Let’s
Clarify The Points
During
the CDCEPP Conference at ISU-Cabagan, Isabela last Friday, November 9th,
two major issues that were raised dealt with what appeared to be the
orientation of many current development
communication researchers and academics in the Philippines. The questions raised were: “what scientific
paradigm are we supposed to follow, positivism or critical theory?” and “in devcom are we supposed to deal only
with non-formal education and not include formal education in our work?” Frankly, I was caught by surprise by these
questions because these have never been issues for me.
I
didn’t have time to think through the questions well during the open forum
after my keynote address. Let me try to
deal with these issues here. I’d like to
expound on my personal position on these issues a little bit more lest I be
taken out of context. I’m not going to
begin lecturing on the philosophical foundations of communication research or
the bases for establishing academic disciplines, though.
To
begin with, let me emphasize that I’m not infallible in this discussion. And this discussion is based basically on my
own synthesis and interpretation of the available literature on devcom, and it
is entirely possible that I differ substantially with many (both experts and
students of devcom) regarding the points that I shall highlight. Consequently, too, I shall not be citing my
sources as I’m talking from the point of view of personal synthesis and
interpretation of the literature as I see it.
Therefore, take my arguments based on their premises.
The
Issue of Research Orientation
As
far as the area of research is concerned, let me just point out that in doing
development communication research all these years, I have seen colleagues
doing studies of various orientations and intentions. To interconnect with the terminologies that
are quite current among younger researchers and academics, let’s look at
some dichotomies of the research methodologies employed.
There are those who talk about the research
spectrum from positivism to post modernism, or from empiricism to critical
analysis, or from scientistic inquiry to naturalistic inquiry, or from
quantitative to qualitative methods. Me,
I started from positivism or empiricism, or quantitative analysis as my
background is in agriculture. Migrating
to the social sciences, however, necessitated that I embrace other
methodological approaches when this became necessary. I have learned, however, that what is
important is the rigor, not the label.
As a researcher, I may be classified as a positivist or empiricist
rather than post modernist but that doesn’t mean I can’t interpret accurately
qualitative data and information. I must
point out, however, that many times I need as much quantitative information as
I can lay my hands on in order to arrive at a good qualitative interpretation
of a phenomenon.
Let
me point out that from my personal viewpoint one doesn’t really shift
permanently from one methodology to another.
In this respect, you don’t burn your bridges after crossing them because
you’ll need them quite frequently again and again as you navigate through the
required analytical framework you have decided to employ in dealing with your data. Too, you must look at or mentally analyze your data first before determining what analytical technique would be most appropriate. It’s not the
case where you first determine you’d do quantitative or qualitative analysis
prior to gathering your data and limit yourself to such methodological approach in spite of your data. That could really be potentially disastrous. You could make
inappropriate conclusions based on
erroneous analysis and interpretation of your data.
There
are data that make much more sense when quantified, but numerous data or pieces of information provide more
significant meaning when analyzed qualitatively.
For
example, I’ve always made this argument:
suppose you’re deciding to purchase a kilo of seedless atis and you
didn’t know how sweet this particular variety on sale is. Would you rather subject the fruit to
fructose content analysis? Of course,
you can do that, but most would simply take a sample fruit and taste it.
Anyway,
let’s say your test indicated that one fruit showed this value, 0.5472 mg
fructose and another indicated 0.5474 mg fructose. Naturally, you’d conclude that the fruit that
has 0.5474 mg fructose would be sweeter.
And the individual who simply tasted the fruit selected a piece of
fruit, which indicated upon testing that it had only 0.3567 mg fructose. Question is, which is really sweeter? The values (figures) in this particular
situation don’t mean much. What matters
is how the fruits tasted according to the taste buds of the individual who is
going to make the purchase.
What’s
the point? We need to be certain that our data dictate the mode of
analysis we should employ. It is not as
if we set out to do quantitative research and stick by that in spite of the
presence of significant data (that could actually influence your conclusions)
that may not be explainable through quantified techniques. You can’t say in final terms that in
development communication we are post modernists, not positivists, or the other
way around. In trying to understand the
development issues that we deal with, we employ multiple methodologies in order
to arrive at the best interpretation of issues so we can arrive at the most
appropriate approaches to resolve the issues.
That could either be positivist orientation or post modern
orientation. We move back and
forth. I guess what I’m also trying to
say is that we can’t do well in qualitative research unless we as well have mastered
the techniques of quantitative analysis.
Perhaps
a mistake that many commit is that they pigeon-hole themselves into one single
methodological orientation. To say the
least, this could easily lead to serious miscalculations in the application of
communication principles and theories to the resolution of development issues.
The
Function of Devcom in Education
During
the CDCEPP Conference, another issue raised was, “should we in devcom now focus
on formal education or remain in nonformal education?” I must admit that the point is not clear to
me. Still, let me endeavor to clarify my
own personal position on what I believe is the issue at hand.
In
the past, it wasn’t difficult for us to say that when it comes to education we
in the field of development communication were operating within the parameters
of nonformal education. Formal education
is the area of educationists. I think
that a possible source of confusion would be the sources of influences in the
development of the idea of devcom in its early beginnings. In my discussion of the devcom-corporate
communication-masscom contagion, I pointed out that devcom was basically
influenced by agricultural journalism, educational communication technology,
and advertising.
To
be sure, devcom principles and techniques are, indeed, applicable in both
formal and nonformal education processes.
After all, like I have said in the conference, communication is, all
other things being equal, the catalyst of all human activities. How can devcom apply in formal
education? We can employ devcom
principles and techniques in making content better understood by the learner. And that’s it. We can’t change content. We can only facilitate learning by
facilitating the communication process that goes on in formal education (as in
classroom instruction). In formal
education, communication becomes a tool of the learner, not content to be
learned, except in the case of communication being curriculum content.
Is
the confusion found in the area of educational communication? By definition, educational communication
refers to the application of communication in facilitating the educational
process. This is very clear in the
literature of educational communication and technology. If, on the other hand, our point of
discussion is the function of development communication in education, then
clearly we deal with the application of development communication as a tool to
facilitate the educational process. In
fact, over all, that’s what we do, to facilitate.
That
word is loaded, indeed.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment