960s, though from the 1940s,

disorganized rural radio listening communities were formed in Bhiwandi to listen to

the rural broadcasts in the indigenous Marathi, Gujarati and Kannada (Kumar, 1981,

p. 259). Central to this Schools devcom is that it was located within radio,

development journalism and rural development. Like in the Philippines, Indonesia

and Sri Lanka, the School also used the academy to experiment development

communications. Notable among the academic centres were the University of Poona,

the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi University, the Christian

Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, and University of Kerala.

Without mentioning the word School, Quebral was well aware that other devcom

experiments were going on the world over, and thus discussed development

communication, the Los Banos style (1988, p. 158). Careful examination of the

Schools action research projects from the 1950s establishes that when the Bretton

Asian Journal of Communication 81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

Woods School was still exploring poverty and its depths within the different parts of

the world, whilst searching for appropriate communication interventions, the Los

Banos School was conducting groundbreaking participatory communication research

experiments in and as development interventions. The School thus pioneered the

design and implementation of communication tools in the promotion of sustainable

development that were based on coherent method and theory (Gomez, 1975; Jamias,

1975a, 1991; Librero, 1985; Quebral, 1975a, 1975b, 1988, 2002).

The Participatory Development Communication School comprises institutional

collaboration between First World and Third World devcom organizations, though

with increased financial prowess, the Bretton Woods School seems to be re-colonizing

the devcom agendum (Ansu-Kyeremeh, 1994). Replacing the Development Commu-

1940

1950

1950s

1960

1970

>1980

The Latin America School(Radio Sutatenza for rural education; Miners Radio Network in Colombia; Television and radio entertainment-education. Theorists: ACCPO, Luis Ramiro Beltrn, Juan Daz Bordenave, Miguel Sabido, Paulo Freire, Jose Barrientos

The Bretton Woods SchoolTheorists: Everett Rogers, Daniel Lerner, Wilbur Schramm, Jan Servaes,Steeves & Melkote, UNESCO, WB, UNDP, FAO, John Hopkins Centre for Communication Programs, SADC Centre of Communication for Development. IDRC.

The Los Baos School(Development broadcasting; agricultural development communication; ). Theorists: Felix Librero, Alexander Flor, Ely Gomez, Nora Quebral, Juan Jamias, Madeline Suva, Virginia Samonte, Communication Foundation for Asia, Philippine PressInstitute, International Rice Research Institute.

The African School

(Rural radio; Theatre for development). Theorists: Penina Mlama, Christopher Kamlongera, Zakes Mda, Robert MacLaren, Ngugi wa Thiongo, Mapopa Mtonga, Derek Mulenga, David Kerr, Jean-Pierre Ilboudo, CIERRO,

The Indian SchoolRadio/television for rural development, development journalism Theorists: Mehra Masani, George Verghese Keval Kumar, University of Poona,Joseph Velacherry, Delhi University, University of Kerala.

Post-Freire School: Participatory Development Communication(Communication for social change/development-Visual anthropology,community theatre, public journalism, radio for development, development radio broadcasting). Theorists:UPLB College of DevelopmentCommunication, IDRC, FAO Communication Project, UNESCO, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, World Bank.

Figure 1 Mapping Out the Emergence of Development Communication.

82 L. Manyozo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

nication Report has been MAZI , a newsletter being published by the Ford Foundation

Funded Communication for Social Change Consortium. It is yet to be seen whether

MAZI s interview page will feature the major contributions and pioneering heroes

from South East Asia and Africa. Guy Bessette (2004) describes participatory devcom

as a communication tool with which to facilitate community involvement in local

development. Drawing from Freirean critical pedagogy which situates the learner and

his environment at the centre of education, modern devcom is characterized by

diverse methodological and theoretical trajectories but still centres around partici-

patory production and utilization of indigenous knowledge in local development

(Mulenga, 1999).

Karin Gwinn Wilkins and Bella Mody (2001) define devcom as a process of

strategic intervention toward social change initiated by institutions and communities.

Neville Jayaweera (1987) conceptualizes the same as communication strategies of a

whole society or the communication component of a national development plan. The

realization has been, even during the emergence of the dominant development

paradigm, that communication involving community participation formulates a very

important facet in the promotion of sustainable development (Bessette & Rajasun-

deram, 1996; Cadiz, 1994; Mayo & Craig, 1995). Acknowledging the many changes

her own concept and definition of devcom has undergone during the 30 years of

jostling with reality, Quebral (2002, p. 16) defines the devcom as the art and science

of human communication linked to a societys 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. Informed by Freires critical

pedagogy, Quebrals Los Banos School and further developments in visual anthro-

pology and other participatory field practices, Linje Manyozo (2004) defines modern-

day devcom as describing a group of method-driven and theory-based praxes that

employ participatory foreground and backdrop communication tools in strengthen-

ing community decision-making processes and structures with the aim of improving

livelihoods and promoting social justice.

Beginnings of Development Communication in the College of Agriculture

The University of Philippines was established in 1908 by an act of the First Philippine

Legislature Act No. 1870, otherwise known as the University Charter, to provide

instruction and give professional and technical training (University of the

Philippines, nd). The University (UP) observes that initially, it started with four

colleges: the College of Fine Arts, the College of Medicine and Surgery, the College of

Liberal Arts and the School of Agriculture at Los Banos, Laguna. Over the years, the

UP established other campuses in Manila, Los Banos, Baguio, Visayas and Diliman.

The Open University was established at Los Banos in the mid 1990s as an e-

constituent of the University. Of the College of Agriculture, which is now the

agricultural centre for Asia, the UP notes that from 1908, the College was the first of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

its kind in the tropics and classes were held in the homes of faculty members

(University of the Philippines, nd).

Also known as the College of Development Communication (CDC), the Los Banos

School (CDC, nd) details its historical development from the time it began as the

Office of Extension and Publications of the College of Agriculture in 1954, under

which some staff members began to carry out research in how communication could

be used to address problems of rural development. Quebral (1988, pp. 113/114)reminisces about the contribution of a little nudge from Cornell University and a

visiting extension professor from Tennessee and the subsequent establishment of a

Unit which ended up being the Extension and Publications office. In 1960, the first

devcom courses were introduced in the Agriculture curriculum after which, in 1962,

the College of Agriculture elevated the Extension and Publications Office into a

Department of Information and Communication (DAIC). In 1968, DAIC was

renamed the Department of Agricultural Communication (CDC, nd).

In 1974, the Department changed its name to Department of Development

Communication. Between 1987 and 1998, the Department was elevated into an

Institute and then later a College, a process of transformation that involved

progressive decisions, some of which were rational and some not (Quebral, 1988,

p. 113). The origins of development-oriented communication practice at Los Banos

should also be understood as an intensification of efforts by the then teaching staff

who were interested in extending the results of research in the agricultural sciences to

the farmers and other end users of the new knowledge and technology (Jamias,

1975b, p. vii).

Nora Quebrals Manifesto of Development Communication

The earliest UPLB College of Agriculture lecturers who pioneered experimenting with

method-driven and theory-based extension efforts in using communication to

promote sustainable development comprise mostly of Western trained agricultural

doctorates (Quebral, 1988, 2002). This group, comprising Nora Quebral (1975a,

1975b, 2002), Felix Librero (1985), Juan Jamias (1975a, 1991), and Ely Gomez (1975)

among others, were the first to use the term development communication in

reference to an organized and systematic art of human communication applied to

speedy transformation of a country and a mass of its people from poverty to a

dynamic state of economic growth so as to achieve greater social equality (Bessette,

1996; Freire, 1972; Freire & Horton, 1990; Quebral, 1975a, p. 2). The current Los

Banos School however contends that devcom cannot really change people, but can

only help them change themselves at their own enlightened pace and that there is

no speedy transformation of societies as development is a protracted and long

process (Freire & Horton, 1990, p. 216; Quebral, 2002, pp. 5, 18; 1988, p. 10).

Alongside or with the Los Banos School were Philippine Press Institute, Press

Foundation for Asia, the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication (AIJC),

the Asian Institute for Development Communication (AIDCOM), Asian Mass

Communication Research and Information Centre, UNDPs Development Commu-

84 L. Manyozo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

nication Support Service, the International Rice Research Institute, the Universities of

Singapore and Malaysia and the Manila-based Communication Foundation for Asia

(CFA), which comprised Alfredo Cafe, Pedro Chanco III, Teresita Hermano, Noel de

Leon, Demetrio Maglalang, Genaro Ong and Raphael Vallejo (Jamias, 1991;

Maglalang, 1976; Quebral, 1988). AIJCs Crispin Maslog (1999) traces the role of

what he calls heroes of Asian journalism by looking at the contribution of people

like Amitabha Chowdhury Mochtar Lubis, Tarzie Vittachi, Zacarias Sarian, Ton That

Thien and Gour Ghosh. The School has been responsible for publishing ground-

breaking devcom research, manuals and journals, the most notable being AIDCOMs

Journal of Development Communication .

The Los Banos experiments in agricultural communication therefore provided a

springboard for the birth of the devcom discipline (Quebral, 1988). Having

experimented with using strategically and purposively designed communication

tools in agriculture extension, Nora Quebral, then a PhD and Chairman of the

Department of Development Communication, proposed a four-year Bachelor of

Science Degree curriculum in Development Communication, which was approved by

UPLBs Council on 11 March 1974 and courses began to be offered in the 1974/1975school year (Quebral, 1975b). By offering this full fledged curriculum, the

department became the first to offer devcom degree training in the world. From

the very beginnings, the devcom syllabi was broad-based and multidisciplinary, with

roots in sociology, psychology, economics, agriculture, linguistics, philosophy,

anthropology, theatre arts, political science and other social sciences, information

technology and multimedia (Quebral, 1975b, 2002). This pioneering undergraduate

curriculum was interdisciplinary which, Quebral herself (1975b, p. 31) argues, was

designed to enable students to:

Acquire a theoretical base in the sciences and applied arts that underlie the study ofhuman communication. Learn practical skills in interpersonal and mass commu-nication. Gain a basic grasp of the issues and problems of development in generaland of the subject matter of one developmental area in particular. Apply theconcepts, principles and skills of communication in the solution of problems in adeveloping society.

The 1974 curriculum included general courses in English and Spanish communication

skills, biology, chemistry, mathematics, political science, economics, physics, huma-

nities, social and political thought, English literature, speech, and statistics (Quebral,

1975b). The core courses comprised Introduction to Development Communication,

Fundamentals of Development Communication, Community Broadcasting, Audio-

Visual Communication, Communication and Society, Communication Campaigns

and Programs, Testing and Evaluation of Communication Materials, Communication

Research, Basic Photography, Print Production, Broadcast Speech and Performance

for Community Radio, Playwriting, Science Reporting, Publications Writing and

Editing, Management and Production of a Community Newspaper, Advanced

Development Writing, Visual Aids Planning and Production, Radio Drama and

Documentary, Educational Broadcasts (Quebral, 1975b, pp. 35/36). The curriculum


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

also included social science electives in Sociology of Developing Countries, Social

Psychology, Politics of Developing Countries, Social Anthropology, Community

Survey and Program Planning, Rural Sociology, Economics and World Agriculture,

Agricultural Policy, Rural Development Programs, Agricultural and Economic

Development (Quebral, 1975b).

The Schools devcom targeted a mass of people with a low rate of literacy and

income and the accompanying socio-economic attributes (Jamias, 1975a, p. 13;

Quebral, 1975a, pp. 2/3). Though seemingly massifying people, Virginia Samonte(1975, pp. 101, 103, 111) used what could be today confused as Freirean terms,

describing devcom research as problem-oriented, issue-involved, strategy-conscious

and multidisciplinary, during which, the research itself is theoretical, methodological

and pragmatic, and whose results are used in implementation and theory-building.

Freires notions of critical pedagogy could, however, unlikely have influenced the

pioneering Los Banos experiments because, though Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972)

was published in Spanish in the late 1960s, the English version would not be available to

much of the world until the mid 1970s and, for South East Asia, until the late 1970s.

Evidently, Freire is absent from the Schools agricultural communication research,

though notions of participation loom large (Bunnag, 1975; Byrnes, 1975; Childers &

Vajrathon, 1975; Cuyno, 1975; Gomez, 1975; Jamias, 1975b, 1991; Librero, 1985;

Quebral, 1975a, 1975b, 2002; Ross, 1975; Samonte, 1975). Though Freires critical

pedagogy has provided rewarding insights into the theory and practice of devcom, it

is an academic and humanitarian injustice to overlook the Los Banos origins of

theory-based and method-driven devcom. The absenting and footnoting of Los

Banos should raise ideological concerns on Western re-colonization of devcom

debates and programs (Manyozo, 2004). Actually, Luis Ramiro Beltran (2004)

laments the deliberate ignorance and footnoting of other devcom schools especially

Latin American theorists through a system in which academic publications in

Spanish and Portuguese, papers on communication for development were seldom

printed and in which Western publishing industries do not grant any validity or

trustworthiness to Latin American research, as empirical as it may be. It is not

surprising therefore that even when the Los Banos School had introduced degree level

professional training in development communication both at masters and under-

graduate level by 1974, writing for the October 1976 Information Centre on

Instructional Technology (ICIT) Report , Erskine Childers observed that as far as I

know, there is no academic or technical training institution that fully provides all the

essentials (of development communication training) in an integrated program

(Childers, 1976, p. 5). This brings up concerns over the achievements of Third World

development communication scholars being ignored because of inability of Western

scholars to understand or learn of global developments in the field.

Manyozo (2004) again observes that the School conceptualized devcom at three

major levels, considerations for which provides modern-day scholars with the context

in which the concept evolved as a practice. None of the members of the pioneering

and current Los Banos Schools use the word manifesto, yet critical examination of

86 L. Manyozo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

their published and unpublished literature does establish that the devcom, Los Banos

style was centred around three cornerstones of agriculture, rural development

journalism and educational broadcasting.

First, the location of the Department of Development Communication within the

College of Agriculture determined the agricultural orientation of the early experi-

ments. Most of the Departments staff were Communication PhDs who had

Bachelors or Masters degrees in Agriculture, Agricultural Journalism or Extension

Education, like Quebral, Juan Jamias and Rogelio Cuyno. In fact, most staff got their

PhDs under a Cornell/Los Banos contact funded by Ford and RockefellerFoundations (Quebral, 2005, personal communication). The early experiments

would thus focus on areas like dairy farming, forestry management, agriculture

leasehold, livestock, farmer constituents (Jamias, 1975a). Quebral and Ely Gomez

(1976, pp. 1/2) outline this agricultural focus, noting:

When we speak of development communication today, we are mainly concernedwith the mass of people in the so-called developing societies [which have] acolonial past, a basically agricultural economy and a galloping birth rate. We focus[. . .] on the small farmers, labourers, fishermen and others [. . .] who make up thegreatest number in any developing country [and are] poor.

About 30 years later, one of Quebrals students, Celeste Cadiz, would add to Quebrals

and Gomezs list, a category of rural and cultural minorities, and then term the whole

grouping as development beneficiaries (Cadiz, 1991). Quebral (1988, p. 35) would,

also, years later, clarify the relationship of development and rural communities,

contending, development communication is not rural communication per se.

Second, the Los Banos School focussed on rural development journalism with

emphasis being placed on the development communicator and community media

(Quebral, 1975a, 1988). The School developed its list of priority areas for the

development communicator and community media from the 1970s Four-Year

Development Plan of the Philippines, which primarily aimed at uplifting the general

well-being of every individual citizen, as Quebral and Gomez (1976, pp. 1, 8)

observed, that:

One look at our national development plan and they [development communica-tion topics] are easily named. The priority topics in the Philippines at this time arefood production, family planning, health and nutrition, agrarian reform, nationalunity, relevant education, the wise use of the environment, more rational attitudesand values.

To achieve these development objectives, Quebral and Gomez (1976, p. 4) outline the

requirements for the kind of communication that can bring about desired change.

They distinguish advertising and propaganda from devcom in that the latter educates

for purposes of greater social equality and larger fulfilment of the human potential.

Focussing on a branch of devcom called development journalism, Quebral and

Gomez (1976, p. 6) seek their development journalism to:

Circulate knowledge that will inform people of significant events, opportunities,dangers and changes. [. . .] Provide a forum where issues affecting national or


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

community life may be aired. [. . .] Teach those ideas, skills and attitudes thatpeople need to achieve a better life. [. . .] Create and maintain a base of consensusthat is needed for the stability of the state.

Like Freire in Brazil, Quebral and Gomez (1976, pp. 7/8) realize the inadequacy of theformal school system in energizing its Pilipino student citizens. They propose the

supplementation and reinforcement with other non-formal schooling. The respon-

sibility of designing this out of school system was conceived as a central government

responsibility, for it was already framing national development goals; thus it was

responsible for explaining to people why certain projects are needed, how each of the

projects may benefit individuals and their communities and the required sacrifices

from the people. Placing the responsibility of designing development projects

unilaterally may seem to suggest that the Schools devcom was only a mask over the

modernization paradigm, but Quebrals (1988) emphasis on community consultation

in development interventions only demonstrates the different positioning of participa-

tion as a practice. Whereas in participatory development, indigenous peoples are

conceived as capable of taking an active part in planning, implementing and evaluating

interventions, the Los Banos devcom conceived participation as a precondition to

implementation, in which case if a project was rejected, the government could modify

its plans and take it back to the community (Quebral & Gomez, 1976).

