Looking beyond organisational approaches to advance communication practice: an examination of development projects in India

ABSTRACT

Organisation-centric approaches in development communication and public relations that privilege the organisation can restrict communication to organisational mandates and goals. Organisation-centric approaches can reflect a modernist view of development or communication and have been critiqued for favouring technocratic development rather than serving marginalised groups. Currently, scholars in development communication and public relations place greater emphasis on publics or community participation and the processual nature of communication to overcome adverse organisational influence and propose better solutions.

This article recognises theoretical advances in development communication and public relations and adopts the Collaborative Communication Approach, integrating current concepts from these two fields. The Collaborative Communication Approach facilitates an examination of communication in development in relation to five elements of power, context, participation, agency, and profession. This article shows how the five elements prove useful in addressing communication challenges in development through primary research and offers eight distinct categories to advance practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Development communication
• international development
• community development
• public relations
• marginalised groups
• developing countries

Organisations or funders can drive communication planning, interventions, and discourses that are reflective of managerial missions geared towards organisational expansion and growth. When adopted by international and national NGOs, organisation-centric approaches can restrict the scope of communication to managerial goals and prevent one from understanding public relations or development communication’s meaning and usage from multiple perspectives (stakeholders, communities, etc.). Organisation-centric approaches rooted in modernisation have been found to promote hegemony and safeguard private interests in modern democracies. In development, modernisation can be understood as a concept of modernising a population or a country through technocratic solutions devised by developmental agencies (Melkote and Steeves 2015). In development communication and public relations, a modernisation view of communication has been critiqued for failing to recognise community concerns and overlooking marginalised voices (Holtzhausen 2000; L’Etang and Pieczka 2006; Melkote and Steeves 2015; Roper 2005).

To address the shortcomings of organisation-centric modernist approaches, many scholars have proposed understanding public relations and development communication within larger socio-cultural and socio-political contexts where these professions are practised (Edwards and Hodges 2011; Gumucio-Dagron and Tufte 2006; Joshi 2022; Manyozo 2016; Melkote and Steeves 2015; Servaes 2016; Servaes 2021; Wilkins, Tufte, and Obregon 2014). In recent times, the concepts of participation, co-creation, and dialogue have received significant scholarly attention to reduce organisational influence in public relations and development communication by integrating community or public perspectives (Botan and Taylor 2004; Gumucio-Dagron and Tufte 2006; Taylor and Kent 2014). A growing emphasis on improving the quality of communication, a larger role for communities or publics in communication processes, and an enhanced understanding of the role of multiple development actors in communication are evident in recent conceptualisations.

In recognising the above advances in development communication and public relations and their apparent overlaps, Joshi introduced the Collaborative Communication Approach, which proposes examining communication practice in development against the five elements of “context, participation/dialogue, power, agency, and profession” to improve communication programming in development (2022, 6). The Collaborative Communication Approach borrows pertinent concepts from development communication and public relations to use the two fields in a nuanced fashion and overcome organisational or funders’ influences in development practice. This approach allows researchers and practitioners to view both public relations and development communication in relation to communication processes among development actors. Here, the organisation implementing communication programs is viewed as one of the actors alongside community groups, stakeholders, and grassroots workers.

This article discusses how the five elements in the Collaborative Communication Approach prove useful to fully ground communication in development within the advances in both disciplines and enhance communication outcomes in the process.

The following three research questions have been framed for this inquiry:

1. How can the Collaborative Communication Approach provide a theoretical foundation and direction to understand communication practice in development?

2. What conclusions can be drawn on existing communication practices in development, in line with the Collaborative Communication Approach?

3. How can the elements in the Collaborative Communication Approach advance existing communication practices in development?

To answer these questions sequentially, in Section One, a literature review on the elements of the Collaborative Communication Approach and its theoretical underpinnings is conducted. In Section Two, existing communication practices (development projects in India) are unearthed through qualitative research. Here, research findings are presented under eight distinct categories about communication in development. Finally, in Section Three, research findings (i.e. eight communication categories) are critically re-examined and discussed in relation to the five elements of the Collaborative Communication Approach in order to enhance communication outcomes and answer the final research question.

Section one: Collaborative Communication Approach and its theoretical foundation

Traditionally, public relations has been understood in relation to persuasion and influence (Bernays 1955). Functionalist perspectives in public relations have brought about communication methods and techniques to enhance organisational missions and objectives (see, e.g. Grunig and Grunig 1992; Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier 2002). Similarly, the concept of modernisation has driven both development practice and the communication agendas of development agencies (Melkote and Steeves 2015). Although the modernisation paradigm and functionalist perspectives can prove useful in achieving organisational missions, they can also overlook the critical aspect of power and place managerial goals over community concerns in development and public relations.

Moreover, capitalism and neo-liberalism have also influenced the practice of development communication and public relations negatively in development (Roper 2005; Wilkins and Enghel 2013). From those perspectives, an organisation-centric approach to public relations or development communication is more suited to serve management functions. Using communication to establish aid effectiveness and promote private agendas is considered problematic in development (Wilkins and Enghel 2013). Public relations has also been criticised for maintaining hegemonic structures and serving private interests in the context of development in developing countries (Roper 2005). It is essential, then, that multiple interests are understood and recognised when devising and mounting public relations and development communication programs in development. There is also a need to understand how communication can move beyond a sender and receiver message function and mirror the complexities of modern global societies.

