"Global Mechanism - Your analysis and ideas?" c/o COMMINIT.com

I have posted some items c/o The Communication Initiative Network previously, but that was quite a while ago. Having just contributed to an ongoing discussion I thought it might help me and readers new to COMMINIT to post some background and add to my comment over coming weeks. The topic begins on COMMINIT:

UNICEF, with Rafael Obregon (Chief, Communication for Development, UNICEF New York) leading and The Communication Initiative, through Warren Feek (Executive Director) are holding a series of consultations, to gather views, opinions and ideas on what kind of global mechanism could be helpful for supporting advancements in the scale, sustainability, relevance and influence of programmes, strategies and organisations that develop and implement initiatives rooted in communication and media development, social and behaviour change. 

Background
The global development tapestry has seen the growth of a series of such mechanisms seeking to advance particular fields of work. For example, WASH for All; the Global Partnership for Education and, the Global Partnership on Violence Against Children, amongst others.
As we have reviewed these mechanisms it is clear that there are a range of differing goals and roles including:

• Raising technical standards;

• Advocating value and impact;

• Engaging in policy debates and dialogue;

• Coordinating action;

• Accrediting data;

• Expanding funding levels; and,

• Acting as a legitimate global point of contact for policymakers, funders and other major global players in development.

What kind of mechanism - priority, strategy, structure?
The major question for the social and behaviour change, communication and media for development field of work is what kind of mechanism – focus and structure - could help to advance our field of work. Consequently, there will be 3 major themes to the consultation that we will be holding. From your perspective and experience:

1. What priority goals and themes would you propose as the focus of such a possible mechanism?
2. What strategic approach should such a possible mechanism take to work towards those goals?
3. How would you recommend that such a mechanism be structured and organised?

continued... 


There was a meeting last year in London but I could not attend. I was prompted to write following a brief comment by Lorenzo Vargas...

Communication... also as a right (and more in Hodges' model)

I have copied and will further develop my ramblings as follows...

Dear Lorenzo and All,

'Communication' needs to be considered as not just a com-plex concept (process, social, practice, research, purpose, policy, reality...) but a com-pound phenomena too.

I have raised the potential of Hodges' model previously and in your few lines Lorenzo you also highlight how this (open) model might help integrate and provide a generic foundation for the whole health care agenda, locally, globally and glocally - through technology and culture.

First I quite agree to 'communication' being a Right: definitely and even when claims of rights has been described as a 'rights-fest'. In some contexts communication is a privilege, when cultural and historical structures accord a speaker - the 'stage'. Communication as much an innate ability. So the work of Paul Watzlawick needs to taken into account. The primacy of communication is made explicit in the first of Watzlawick's axioms of communication: "One cannot not communicate." Stepping over several axioms, number five brings us to the health context: "Inter-human communication procedures are either symmetric or complementary." This communication dynamic is the pivotal point of entry for communication as a right. The politics of axiom 5 is why we focus so closely on advocacy, engagement, safeguarding, guardianship, best interests, translation services and other measures that might include others acting as a proxy. If these are legal so much the better, if recourse to law if needed is accessible and affordable for example. In health, gender and development contexts a mix (compound) of qualities, characteristics and outcomes must be taken into account:

• being heard (physically, linguistically, politically, educationally - literacy, culturally ...)
• and being able to hear (physically, politically, language, environment, educationally - literacy ...)

We must also include choosing not to communicate (verbally, non-verbally, vote) and such acts ?

I'm sure we can all add our own experiential, personal, and professional emphases on the above.

The link below (should... ) outline Hodges' model - a generic conceptual framework.

Hodges' model - Structure and Care Domains

What is 'spiritual' encompasses the whole model.

As a 'right' like human rights we can place this conceptually in the POLITICAL domain. The scope of 'communication' and its dimensions can then be reflected upon and made more explicit. 

There are a number of 'gifts' in your comment beyond the obvious one in C4D :-)

We are aware of the skills needed in the sciences and many clinical treatments in handling instruments. The history of science is full of them through to the fact of robots deftly and with mm accuracy (and less) assisting in surgery.

For communication to be a right, this should necessitate a series, or at least one 'policy instrument'. 

In Hodges' model the SCIENCES and POLITICAL domains are associated with what is usually considered MECHANISTIC (physical).

This is not merely word association, but a tool that imho can help this and related communities.

With communication as a right, Hodges' model can help stress the need for the many identified and debated literacies to be made a reality. Or if they are not realised, then those who control axiom 5 (and other key factors - social media?) can be held to account?

Just to close I am presenting Hodges' model in London on the 18 May - there is a link on the blog's sidebar.

Thank you for your comment Lorenzo.

I hope this helps your deliberations?

Kind regards,

Peter Jones

Jones, P. (1996). Do we need an overarching theory of health communication? Health Informatics Journal, 2,1,28-34.