The School grounded its conceptualization of rural development journalism

around three cornerstones, which Juan Jamias (1975a) identifies as purposive, value-

laden and pragmatic communication, and in which the whole field of study was

structured around innovation, dialogical communication and performance. The

Schools 1960/1970s conceptualization of devcom could therefore be only positionedwithin the context of developing economies (Quebral & Gomez, 1976). The

positioning of devcom curriculum within low economic levels and human aspects

of communication was made in light of the Philippines rising poverty and agrarian

economy. Such positioning could also have been meant to produce a competent and

truthful development communicator who would not pass off someone elses ideas as

their own otherwise without being accurate and honest, one who professes to be a

development communicator forfeits the title, a diploma notwithstanding (Quebral,

2002, pp. 2, 4). The preference of rural over urban development was justified by

Quebral and Gomez (1976, p. 5), noting:

There also certainly is urban development. Years from now it could be that urbandevelopment will take precedence over rural development at the national level,when thirty percent now living in the cities will have doubled in number. Rightnow, however, its sheer number and its central role in the economy give the ruralfamily the edge. Our statistics [show that] seventy percent of Filipinos live in therural areas. This makes the rural family the foremost users of developmentcommunication.

Years later Quebral (1988, p. 161) would acknowledge that devcom methodologies

can be used to solve development challenges of the First World. The essence of the

Los Banos devcom lay therefore in consciously diminishing poverty, unemployment

88 L. Manyozo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

and inequality, goals that have not changed a bit even in modern-day practice

(Quebral & Gomez, 1976).

The third factor in the Los Banos devcom was the notion of development

broadcasting, emphasis being placed on community broadcasting and educational

programming. Referring to a community radio, Quebral and Gomez (1976, p. 10)

argue that the station serves as a facilitator of interpersonal relationships in a rural

community. The UPLB-based community radio DZLB itself was established for

purposes of non-formal education in the rural setting (Librero, 1985, p. 1). Local

media, of which community radio is an important part, were thus conceived as

excellent teaching channels (Quebral & Gomez, 1976, p. 9). Between the 1960s and

the early 1970s, the Los Banos School produced much action research in devcom.

Mentioning the notion of development broadcasting for the very first time whilst

focussing on the role and nature of local community radios in community

development, Gomez (1975, p. 91; 1976) conceptualizes the role of radio practices in

micro level development through what she terms localized programming and

personalized broadcasting which would in the end encourage audience involvement

and participation.

Though Gomez (1975, p. 92) seems to have located the role of radio and rural

development within the contemporary dominant Lerners modernization paradigm

through her labelling of radio as greater multiplier, smoother of transition and

provider of climate of development, she however advocates bottom/up program-ming. She conceives a community radio as serving a specialized and an identified

audience, providing them with relevant programs that concern and help them deal

with their problems and importantly, programs in which they participate in making

(1975, pp. 93/94; Librero, 1985, p. 8).When the World Bank produced its first detailed study of the role of radio in Third

World rural development (Spain, Jamison, & McAnany, 1977), the Los Banos School

had already, in the early 1960s, executed its rural education broadcasting project. In

1962, Radio DZLB was conceived as an experimental rural radio station primarily

established to serve as an agricultural extension tool and assisting the School in

conducting rural broadcasting research relating to the effective dissemination of

agricultural information (Librero, 1985, pp. 2/3). With financial assistance ofUS$7800 from a New York-based Agricultural Development Council Incorporation

for establishing and operating the radio for a year, DZLB went on air in 1964. By the

1970s, the station had been turned into a community broadcaster, with communities

requesting specific programs and the School was already conducting radio schools

and instructional broadcasts (Flor, 1995; Librero, 1985).

Felix Librero conceives rural educational broadcasting as the use of radio for non-

formal education purposes primarily to support planned social change in the rural

setting, focus being on promoting human development consciously through the

broadcast of programs designed to help people diagnose their problems and clarify

their objectives so that they may be able to make wise decisions (1985, p. 1). As if


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

concurring with her colleague, Quebral (1988, p. 80) elaborates on an ideal rural

education broadcaster:

The broadcast media that I propose will not stand alone beaming disjointedinformation to a mass, faceless rural audience. They will be components of adistance learning system for small groups in which the field worker, the subjectmatter specialist, the non-broadcast media, among others, are bound together in aneducational plan. To remove them from the political propaganda charge, let thembe housed in the universities, which are more neutral institutions.

As a rural development project itself, Radio DZLB, also known as The Voice of the

Village, became a pinnacle of local development collaboration, coordination and

cooperation with government agencies and other institutions, conducting localized

and personalized broadcast programming, encouraging audience involvement, as well

as conducting evaluations and research (Gomez, 1975, p. 91). The radio enabled local

villagers to introduce new programs and use some airtime as fora for conflict

resolution over agricultural disputes (Librero, 1985). The location of radio practices

in development was therefore based on the philosophy of development through

shared education, as noted by Felix Librero (1985, p. 17) himself:

Radio as an educational medium should be employed as a tool for non-formaleducation, with the concept that most people must be reached at their present stateof educational development and level of interest and understanding in order tohelp them attain their articulated needs and interests. [. . .] The success of ruraleducational broadcasting depends on two equally important factors*/the knowl-edge and understanding of subject matter, and ones understanding of the people.[. . .] This is accomplished through programs, which the audience and broadcasterwork out together, and not merely through schemes thought out and plannedentirely by the broadcaster for his audience.

To achieve these objectives, DZLB broadcasters used to execute semi-structured and

interactive research activities through which they attempted to understand the

ethnography of their intended audience by, for instance, asking them what they

would like to hear on the radio, length and format of programs (Librero, 1985).