In the above context, some scholars have sought to understand development communication and public relations as a social process among organisations, groups, individuals, and members of the public while recognising socio-cultural and socio-political contexts (Edwards and Hodges 2011; Gumucio-Dagron and Tufte 2006; Hemer and Tufte 2005; Melkote and Steeves 2015; Servaes 2016; Servaes 2021). Scholars have also examined development communication in relation to sustainability (Servaes 2016), community participation (Gumucio-Dagron and Tufte 2006), and social justice (Melkote and Steeves 2015). Local culture and subaltern voices have received paramount attention in social change/development communication (Dutta 2011; 2014). Freire’s work has been revisited to enhance development communication research and practice (Mari Sáez 2020). Communication rights and people’s empowerment have also been considered critical in development communication (Thomas 2011; 2014). In public relations, a growing emphasis on publics and the need to theorise from their perspective has transformed the field (Botan and Taylor 2004; Dutta and Elers 2020; Munshi and Kurian 2005; Taylor and Kent 2014). A greater emphasis on social capital (Sommerfeldt and Taylor 2011; Taylor 2011), socio-cultural factors including power (Edwards and Hodges 2011), and community-building (Valentini, Kruckeberg, and Starck 2012) in public relations have provided opportunities to utilise public relations in development in newer ways. Far from ignoring organisations in the conceptualisation of public relations or development communication, these approaches recognise socio-cultural and socio-political factors and look at organisations within larger social processes, allowing one to wrest communication from negative institutional dynamics.

The above advances are noteworthy because development based on grants and funding has received criticism for negatively impacting communication and for ignoring community empowerment and local culture in development communication (Escobar 1988; 1995; Melkote and Steeves 2015; Wilkins and Enghel 2013). Moreover, there are calls for enhancing development communication through newer approaches or considerations (Agunga 2012; Dagron 2009; Mari Sáez 2020; Waisbord 2014) and overcoming the development sector’s excessive focus on media-centric and managerial functions in practice (Lie and Servaes 2015; Servaes 2021), making the present investigation timely to enhance communication practice in development.

The Collaborative Communication Approach, which integrates the five critical elements of context, power, participation, agency, and profession, provides interesting parameters to locate communication outside institutions and to examine public relations and development communication functions in development practice comprehensively. This approach locates communication in larger social processes and understands it as a cyclical process among development organisations, community groups, stakeholders, and grassroots workers. The five elements of this approach signify fundamental concepts and advances in development communication and public relations. Because development communication and public relations can be intertwined in development practice (with multiple aspects of promotion, public information, and community empowerment driving development communicators’ agenda), these elements can act as larger principles to enhance communication outcomes in development (Joshi 2022). Essentially, there are both practical and theoretical advantages of this approach drawing on both disciplines.

Based on Joshi’s work (2022), the five elements of the Collaborative Communication Approach have been adopted as follows: Context is considered important to understand and analyse contextual elements underlining social and cultural factors in public relations and development communication (see, e.g. Edwards 2018). Scholars in both fields emphasise grounding communication in local realities to enhance communication outcomes (Hemer and Tufte 2005; Manyozo 2016). From the perspective of this study, the four projects implemented in the social reality of India and their development workers’ narration of communication tasks and own background prove useful to understand how context impacts public relations and development communication plans and outcomes.

Power and the related aspect of modernisation are deemed critical to understand the underlying processes and power dynamics at various levels in development or public relations (see, e.g. Coombs and Holladay 2012; Escobar 1988; 1995; Holtzhausen 2000). Power has been debated in development by critiquing Western development models and promoting certain discourses. At the micro level, power has been studied to understand communication processes in development (Cooke and Kothari 2001). Power has also been understood in relation to processes of people’s engagement in governance at various levels (Gaventa 2006). Here, a deeper consideration of both the design and the processes of communication-related activities in development projects to understand “who is driving communication processes” is key (Joshi 2022, 6). In short, developing an understanding of how the element of power can impact development communication and public relations functions is critical.

Participation or dialogue is understood in relation to community participation in communication processes (see, amongst others, Botan and Taylor 2004; Freire 1970; Gumucio-Dagron and Tufte 2006; Huesca 2008; Taylor and Kent 2014). Scholars have examined the nature of community participation in public relations and development communication through the concepts of dialogue and co-creation. Marginalised groups’ participation in “communication decision, programs, and plans” has been considered critical in collaborative approaches too (Joshi 2022, 6). In this study, the element of participation in communication is understood in relation to development projects and goals. Research participants’ responses on the degree of participation as well as the underlying principles for encouraging community participation in communication plans and activities have been studied here. By analysing participation, this research unearths ways to enhance community participation in public relations and development communication and the resulting communication outcomes.

Agency refers to community ownership and sustainability in communication (see, e.g. Dutta 2011; Edwards and Hodges 2011; Servaes 2016). Communication approaches and outcomes must reflect an understanding that communities must own projects and programs to make these sustainable. In the context of these two fields, “agency is the ability of disadvantaged groups to own public relations and development communication” (Joshi 2022, 6). In this study, the selected projects featuring grassroots engagement and mobilisation provide opportunities to examine the significance of human agency in communication in community projects. By examining the element of agency in public relations and development communication in relation to development projects, this research explores ways to sustain communication efforts in development.

