MC421 CRITICAL APPROACHES TO MEDIA, COMMUNICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT

SEMINAR 2 The new dominant paradigm in communication: transformation and adaptation, by Robin Mansell (1982)

HOW DO ANNE HATHAWAYS DRESSES RELATE TO ROBIN MANSELLS THEORY?

NEW CLOTHES FOR AN OLD CONCEPT

At the Oscars last February Anne Hathaway wore 8 different glamorous gowns throughout the evening. But, in the end of the night, she was the same actress, with the same personality. She just changed her look. A similar process happened with the Dominant Paradigm in the field of communication and development, according to Robin Mansells analysis, written in 1982. Since the early 60s, the Dominant Paradigm ruled the theories in this area. But in 1976, it changed its terminology and became the New Dominant Paradigm. But only apparently; In Mansells words, this is the same old Diffusion Model in new clothes. (1982:54). Despite the new visual appearance, the new theory remains the same, just as Anne Hathaway did after the Oscars.

CHRONOLOGY
1958 Dominant Paradigm Economy view: economic growth through industrialization, technology and capital Communication view: Mass media would be a multiplier for development in third world nations. One way flow from government and agencies to people.

1969 to 1971 changes in the International Communications plans in UN and proposals for an International Program of Communication Research. 1976 UNESCO conference: communication is not just to inform and influence people, but a process of social integration through a balanced exchange of information and experience. Old models were no longer politically accepted. Same year New Dominant Paradigm

Economy view: development as a participatory process of social change, intended to bring about both social and material advancement. Communication view: focus on the development of technologies to facilitate two way communication, that could promote a participatory development process.

WHAT IS, ACCORDING TO MANSELL, THE DOMINANT PARADIGM?

Ideological perspective: industrialization and technology carry solutions to development.

The aim of the communication research was to determine and measure these benefits.
The technology was to be used as a channel for transmission of messages containing modern information. The research in this field was based in the diffusion theory, developed largely by Everett M. Rogers. Diffusion model: mass media was seen as an exogenous factor capable of causing or stimulating the kind of development that was considered acceptable (1982: 46). Progress would be achieved through the spread of modernity to traditional and archaic areas

WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE NEW DOMINANT PARADIGM?

Communication is no longer seen as message-transmission based on a top-down structure, from government to inform and influence the people. New proposal: communication as a process for social interaction, through a balanced exchange of information and experience. It was an attempt to build a scientific discipline of communication. For the authors of this new model, changes in the rhetoric are, in fact, fundamental changes.

WHY THE NEW PARADIGM IS, IN FACT, STILL OLD

Why a superficial revisionism? Reasons: 1. Still attached to the Diffusion Model, but in new clothes
(focused on the diffusion of innovations, usually a technological idea)

Rogers view: The mass media may be used to feed local groups with information about their expressed needs, and to disseminate innovations that may meet certain of these needs. Mansells criticism : the question remained the same: how does the communication structure affect the rate and choice of adoption of innovations. Example: Health Campaigns on the radio in 1970, in Tanzania, were still focused on providing information about ways of solving development problems

It is still a top-down approach.

WHY THE NEW PARADIGM IS, IN FACT, STILL OLD

2.

Still focused on technology as a solution for development and communication

Satellite broadcasting, cable television, and computers, facilitate the process of development (again, technology):

Rogers view: what is really new about communication technology is not the technology per se as much as the social technology of how the new communication devices are organized and used. Mansells criticism: research within this tradition will support unexamined multilateral and bilateral aid for communication technology transfer Again, an incentive to engage in technology transfer from one country to another as a way to achieve development.

WHY THE NEW PARADIGM IS, IN FACT, STILL OLD

3.

Just revitalized research programs

(the research questions are still irrelevant to the real world of decision-making)
o

Research need to establish evidence of direct cause-effect between technology and change in many sectors. Criteria to define benefit and costs of the programmes are still dependent on previous social and economic factors. Build more sophisticated measurement tools to decrease the high costs of this type of research Rogers proposal: field experimental designs rather than surveys Mansells criticism: The questions raised for research avoid examination of the dynamics of the economic and political context where decisions affecting policy implementation will occur Still the same structure rather than seeking to alter structural constraints to development.

WHY THE NEW PARADIGM IS, IN FACT, STILL OLD?

4.

Revisions of both theory, methods and practice are superficial

Models and conceptual tools were simply renamed with new terminology and catch-phrases. Rigidities of scientific method are put aside. Approach is more holistic. The new approach remains unconcerned with the importance of the political, economic and social context.

Incentive for the changes arises primarily from the need to avoid rejection by research funding agencies.
Only rhetoric the changes

CONSEQUENCES/CONCLUSIONS
No attention to communication relations between First and Third Worlds countries.
o oThe

new model still contributes and supports the maintenance of the old dependent relationships. Omission of the socio-economic and political content in which relationships between countries occur.
o

Factors that constrain communication are left behind as well factors that constrain development processes.
o

No recognition of the Dependancy Theory technology has created dependent relationship between First and Third World countries, but this is not researched.
o

MANSELLS SUGGESTIONS
Research should be focused on how to remove the barriers for participation of the citizen in the communication for development process.
o

It must be recognized that the "Dominant Paradigm" has not passed, and that it should not be ignored
o

Important questions arising within the changing international communication context will remain unanswered if resources supporting research are allocated in substantial part to studies within this tradition

The dominant paradigm did not die. It just changed clothes. When will we start doing a complete plastic surgery in the old concepts?

Thank you!