Though not mentioning participatory development or Freires critical pedagogy,

Librero argues that rural educational broadcasting is purposive, audience-oriented,

service-oriented, research-based, participatory and strategic with well-defined

objectives. He contends that such a radio must inspire individuals, families and

communities to work together in identifying needs and problems and help them

determine their objectives and counsel and supply technical knowledge since the

radios philosophy was based on the principle of serving peoples interests and needs

(Librero, 1985, pp. 18/21).Like the miners radios in Bolivia, Gomezs community radio became the

communitys representative or what she terms as a social lubricant, through which

radio provided a sphere on which people could share experiences and facilitate

interpersonal relationships (Gomez, 1975, p. 94). Gomezs social lubrication also

involved peace and conflict resolution, like the case of three farmers who visited

DZLB in 1969 to air their problems with regards to pests that were destroying their

90 L. Manyozo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

rice, having escaped from a neighbouring farm that was sprayed with pesticides and,

secondly, their fears of being evicted by some landlords (Librero, 1985, p. 37). By

bringing in relevant stakeholders to conduct dialectical discussions in a radio

program, the farmers and representatives from the government and the larger farms

resolved their differences amicably, and importantly, the poor farmers were never

evicted (Librero, 1985, pp. 37/38). At the time when the notion of participation washeresy in the modernization paradigm, Radio DZLB was already engaging in what

would be termed today as participatory broadcasting.

One of the important aspects of Radio DZLB was the school on the air, a concept

of which was borrowed from USs Columbia Broadcasting Corporations (CBC)

1920s rural broadcasting series (Flor, 1995). Under the Philippine governments

Bountiful harvest campaign, Masagana 99 , a countywide and extensive rice

production scheme was launched in the 1970s with the aim of creating self-

sufficiency in rice as the staple food in the country. Leading the project, the Ministry

of Agriculture embarked on a food production initiative which involved a complete

package of technology, an elaborate credit system without collateral, a market

system and a comprehensive communication campaign that included and largely

involved radio (Librero, 1985, p. 43). Radio DZLB was responsible for training the

Ministrys farmcasters from 1976 to 1979 and it also organized and conducted several

schools on the air after which every student received a Certificate of Graduation

(Librero, 1985, p. 68). The school on the air was based on objectives, short and well-

planned programs, each of which composed of one subject matter. Librero (1985,

pp. 67/72) observes that the school on the air must be a cooperative project suchthat their establishment should be preceded by ethnographic research to understand

audiences, their compositions, preferred listening patters and behaviours, family

structures and the level of importance of the subject matter to them

The Los Banos School acknowledges the Latin American radio forums and farms

radios, as comprehensive and well documented (Flor, 1995, p. 17). Still, by the early

1980s, numerous dissertations and other staff reports on rural educational broad-

casting had been produced in the School, focus being on rural development

listenership, radio developmental messages, farmers radio sessions, radio learning

group campaign, development broadcasting and broadcast-based distance learning

systems.

The Los Banos School Today

Acknowledging the Latin American influence, especially Freires humanism, Quebral

(1988, p. 160; 2002, p. 2.) outlines the central ideals of the Los Banos School,

observing:

The program we created was not meant to be all things to all men and women.Neither was it meant to do what others were already doing, perhaps better than weever could. We focussed on a segment where Los Banos had a comparativeadvantage and took off from there. Within the general field of communication,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

development communication now occupies a niche where Los Banos has areputation for pre-eminence.

Today, the Los Banos School has been joined in the arena by many schools and

institutions in Europe, Africa and the Americas in propagating people-centred

development communications though the School continues to stand out as a pioneer

in development communication teaching and the most productive in development

communication education in the world (Cadiz, 1991, p. v; CDC, nd; Quebral, 2002,

p. 1). Most Bretton Wood organizations have worked with or are indirectly linked to

the School. The School is now a full College on its own, and its curricula offer

training in development broadcasting, educational communication, science commu-

nication and development journalism.

The School offers Bachelors, Masters, Masters of Professional Studies and

Doctorate degrees in Development Communication (CDC, nd). For the Bachelor

of Science, the School seeks to help students to acquire a theoretical and ethical base

in the sciences and arts that underlie the study of development communication. This

involves training students in principles on development as well as giving them

practical skills in communication. The Master of Science program attempts to

Synthesize knowledge, theories, principles and strategies of communication and

apply them in addressing problems of development at different levels (CDC, nd).

Focus is also on developing innovative and integrative leadership and research skills.

Though students in the Master of Professional Studies in Development Commu-

nication will also acquire strong foundation in both theory and practice, the

programs is geared towards communication practitioners who are in government

and non-government research and development institutions, community media

outfits, state colleges and universities, and other communication schools (CDC, nd).

For the Doctorate program, the Schools candidates Acquire and advance a broader

and deeper understanding of theories, principles and approaches of devcom objective

is to have candidates (CDC, nd). This involved broadening research, analytical and

evaluation skills of candidates.

Like the pioneering 1974 curriculum, the current curriculum is broad-based, as

Quebral (2002, pp. 15/16, 18) observes:

A curriculum is not a random patchwork of courses. It is a representation of aworldview that the curriculum developers think their intended learners shouldhave. [. . .] Reciprocity of thought is the very essence of communication, and itspractice is central to genuine human development. [. . .] Because in the academicscheme, development communication is classed as a branch of communication, weteach our students that communication derives from sociology, psychology,linguistics and other social sciences and we try to steer them to study those basics.[. . .] Development communication would not stay development communicationfor long if it were cut off from ideas coming from various sources and disciplines*/and by which it is nourished. [. . .] The field was never meant to stay in place. It isexpected to branch out, to reinvent itself from time to time, even to lead the way aswe grow in wisdom.

92 L. Manyozo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

In development broadcasting , the Schools College trains students to purposively and

strategically design and test innovative techniques and approaches using radio and

television as educational mediums (CDC, nd). Courses in this department include

development writing, broadcast speech and performance of community, writing and

program planning for community radio, radio drama and documentary, broadcast-

based distance learning systems and telecommunications (CDC, nd). In science

communication , the College trains students in using science for development, with

focus on the content, product and process of science (CDC, nd). Courses in the

department include scientific reporting, telecommunication, scientific and technical

information processing, scientific and technical publications editing, and knowledge

management. In development journalism , focus is on training students in ethics-

conscious and reflexive reporting of development news for print and electronic

media (CDC, nd). Courses include development writing, publications writing and

editing, science reporting, management and production of a community newspaper,

advanced development writing.