Finally, understanding the role of profession, that is, how the two fields are viewed in development and whether this impacts communication plans, has been considered. Edwards (2018) notes that the practice itself influences public relations outcomes. Joshi (2022, 6) observes that the element of profession in collaborative approaches can allow one to understand “how these two professions and perceptions about them influence communication decisions and programs in development”. Examining specific questions related to the professions of development, public relations, and development communication, and research participants’ responses to those questions are important for understanding the role of profession from their perspective. The Collaborative Communication Approach and its elements have been visualised in Figure 1:

Figure 1. Collaborative Communication Approach.

The Collaborative Communication Approach enables one to examine communication practices in development against multiple variables. By integrating concepts from both fields, this approach allows the researcher to investigate and understand how the two fields can combine in order to enhance communication practices in development.

Moreover, because these variables emphasise qualitative aspects of communication, they must be examined in the social reality where communication processes exist. Four development projects in India have been selected – providing a fertile ground to understand the significance of the elements of context, power, participation, and agency in practice. The subjective experiences of individuals involved in the four projects are examined in order to generate research findings. Unlike positivist approaches that aim to quantify a given phenomenon, knowledge is based on the “interpretations and subjective views” of both the researcher and the participant in this study (Neuman 2013, 95).

Section two: development projects, research methodology, and findings

A focus on development projects allows the researcher to build the inquiry around the question of development or social processes instead of organisational communication goals in this study. Development projects featuring extensive community mobilisation and networking prove useful to investigate the complexity of communication in the entire development project cycle. Consequently, communication practices are understood in relation to the communication activities that take place around development projects or through development communication and public relations in such contexts. Development projects can entail activities at national, regional, and local levels; therefore, development and communication professionals across all three levels have been selected as research participants. Out of the twenty participants, six are program planners in the capital city, four communication officers stationed in head offices, five regional program managers, and five field workers responsible for both program and communication at the grassroots in the identified projects. The four selected projects include:

• (1)  Gender education for adolescents project

This development project aims to enhance young adolescents’ understanding of gender relations in rural India. As part of the project, the project implementors integrate a gender equality component into government school curricula and facilitate several training sessions through school teachers. Project activities involve mobilising many community members, policy makers, teachers, students, and stakeholders across national, regional, and grassroots levels. The project is being implemented in several schools in India and Indonesia. The project has been publicised in mainstream print and electronic media. It also features multiple aspects of interpersonal communication activities at local, regional, and national levels. The activities range across media advocacy, promotion, and behavioural change communication, and are useful to understand how communication is adding value to the outcomes of the project.

• (2)  Marginalised sanitation workers’ participation in policymaking and plans

This development project aims to improve the participation of the urban poor in the planning and monitoring of sanitation services being delivered through government infrastructure in India. This large-scale project is being implemented in every ward in the three cities of Jhansi, Ajmer, and Muzzafarpur. The project recognises that the urban poors' voices are hardly captured in broader policy dialogues and their living conditions are persistently ignored. Their problems are compounded by a lack of organisational leadership, access to information, resources, and dialoguing capacities among them. Hence, the project planners and officers work closely with the urban poor for them to take charge of the forces that impact their lives. Several networks and committees have been formed to mobilise sanitation workers, urban youth, and community members to enhance their participation in policy dialogues systematically. The project offers opportunities to examine communication practice in relation to participation and agency building, in addition to providing insights into communication planning and strategies.

• (3)  Addressing non-communicable health problems through a mobile technology-based research intervention

This development research project facilitates early diagnosis of non-communicable health problems through a mobile based technological intervention in rural Andhra Pradesh, India. The project involves working closely with the government through village-level healthcare workers (Accredited Social Health Activists), who screen rural communities for health problems through a mobile based system. The project team conducts several trainings and community awareness activities to establish the importance of early diagnosis through mobile-based technology in rural areas where healthcare is limited. The project offers opportunities to examine communication processes in relation to public health outcomes, community awareness, and behavioural change interventions.

• (4)  Grassroots women leadership in managing scarce water resources

This project aims at building the capacities of women in rural India for them to manage natural water bodies in the water scarce state of Rajasthan. The project has brought together gender, water, and climate change experts, elected women representatives and government officials to discuss issues of water security in rural Rajasthan. This project has enabled leadership skills among rural women to take control of water management through various networking activities. This project is relevant to examining the role of communication in achieving social mobilisation at regional and national levels and enhancing development outcomes at the grassroots level.

Development and communication plans, approaches, and research participants’ perspectives on the two professions are discussed and revealed in relation to the above projects in order to understand how existing communication practices are positioned in relation to the elements of the Collaborative Communication Approach. Eventually, a theoretical understanding of how public relations and development communication can be operationalised in community development projects initiated by NGOs is conceptualised.