For educational communication , which Cadiz (1991, pp. 2, 22) identifies as a major

field in devcom, the College provides training in the audio-visual component of

devcom. The focus is on exposing students to methodologies in innovating, piloting,

testing, refining and assessing mediated and non-mediated approaches in inducing

and enhancing leaning among disadvantaged groups, who make up a substantial

segment of populations in Third World countries. The courses in the department

comprise writing for educational communication media, basic photography, broad-

cast-based distance learning systems, visual design and techniques, visual aids

planning and production and video production.

Quebral (1988, p. 22) also observes that devcom has reoriented itself to focus on

emerging issues of development, like child prostitution, art forms, human rights and

culture, since, by being seamless in nature, human development entails economic,

social, political and cultural independence. Emphasis is thus on collaborative,

interactive and participative production of communication materials and participa-

tory management of the communication programs themselves (Quebral, 1988, pp.

18, 21, 46). Quebral however notes some factors that impede successful design and

implementation of devcom interventions as being: the undervaluing of notions of

rural, agriculture and indigenous media programs and people; lack of unified policy

frameworks on communication and information technology and their role in

development; the rising commercialism in both public and community media;

misunderstanding over what devcom entails, resulting to equating the practice with

public relations or publicity especially by administrators; inadequate training

opportunities; and misconception about development communicators as constituting

producers of educational materials only (1988, p. 38).

Importantly, the School acknowledges and supports the growth of other devcom

training institutions in the world. Probably taking a swipe at the patent hysteria in the

West, where corporations are seeking ownership of biological and scientific

discoveries even on the human body, Quebral (2002, p. 16) unselfishly notes that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

the School does not own the intellectual property rights to development commu-

nication as a field of study or teaching. This unselfishness is manifested in the

willingness of the old guard of Los Banos in helping other training institutions in the

region to establish their own postgraduate devcom programs seen from your own

background a case in example being Professors Felix Librero and Ely Gomez, who are

working with the Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication of the

Kasetsart University in Thailand (Kasetsart University, 2004; Quebral, 2002, p. 17).

Kasetsarts devcom courses like broadcasting for development, writing for develop-

ment, management of communication system, and scientific information manage-

ment for development do indeed reflect the influence of Los Banos, more so

considering the agricultural origins of the Los Banos devcom.

Perhaps it is old age and, consequently wisdom, but Quebral is not worried about

socio-economic changes that will necessitate changing the nature of devcom teaching.

She is however very worried about global imperialism and how it is already affecting

the poor of the poorest. She recalls listening to a handicraftsman from a municipality

in Laguna whose cottage industry that had started exporting to other countries had

been virtually wiped out by globalization (2002, p. 11). Quoting Thomas Friedman

(2000), Quebral (2002, p. 25) therefore worries about a borderless world in which

no one is in charge. She outlines the implications for the devcom curriculum, like the

further complication of the development process, the rising importance of cultural

component of development, the vitality of peace as a prerequisite to development and

the contradiction of globalization itself in pushing the individual in a regional and

world societies in which one must learn to co-exist (2002, pp. 25/26).

Afterthoughts

Development communication is the in word for many development and commu-

nication planners and researchers, to borrow Juan Jamias term (1975b, p. vii). From

its humble beginnings as a course, then a unit, then a department, an institute and a

full college today, the Los Banos School pioneered the development of a field that has

outgrown itself today. Even during the heat of the dominant development paradigm,

the Los Banos devcom research, despite viewing people as audiences or special

audiences, rejected the massifying of people and advocated problem-oriented, action

and participatory research (Quebral, 1988, p. 74). From as early as the 1970s and

1980s, this brand of devcom became an official development policy in the Philippine

national development plans. The emergence of this practice-based field of study and

research cannot be objectively discussed without mentioning the College of

Agriculture scholars, especially Quebral.

This discussion has established that Bretton Woods devcom may have its roots in

the post-war aid initiatives, but due to geographical, cultural, colonial and historical

differences, different development communications evolved from different parts of

the world. Thus it is a scant disregard for the efforts of the broadcasters of Radio

Sutatenza and Radios Mineras , the travelling theatre troupes of Africa, the extension

94 L. Manyozo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

workers of Bhiwandi in India to discuss devcom as having emerged as a homogenous

field. When David Lerner was publishing his The Passing of Traditional Society in

1959, Radio Sutatenza had already provided radio-based non-formal education to

thousands of Colombian campesinos and the College of Development Communica-

tion was already established as an Office of Extension and Publications, and had

already initiated many rural devcom projects. These are historical facts, which the

Third World should hold dear to its heart for fear of revisionism, which itself is a

form of global imperialism. Ansu-Kyeremehs (1994) concern with the First World

determining the world communication agenda becomes relevant in that even in the

face of available and published evidence, the Los Banos manifesto of devcom

continues to be deliberately ignored by major Bretton Woods School institutions and

publications. Few Bretton Woods School institutions acknowledge the origins of the

devcom manifesto, IDRCAs publications and collaboration with the Los Banos

School on the Igsang Bagsak community-based natural resource management being

cases in example.

Quebrals thoughts formulated the foundation glue that erected the Los Banos

School, and though she has never blown her own trumpets, she and the Los Banos

School are the manifesto of devcom itself. This discussion thus makes two bold

conclusions. First, it acknowledges the different development communications that

emerged in other parts of the world independent of Freire, the dominant

modernization paradigm and even before Latin American scholars challenged the

dominant paradigm. Second, the Los Banos experiments from the 1950s were not

meant to test the modernization paradigm but were an attempt to grapple with the

rising poverty in Philippines, and the Schools pioneering reflexive, method-driven

and theory-based nature of devcom practice was very original and defined the shape

of global discourse, practice and training in devcom. Let it be emphasized here that,

with due respect to the late Rogers, Schramm and Daniel Lerner for their role in

conceptualizing the linear communication approaches in development, different

development communications evolved at different times the world over, and that, if

there is anyone who has to be accorded the honour of being the father of

development communication, then it is none other than Nora Quebral.