Research methodology

Qualitative research is critical to understand pre-existing communication practices through the respondents’ eyes, including their preconceived notions, approaches to communication and development, and their professional challenges. In particular, Constructivist Grounded Theory has been adopted as a qualitative research method (Charmaz 2005; 2014) to generate theoretical categories about communication in development that can be examined against the elements of the Collaborative Communication Approach. Grounded theory has been categorised into three forms: traditional, evolved, and constructivist (Mills, Bonner, and Francis 2006a; 2006b). While the traditional version follows a positivist approach to research (Glaser 1978; Glaser and Strauss 1967), the evolved (Strauss and Corbin 1994) and constructivist (Charmaz 2005) lean towards interpretivism and constructivism.

Constructivist Grounded Theory proves most suitable because of the following: firstly, this method enables the researcher to systematically elicit responses on the underlying processes (Charmaz 2005). Secondly, this method enables data collection and analysis from the perspective of theory construction, making it ideal for proposing theoretical categories for communication practice in development. Thirdly, with its foundation in constructivism, this method allows the researcher to co-create evidence. With a prior understanding of the Collaborative Communication Approach, the researcher played a key role in maintaining focus on the research topic, while research participants freely shared their responses to enable theory creation.

Based on Constructivist Grounded Theory, an interview guide including fourteen questions was created (See Appendix 1). The first three questions in the guide investigate contextual issues stemming from participants’ upbringing and background. The subsequent questions explore project goals and the role of communication within those goals to develop a broader understanding of communication in development projects. Finally, specific questions on development communication and public relations explore the meaning and the usage of the two fields in development practice.

Analysis and findings

The primary data broadly shed light on specific contexts, the underlying processes influencing decisions and plans on communication, larger communication designs and approaches, and participants’ views on the two professions of public relations and development communication. The data was rigorously analysed to create theoretical categories for communication in development using Strauss and Corbin’s (1994; 1998) approach to coding, comprising open, axial, and selective coding.

In the first step, open coding, many relevant concepts and ideas are generated (Vollstedt and Rezat 2019). In this research, five hundred pages of interview transcripts were analysed on Nvivo to identify recurring concepts and ideas. The open coding process categorised the data generated from qualitative interviews into five emergent areas: (i) participants’ individual and social contexts, (ii) responses to the question on the meaning of development project success, (iii) responses to the question on the role of communication in projects, (iv) underlying processes reflecting approaches and drivers to development and communication initiatives, and (v) responses to questions on public relations and development communication (See Appendix 2).

These areas were examined carefully, revealing twenty-nine codes through the analysis (see Appendix 3). The codes broadly reflected contextual aspects of upbringing or development exposure; process-related concerns, such as program and communication teams coordination; and communication priorities, such as ownership, participation, behavioural change, or image management.

Subsequently, the recurring concepts were consolidated as categories during axial coding (the second step in the coding process). In axial coding, the researcher analyses the data and the codes based on their “properties and dimensions” and “relationships among concepts” along with “coding for process” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 167). Here, the twenty-nine codes were analysed rigorously to understand the relationship between the codes (or concepts) and the ideas they represent. Axial coding entailed including and excluding recurring concepts and developing categories in relation to the studied phenomena, i.e. communication practice in development.

Based on the analysis, the codes representing contextual issues such as upbringing, human dignity, development exposure, and rights were consolidated into one category. The codes on processes such as communication staff involvement in community communication, program and communication teams’ coordination, and communication as integral to development were also appropriately recategorised. Moreover, the codes representing community involvement, community-local government relations, rapport with communities, and community awareness were consolidated as one unified category of community engagement in communication. Similarly, the codes on sustainability, addressing inequity, and people-centric communication are assimilated into the category of community ownership. Other concepts and ideas around project scale-up, image management, policy change, and stakeholder engagement were also consolidated as relevant categories. Importantly, the codes on public relations and development communication were also integrated into the outlined categories, establishing the interrelationship between various concepts and ideas. Eventually, based on the analysis, eight categories are presented.

As a final step to coding in grounded theory, selective coding is conducted to “integrate the concepts around a core category and the filling in of categories” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 236). Selective coding is more about understanding the phenomenon and asking what the research is about (Vollstedt and Rezat 2019). We recognised that this study aims to determine the situation of communication practice in development in relation to development communication and public relations. Therefore, selective coding in this research entailed examining the codes emerging from specific questions on public relations and development communication and the eight categories as a unified whole to ascertain whether these, together, could explain the phenomena.

Ultimately, the eight categories arising from this process (see Table 1) represent both contextual factors and systemic challenges in communication, as well as participants’ key concerns about communication in development projects and how these can be addressed through public relations and development communication. Participants’ responses under each category have been elaborated below.

• (1)  Communication as a central element of development

Table 1. Eight communication categories.

Communication categories	Views on public relations assimilated into categories	Views on development communication assimilated into categories
1. Communication as a central element of development
2. Communication driven by effective program and communication teams’ coordination
3. Communication to promote human dignity and rights
4. Communication for community engagement and greater uptake of programs	Media relations Community relations – rapport and trust	Communication to bring about social change with tools and awareness Behaviour change
5. Communication for community ownership and sustainability	Community–local government relations Community relations – rapport and trust	Communication to enhance partnership and ownership
6. Communication for stakeholder engagement	Stakeholder relations	Communication to enhance partnership and ownership
7. Communication for advocacy	Amplifier Media relations
8. Communication as marketing and fundraising	Image and brand management Amplifier Media relations

Many participants involved in the selected long-term projects aiming for social and structural change suggested considering communication a glue that binds development. Participant 18 observed that communication should be seen as a chain of activities integral to development, rather than a discipline relevant for certain amplification roles, and “should have many circles of communication intersecting each other”.

Participant 2 noted that development and communication should be treated as “two sides of the same coin” to develop more evolved methodologies. Working on women’s rights, Participant 3 observed that communication can become an important “line item in development strategies and evaluation of gender norms” in their projects. Participant 2 highlighted the centrality of communication to a development initiative:

As you can see, communication is at every level of this project. There is communication that happens between the [grassroots] workers and the community. There is communication that happens within the village … and then, there is relevance to policymakers.

These findings reveal that participants felt that the utility of communication can spread across various levels within the community, organisation, and stakeholders, but that holistic approaches to communication that firmly situate communication in development practice are lacking.

• (2)  Communication driven by program and communication teams’ coordination

Communication and program teams’ coordination emerged as a recurring theme – a challenge that participants faced when approaching communication comprehensively in projects. Responsible for program designs in the public health program, Participant 1 recognised the value of communication for each stage of a project; however, they admitted a limited involvement of communication teams in projects beyond promotion.

A communication expert on public health, Participant 2, stressed a lack of dialogic relationship between communication and program teams: “Yes, they (programs team) frame the plans, they do ask you to contribute, but then they are free to take or leave it”. Participants also noted that communication at the community level is managed by program staff, rather than communication managers. Some participants observed that the decreased involvement of communication staff can be due to the management’s focus on organisational promotion, amplification, and editing. Most agreed that enhanced coordination between program and communication teams must happen at every stage of a development project rather than at the end of the project to promote events and findings, perhaps through an organisational overhaul. Communication teams and development workers can use their respective expertise to enhance communication outcomes in development projects which tend to remain underserved by communication officers at the grassroots level where community development takes place.

• (3)  Communication to promote human dignity and rights

Most program and communication professionals interviewed in this study emphasised social justice and the need for ensuring basic dignity for marginalised groups, including disadvantaged women, tribal populations, and sanitation workers. Such widespread views and approaches, driven by participants’ individual contexts, past work, and education, call for aligning communication with the pre-existing development reality.

For example, a participant revealed how witnessing a dowry death made women’s rights their life’s mission. Another participant revealed how growing up in a tribal area made them aware of the injustices faced by certain tribes and prompted them to work for those tribes. Participants’ understanding of development was also influenced by their development education. As participant 5 noted: “When I was exposed to the professional social work methodologies, [I learned] how it was not about just charity work … but how social work strengthens or gives more power to people so that they have a say [in any development activity].” Other professionals attributed their career in development to their experience in journalism wherein they wrote development stories from the perspective of rights and policy change. In essence, then, participants’ past encounters influence both their approach to development and communication. In such contexts, larger governing principles of rights and social justice must be carefully considered and integrated in communication planning and programs.

• (4)  Communication for community engagement and greater uptake of programs

Most program professionals considered community engagement as critical for the greater uptake of their programs and underlined a critical role for communication in that. Community participation was employed widely to generate awareness of prevailing health and development situations, to monitor and enrol citizens, and enhance formative feedback during development interventions. Listening to communities and developing interventions that are acceptable by community groups were considered critical in community contexts. As Participant 8 noted, “ … unless we are able to understand the terms and expressions that children use in that context and unless those are brought into the conversation, we will not be able to connect with children.” One participant noted how pictorial representation helps in communicating effectively. Another participant noted the importance of songs and drama.

When participants’ views on public relations and development communication were analysed against this category, the following emerged. Participant 7 underlined a critical role of public relations in community awareness: “PR and media activity … are useful to generate attention to a particular event/project or a phase.” While explaining the possible role of a public relations officer in community projects, Participant 2 added that this is “ … a key person who is going into the community before we start the project, identifying the specific sites or trying to understand the context, trying to develop a relationship with the community.” In short, relationship-building, rapport formation, and awareness generation at various stages of the project were considered important public relations functions in development projects.

On the other hand, participants looked at development communication in terms of a new language or tool to enhance engagement with targeted communities. As Participant 3 noted, “I think development communication people also bring in a new set of language and a narrative into … so, while I may have a state-level policy on hygiene, but to take this to every household, to give a meaning and like flesh and blood to that policy, development communication would do that work.” Some participants looked at development communication in relation to social change, which for them means devising communication activities to achieve behavioural or structural changes.

• (5)  Communication for community ownership and sustainability

Community ownership emerged as a crucial priority. Participants working on the adolescent gender project in schools developed elaborate methodologies to shift the ownership of the project to teachers, parents, and students to make it sustainable. For research participants working on participatory development, community ownership is achieved through information sharing, training, and building networks and committees at the grassroots level. Participant 5 explained how communication-related activities help to build community confidence and agency:

 … [these activities] give more information, give more confidence, and help to claim their agency … for example, when we bring these informal settlements into a forum. So, to strengthen that forum also, we needed activities so that the forum also comes together to think and to plan and execute those plans.