References

Adhikarya, R. (2004). A personal tribute to Everett Rogers. Media Asia: An Asian Communication

Quarterly, 31 , 3, 123/126.Ansu-Kyeremeh, K. (1994). Communication, education and development: Exploring an African

cultural setting . Alberta: EISA Publishers.

Bessette, G. (2004). Involving the community: A guide to participatory development communication .

Ottawa, Ontario, Dakar, Montevideo, Nairobi, New Delhi and Singapore: IDRC and

Southbound.

Bessette, G., & Rajasunderam, C. (Eds.). (1996). Participatory development communication: A West

African Agenda . Ottawa, Canada & Penang: International Development Research Centre

(IDRC & Southbound).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

Bunnag, J. (1975). Development work and social sciences. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in

development communication (pp. 47/58). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture.Byrnes, F. (1975). The role of communication in agricultural development. In J. Jamias (Ed.),

Readings in development communication (pp. 69/80). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture.Cadiz, M. C. (1991). Educational communication for development: Basic concepts, theories and know-

how . Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture.

Cadiz, M. C. (1994). Communication and participatory development: A review of concepts, approaches

and lessons . Laguna: University of the Philippines at Los Banos.

CDC. (nd). Communication for planned change: College of Development Communication.

Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http://www28.brinkster.com/cdcuplb/

Childers, E. (1976). DSC: Thread for development planning. Development Communication Report ,

16 , 1, 5/6.Childers, E., & Vajrathon, M. (1975). Social communication components in development

programs. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 37/46). Laguna:UPLB College of Agriculture.

Communication Initiative. (2004). Drum Beat condolences on the death of Everett Rogers.

Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http://www.comminit.com/drum_beat_274.html

Cuyno, R. (1975). Assessing performance of development action programs. In J. Jamias (Ed.),

Readings in development communication (pp. 81/89). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture.Flor, A. (1995). Broadcast-based distance learning systems . Quezon City: University of the

Philippines Press.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed . London: Penguin Books.

Freire, P., & Horton, M. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social

change between Myles Horton and Paulo Freire . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Friedman, T. L. (2000). The Lexus and the olive tree . London: HarperCollins.

Gomez, E. (1975). Using local radio stations in community development. In J. Jamias (Ed.),

Readings in development communication (pp. 91/100). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture.Gomez, E. (1976). Characteristics of development broadcasting. Unpublished mimeograph,

Department of Agricultural Communication, University of Philippines at Los Banos.

Gumucio, A. (2001). Making waves: Stories of participatory communication and social change . New

York: Rockefeller Foundation.

Gwinn Wilkins, K., & Mody, B. (2001). Reshaping development communication: Developing

communication and communicating development. Communication Theory, 11 , 385/396.Jamias, J. (1975a). The philosophy of development communication. In Readings in development

communication (pp. 13/24). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture.Jamias, J. (1975b). Preface. In Readings in development communication (pp. vii/viii). Los Banos,

Laguna: Department of Development Communication, UPLB College of Agriculture.

Jamias, J. (1991). Writing for development: Focus on specialized reporting areas . Laguna: UPLB

College of Development Communication and the Foundation for Development and

Communication.

Jayaweera, N. (1987). Rethinking development communication: A holistic view. In N. Jayaweera, &

S. Amunugama (Eds.), Rethinking development communication (pp. 76/94). Singapore: TheAsian Mass Communication Research and Information Centre (AMIC).

Kamlongera, C. F. (1988). Theatre for development in Africa with case studies from Malawi and

Zambia . Bonn and Zomba: University of Malawi Fine and Performing Arts Department and

German Foundation for International Development.

Kasetsart University. (2004). Master of Science in Development Communication: Department of

agricultural extension and communication. Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http://www.aec.

agr.ku.ac.th/curriculum/dev_com.php?lang_mode/engKumar, K. (1981). Mass communication in India . Bombay, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Calcutta

and Madras: Jaico Publishing House.

96 L. Manyozo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

Kumar, K. (1994). Communication approaches to participation and development: Challenging

assumptions and perspectives. In S. White, K. Sadanandan Nair, & J. Ascroft (Eds.),

Participatory communication: Working for change and development (pp. 76/92). New Delhi,Thousand Oaks and London: Sage.

Lent, J. (1977). Development communication: Watch dog or lap dog? Development Communication

Report , 19 , 1/3.Lerner, D. (1958). The passing of traditional society. Glencoe: Free Press.

Librero, F. (1985). Rural educational broadcasting: A Philippine experience . Laguna: UPLB College of

Agriculture.

Maglalang, D. (Ed.). (1976). From the village to the medium: An experience in development

communication . Manila: Communication Foundation for Asia.

Manyozo, L. (2004). Locating the praxis of development radio broadcasting within development

communication. Journal of Global Communication Research Association , 1. Retrieved January

26, 2005, from http://gcra.uaeu.ac.ae/journal/dec2004/

Maslog, C. (1999). Heroes of Asian journalism . Manila: Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation.

Mayo, M., & Craig, G. (1995). Community participation and empowerment: The human face of

structural adjustment or tools for democratic transformation? In Community empowerment:

A reader in participation and development (pp. 1/11). London: ZED Books.Melkote, S., & Steeves, H. L. (2001). Communication for development in the Third World: Theory and

practice for empowerment . New Delhi and Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Mlama, P. (1971). Culture and development: The popular theatre approach in Africa . Uppsala: The

Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.

Mulenga, D. (1999). Reflections on the practice of participatory research in Africa. Convergence ,

32 (1/4), 33/46.Quebral, N. (1975a). Development communication. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development

communication (pp. 1/11). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture.Quebral, N. (1975b). The making of a development communicator. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in

development communication (pp. 25/36). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture.Quebral, N., & Gomez, E. (1976). Development communication primer. Laguna: UPLB College of

Agriculture.