Another participant explained how community campaigns become critical for community mobilisation. Participant 4 added that “these campaigns not only brought people together or built their confidence to do something, but they also established their [slum dwellers] existence within the city.”

Participants’ views on public relations and development communication also aligned well here. Grassroots workers considered public relations as critical for community-government relations. As Participant 5 said: “If public relations is bottom-up, it can benefit women local leaders to communicate effectively with local governing bodies.” Participant 19 considered public relations important for enhancing the utilisation of government services among communities: “ … communication [public relations] can have a crucial role to make them aware of the benefits and the challenges of the system.”

On the other hand, development communication was viewed specifically in terms of ownership and co-planning. Participant 4 said: “I think, the result of communication for development is more of ownership, so that people will feel … that they are the owners of these project activities.” Another participant linked development communication to co-planning of their project and said: “ but if we really need communication to be sustainable … it needs to be co-worked and co-developed with communities.”

• (6)  Communication for stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder engagement at community, regional, national, and international levels is a continuous process in development. At the grassroots level, networks and committees of community representatives and development workers were formed to organise multiple events and enhance liaison skills. At the regional and national levels, liaising with the government, development partners, and funders drove stakeholder engagement. Participant 1 explained that their organisation uses an existing framework to plan and implement stakeholder communication activities: “We go back to the WHO classification of stakeholders … then we try to see what are we are trying to achieve with these stakeholders … is it just informing or is it informing and getting a buy-in? … and then, we try to understand what should be the medium.”

Participants also saw public relations to be important for this category, playing a role in their liaison activities with key stakeholders in government, local community leaders, and funders to achieve project objectives. They used various media and activities including conferences, public events, handouts, infographics, and rallies to facilitate this. Nevertheless, Participant 2 expressed their frustration on the use of public relations, pointing to the need for critical inquiry into such functions:

Am I trying to focus on the people or am I trying to focus on organisations that have developed a self-sustainability mechanism based on a self-gloating principle that we are serving the people? … What I'm trying to say is just that as an organisation looks at its vision, mission, values, and then it looks at its strategy, we need to revisit a discipline also.

Some participants considered development communication to be important for this category through the concept of community empowerment. Participant 7 suggested looking at both the process and the outcome in stakeholder meetings, which meant documenting and integrating community voices in stakeholder engagement.

• (7)  Communication for advocacy

Participants working on women’s rights and leadership considered advocacy to be a key communication requirement. They highlighted the key role of communication in their advocacy for women’s equal participation in decision-making. As Participant 18 noted: “ … the first thing is to bring this level of communication, which is informed communication, with lots of knowledge-based communication so that they (grassroots women) are taken seriously by policymakers.”

Participant 8, stressed the importance of communication materials and research evidence to inform policy debates: “ … I won't say success stories, but reflections of children as a story to tell people what children who are part of the program felt.”

Some participants were found to confuse advocacy with promotion. In the public health project, participants talked about advocacy in relation to their organisational goals. Participant 20 said: “ [we can share] the results and findings on how this [project] has been effective and can be scalable. But we need people in the forefront to really advocate that.” Participant 3 also highlighted this problem and noted how “We talk about issue-based communication, but increasingly the issues are given the go by. It’s not the issue, it’s the person who is campaigning the issue. It's not the people, it's the work done by the organisation.”

Participants could not specify the role of development communication in advocacy but considered public relations to be important for advocacy functions. As Participant 18 said: “Public relations is important for really letting many people know about the value of the work you are doing. And [establishing the] need for that work so that others get convinced and start doing the same.”

• (8)  Communication as marketing and fundraising

Participants talked about branding concerns of corporate funders, the presence of communication consultants and public relations firms in development, and organisational promotion in the competitive development sector in India. A participant revealed that using public relations agencies for brand management and awareness is common in development practice. Participants talked about how they use media coverage in their meetings to update their donors and partners.

Participant 6 said: “So, the [media] story is a big help in the sense that if I'm planning to replicate this model to another area and there are stories around it, and I have prepared my material about these stories … it becomes easy to start a conversation.” Participant 17 highlighted the role of public relations: “I think [it is about] getting more traction towards our projects, which we think is important … for getting funds, for creating partnerships, for creating networks.”

Participant 6 talked about how the funders attach their expectations to publicity and branding activities around logos, messages, and press releases: “But when it comes to communication and branding … it is quite strict … I mean, we have to communicate every step to them (funders).” Some project implementers with considerable grassroots research experience felt that positioning their brand in the competitive development sector is important. Development planning and implementation in India are also being outsourced to private management consultants in recent years. These community development organisations must compete with large management consulting agencies for their own survival.

Section three: discussion and an examination of findings in relation to the Collaborative Communication Approach

This research employed the Collaborative Communication Approach to enhance communication outcomes in development practice. When the five critical elements of context, power, participation, agency, and profession (instead of organisational requirements) were placed at the centre of theorisation, both the research process and outcomes changed significantly in this work. Ultimately, communication practice in development projects has been explored in an innovative manner, making it easier to understand how public relations and development communication can combine to enhance communication outcomes.

The eight categories offered in this study are: (i) communication as a central element of development, (ii) communication to promote human dignity and rights, (iii) communication driven by effective program and communication teams’ coordination, (iv) communication for community engagement and greater uptake of programs, (v) communication for community ownership and sustainability, (vi) communication for stakeholder engagement, (vii) communication for advocacy, and (viii) communication for marketing and fundraising. These categories highlight ways to expand communication outlook in development, and also areas in which one might consider using public relations and development communication collaboratively in development projects.

Interestingly, these categories also exhibit the presence of the elements of context, power, participation, agency, and profession. Hence, it would be useful to discuss how the elements and their theoretical drivers can enhance the above categories or outcomes here. For example, the first and second categories (communication as a central element of development and communication driven by effective program and communication teams’ coordination) reflect research participants’ need for more evolved communication programs through value overhauls and structural changes. This finding is in line with development communication scholars’ critique of modernist approaches to development and communication (Melkote and Steeves 2015; Servaes 2021). Moreover, describing how power manifests in communication in development projects in India in specific terms is an important contribution of this study. This study shows that development workers and actors who control funds can exert power in communication programming. These could be program heads and private donors. Moreover, senior management’s priorities in communication decide what communication managers do in the present development setup. Communication managers are more often tied to organisational communication and promotion due to management’s priorities. This, in turn, manifests in a limited program and communication teams’ coordination for any communication related to projects, restricted community engagement in communication plans around projects, and an overall inability to operationalise a larger vision for communication programming in development. Communication staff can be side-lined in project-based development work, and communication officers might not engage with community representatives to devise programs. Therefore, this research proposes enhanced coordination between community representatives, program professionals, and communication teams to operationalise a larger vision that sees communication as integral to development.

The third category (communication to promote human dignity and rights) is based on research participants’ narration of individual contexts. Scholars have noted the need to recognise socio-cultural and socio-political contexts when conceptualising or implementing communication programs. This research demonstrates that context is also recognising individual backgrounds of development workers. Participants reinforced the need to recognise human dignity and rights in communication based on their past exposure to discrimination and development education. One must understand that questions on equal rights or public health awareness for marginalised groups do not simply reflect program goals, but also the larger development reality that every development worker is part of. Therefore, those questions must be seamlessly integrated in every facet of development, including communication.

The fourth category (communication for community engagement and greater uptake of programs) exemplifies research participants and project implementers’ need for enhancing community participation. Research participants considered communication a conduit to achieve a greater uptake of development projects. A range of activities such as public information campaigns, face-to-face meetings, and media relations at the local level are conducted to engage with local communities and key stakeholders. At the same time, an excessive project focus is evident here. A critical appraisal of this function would prevent one from taking on an overly project-based approach to dialogue and participation in development. In community engagement situations, traditional information-heavy communication programs can weaken the communication fabric unless supported by appropriate participatory communication and dialoguing mechanisms. For example, community participation in communication is understood as a recognition of other cultures and a need for dialogue between cultures (Gumucio-Dagron 2014). Here, community expressions in the form of radio or video are considered crucial to establishing dialogue between communities and the larger national society (Gumucio-Dagron 2014). Achieving long-term objectives could mean considering other aspects of communication, such as embedding projects in local culture firmly.

Public relations approaches that put publics at the centre of strategic communication and public relations (Botan 2017; Botan and Taylor 2004; Johnston 2017; Kruckeberg and Starck 1988) can also prove useful for achieving long-term objectives through community engagement. Integrating community views and aligning public relations plans and programs with community concerns must be achieved in such contexts. The questions one needs to consider are whether local culture is being recognised or is being evaded in the name of information and awareness, and how one can build synergy between the two critical aspects of local culture and information dissemination or awareness in communication.

The fifth category (communication for community ownership and sustainability) is driven by research participants’ concerns about the sustainability of a development initiative at the community level. In this research, network building and social cohesion were considered critical for agency building and community ownership by research participants. This category brings attention to the element of human agency in communication. Community ownership, when seen in relation to the element of agency, encourages one to go beyond project frameworks (Freire 1970; Huesca 2008) and comprehensively understand social change. Agency interacts with the elements of power and participation and could mean relinquishing power to communities and learning from them.

When communities take charge, pre-existing communication forms representing local realities come to the fore, and approaches that situate communication in local culture become critical (Dutta 2011; 2014; Gumucio-Dagron 2014). Public relations and development communication (profession) outcomes can change considerably when one acquires such an outlook. Communication planning can be reframed around community needs rather than the development project requirements only. Public relations or community media skills can become important for community representatives to voice their concerns and make development sustainable.

The sixth category (communication for stakeholder engagement) reflects the ubiquity of stakeholder engagement in development projects at various levels. Research participants considered engagement with stakeholders in government, similar development organisations, international agencies, grassroots government functionaries, local bodies, media, etc., integral to their work. Stakeholder engagement produces numerous communication outputs and events at grassroots, regional, and national levels. Importantly, stakeholder engagement can be driven by multiple factors in development. For example, at the grassroots level, community collectives and rural women networks’ needs and concerns drove stakeholder engagement. At the national level, however, development organisations and their goal of project expansion seemed to drive stakeholder engagement.