Quebral, N. (1988). Development communication . Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture.

Quebral, N. (2002). Reflections on development communication: 25 years after. Los Banos: UPLB

College of Development Communication.

Ramiro Beltran, L. (2004). Ive lived my life as a communication artist, not a scientist: An

interview with Alfonso Gumucio Dargon. Mazi: The Communication for Social Change

Report, 1 , November. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from http://www.communicationforsocial

change.org/dialogues.php?id/233Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations . New York: Free Press.

Roders, E. (1993). Perspectives on development communication. In S. White, K. Sadanandan Nair,

& J. Ascroft (Eds.), Perspectives on development communication (pp. 35/45). New Delhi,Thousand Oaks and London: Sage.

Ross, V. (1975). The communication process and agricultural and economic development. In J.

Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 119/134). Laguna: UPLB Collegeof Agriculture.

Samonte, V. (1975). Development communication research at Los Banos. In J. Jamias (Ed.),

Readings in development communication (pp. 101/118). Laguna: UPLB College ofAgriculture.

Schramm, W. (1964). Mass media and national development: The role of information in the

developing countries . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Spain, P., Jamison, D., & McAnany, E. (Ed.). (1977). Radio for education and development: Case

studies . Washington, DC: World Bank.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

University of Philippines. (nd). A brief history of the University. Retrieved January 26, 2005, from

http://www.up.edu.ph/ups_web_html/about.htm

Vargas, L. (1995). Social uses and radio practices: The use of participatory radio by ethnic minorities in

Mexico . Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford: Westview Press.

World Bank. (nd). What is development communication? Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http://

www.worldbank.org/developmentcommunications/what2nlevel.htm

Appendix

Professor Nora Cruz Quebral, a Pioneer in Development Communication

Nora Cruz Quebral, a leading pioneer in the field of development communication, is

Professor Emeritus of Development Communication, University of the Philippines

Los Banos (UPLB), President of the Nora C. Quebral Development Communication

Centre, and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal of Communicating

for Development Social Change .

Quebral was the first Chair of the then Department of Development Commu-

nication, when it was based in UPLBs College of Agriculture. This department has

since become the College of Development Communication (CDC). In the early

1970s, Quebral developed the curriculum for the Development Communication BSc,

now a CDC offering very relevant to the needs of developing nations.

Nora Quebral has consulted for UN agencies, national and international

governmental organizations, and NGOs. She has served as communication specialist,

resident advisor, communication director, training resource specialist, external

examiner, and evaluator for numerous organizations and projects at home and

around the world. Quebral and her college colleagues established important

periodicals on communication, development, and knowledge exchange, such as the

ILEIA newsletter and the 1980s Agriculture at Los Banos, DevCom Quarterly.

The Nora C. Quebral Development Communication Center Inc. helped plan and

implement the IDRC-supported Participatory Development Communication Learn-

ing and Networking Program in community-based natural resource management,

known as Isang Bagsak , for researchers and practitioners in Southeast Asia and

Eastern and Southern Africa.

Her pioneering definition and her many other contributions to development

communication are widely acknowledged in academia and appreciated by scholars

and organizations in the West as well as the developing world. However, Quebral

acknowledges the personal and theoretical influences that shaped her thinking and

inclination towards development communication. She gives special mention to her

research advisor, Professor Bryant Kear at the College of Agriculture, University of

Wisconsin who, she says, broadened her perspective.

Alongside Kear, she acknowledges the influences of UNDPs Erskine Childers; Dr.

Wilbur Schramm, who started all this talk on communication and development;

and the Philippine rural sociologist Gelia Castillo, who wrote the book on how

participatory participation can be. She also drew inspiration from the works of Paulo

98 L. Manyozo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

Freire. She says, when we started development communication experiments in the

1960s, we hadnt heard about Paulo Freire, but as we went along, Freires writing

became available. From among her contemporaries, Quebral acknowledges the

support and encouragement of Gloria Feliciano, Jan Servaes, Louis Ramiro Beltran,

and others.

Nora Quebral was saddened by the uncertainty in the 1980s and 1990s, when

development communication was confused with government communication, which

compelled her to publish papers like Development communication: Where does it

stand today? in 1975.

Some of her major works include: Asian university network in development

communication (1988); Development communication: Status and trends, the time is

now (l976); Development communication primer, with Ely Gomez (1976); Exploratory

study on communication technology for rural education (1978); IPM farmer field

schools: A work in progress (2002); Promoting agricultural productivity: The case of

National Azolla Action Program (1987); Reflections on development communication,

25 years after (2002); Research in development communication (1978); Science

reporting as a development tool (1974); The CTRE study: Piloting a distance learning

system for small farmers (1982) and The making of a development communicator

(1974). Among her many other publications is Development communication (1988),

seen as the Magna Carta of the practice and field, in which Quebral reflectively

discusses development communication as a concept, an academic discipline, and as a

practice.

Quebral strongly believes development communication emerged in response to

development challenges facing the Third World, arguing, as citizens of developing

nations, we need to pull resources together so that our countries will be able to fulfill

the goals and dreams of our citizens.

Quebral continues to spend time at Los Banos, where she maintains a desk and

gives inspirational talks on the role of development communication in todays world,

which suffers from growing globalization. She gave a memorable talk, Development

communication in the new millennium, at the Grand Annual Convergence of

Development Communicators at CDC in October 1999. In November 2001, Quebral

presented Development communication in a borderless world at the National

Conference Workshop on the Undergraduate Development Communication Curri-

culum at UPLB.

Nora Cruz Quebral continues to zealously advocate for the field she and others

pioneered in the 1950s and 1960s. With the immense amount of innovation her

career has spurred and the honors she has received, Quebral personifies the current

and future importance of development communication in discourse and practice.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

yder

abad

] at

18:

49 1

9 M

arch

201

5

Date post:	18-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	suresh-shanmughan
View:	17 times
Download:	0 times

Manifesto for Development Communication

Documents