The above scenarios indicate that resolving the objective of stakeholder engagement is critical here. One must carefully consider the elements of power and context to enable its firm grounding in community development. For example, public relations or development communication (profession) can be employed differently when stakeholder engagement aims for network strengthening or community development as opposed to project expansion and promotion. Viewing stakeholder engagement in relation to networks in development communication that is enacted at the community level (Melkote and Steeves 2015) puts the interests of networks/community collectives at the centre. Public relations in such contexts could mean creating social capital through trust building and network strengthening (Sommerfeldt and Taylor 2011). In essence, by resolving the objective of stakeholder relations and considering the elements of power, context, and profession, one can create better communication outcomes in such contexts.

The seventh category (communication for advocacy) demonstrates that advocacy in development projects can be best understood in relation to larger goals, such as women’s rights to participate in decision-making (noted by a participant), and within the “broader political and social contexts” (Wilkins 2014, 65). Such an understanding connects numerous societal members and has implications for the consequent communication functions. However, advocacy can be confused with project promotion as observed in this study. Therefore, advocacy communication must be reviewed in relation to the elements of context and power, prompting one to ask what the cause is, who is advocating for the cause, and whether the most affected are properly represented. Aligning advocacy goals with communication programs and initiatives is key here. When one considers the question of profession in advocacy, public relations functions such as media relations and media advocacy become important. Further, development communication in the form of community media becomes important to lend a voice to communities. Here, public relations and development communication can also play complementary roles, with community media expressions feeding into media advocacy programs to inform public policies and debates (Joshi 2022).

Finally, the eighth category (communication as marketing and fundraising) reflects research participants’ organisational and project promotion requirements. Some research participants considered image management as critical for their own organisation’s survival and expansion in the competitive development sector of India. This category can raise some fundamental questions about communication practice in development. While fundraising concerns can be genuine, one must recognise that development organisations not only raise funds but also implement programs in developing countries. Therefore, distinguishing cause promotion from fundraising is important.

Scholars note how organisational communication prevents communicators to approach development communication comprehensively (Servaes 2021). Participants’ responses on the role of public relations also reflect that trend. In recognising the element of power in such function, this research concedes that promotion aimed purely at building organisational reputation can be problematic. In project-based development, adverse organisational processes favouring organisation-centric methods must be identified and tackled.

By paying attention to the elements of community participation and agency in communication processes, one can create democratic structures and prevent lopsided organisational promotion. The question of profession can be tackled more sensibly too. While both public relations and development communication may be used for the purpose of enhancing organisational reputation, unless fundamental value propositions are questioned, such efforts may amount to what one participant calls “gloating”. Scholars and development planners must recognise the critique of capitalistic development models in development scholarship (Wilkins and Enghel 2013) and routinely revisit their value proposition to reflect on the meaning of being a social organisation (Galvez and Casanova 2019). Some participants also proposed overhauling value systems to better reflect community interests and positively impact communication in this study. In the above context, social organisations can be exhaustively served by public relations when this field is understood in relation to its influence on discourses in society (Weaver, Motion, and Roper 2006) or on how it enhances the public sphere (Sommerfeldt 2013).

In summary, the eight categories offer a fresh outlook toward communication practice in development. Moreover, when the categories are critically examined against the Collaborative Communication Approach, one learns how theoretical concepts and advances can enrich practice. By adopting the Collaborative Communication Approach, this article has not only drawn attention to areas that can prove useful for communication planning, but has also shown how development communication and public relations can be used collaboratively in development practice. The eight categories representing the development reality of a developing country provide insights into ways to utilise the two theoretical and practical fields of public relations and development communication in development practice. Further, the critical elements of the Collaborative Communication Approach enable the researchers to get to the larger philosophical roots of what is proposed in those categories to improve practice.

Limitations

This research has looked at communication from the perspective of development and communication professionals associated with community development projects. Development and communication workers’ ideas and perspectives were central to building arguments on how communication can add value to community development projects in a developing country. We recognise that development can be a complex multifaceted concept. Therefore, the findings and analysis in this research should be largely understood in relation to development projects implemented by development organisations in developing countries.

We also recognise the need to continue adjusting and improving the analysis framework offered in this work. It will be in this continuous process of adjustment and “dialogue” between theory and practice that will allow for such improvements in the future.

Conclusion

While there is a significant literature in development communication and public relations that can contribute to enhancing communication functions in development and make these more relevant for marginalised communities, approaches to communication practices have remained disparate and scattered due to improper formalisation of theories. Organisation-centricity, which is contested by scholars in both disciplines, has remained prevalent and even impacted how the two disciplines are practised in development. In recognising that challenge, what is presented in this article has attempted to improve communication practice by fundamentally changing the approach to communication. Building on development communication and public relations theories that emphasise the recognition of social processes, the Collaborative Communication Approach presented in this study has brought the two fields together, providing interesting markers to utilise development communication and public relations and consolidate communication planning. This new approach earns feasibility through the voices of the research participants, who see both fields enhance communication practice in development. This work has looked at development and communication in relation to projects and their implementers, and cannot be an answer to all communication challenges. Yet, it recognises that unless newer methods are considered and formalised, communication practice in development will continue to remain suboptimal. From this perspective, this work opens the door to exploring more evolved communication approaches in development practice, which can benefit all stakeholders involved.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.