Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Devcom Journey

FROM AGRICULTURAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION:
A PARTICIPANT-OBSERVER ACCOUNT

By

Felix Librero, PhD
Professor Emeritus, UPOU



I joined DAIC as a major student in 1965 when I enrolled in my first course, AgCom 10.  Then I was employed as DAIC student assistant, collating mimeographed farm news releases, in 1966.  I 1967, I was DZLB student assistant, serving as student radio announcer and news writer, and then as Station Supervisor in June 1968, after I graduated from UPCA.

DZLB’s history deserves a separate treatment, but for this account it must be put in context.  In 1962, Radio DZLB was conceptualized as an experimental rural broadcasting station for the UP College of Agriculture with the help of Visiting Professor William Ward and Bob Rounsavell, both from Cornell University.  To establish the radio station, UPCA was given a grant of US$2,700 from the Agricultural Development Council, Inc., which was then being funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.  DZLB went on its maiden broadcast on 2 August 1964, and the first voice heard over DZLB was that of Thor Orig, an undergraduate student of agricultural communications who was then active in stage plays and other cultural presentations of student fraternities.  At that time, Thor Orig was Student Assistant working with DZLB.  He had a very good radio voice. 

Some of the UPCA graduates who worked full-time with DZLB from 1964 onwards included Filipino pioneers in rural educational broadcasting like Romeo Gecolea, Ponciano de la :Paz, Sabina Fajardo, and Maximo Pabale (from 1964 to 1966),  Milagros Tetangco, Alicia Agudo, Antonio Frio, and Pedro Bueno (from 1967-1968), and myself from 1968 onwards.

How I started working full-time at DZLB was a strange story by itself.  When I finished my thesis in the Summer of 1968, DZLB’s Station Supervisor, Emma Henry, was planning to resign to pursue her interest in police work.  I waited for her to resign so I could apply for the vacated position.  When she finally resigned in April that year, the department couldn’t immediately hire her replacement because Emma had taken all her leave credits in cash, which meant the vacant position would be frozen until middle of June 1968.  So I decided to work with DZLB on full time basis without compensation from April to June 1968, and I got hired toward end of that year.  As I had been student announcer of DZLB earlier, I didn’t require much time to settle down with the chores at DZLB, and I became the one responsible for two regular programs in terms of researching, writing, and announcing said programs.   I wrote and delivered the daily news program and hosted a regular thirty-minute program titled Samut-Samot, Inc., which was a music-and-information program.  Then, of course, I had to coordinate and assist in the production and broadcast of other radio programs which were being aired in collaboration with other units of the College of Agriculture.  For three months, I was doing pretty much standard work in DZLB, although I was also dabbling as some kind of general assistant in the other activities of the Department such as in the production and circulation of the Radio Farm News, a farm and home news service provided by the department to media outlets like radio stations and newspapers in the country.

At the department level, while the department was still operating from the basement of the old library building it had began producing a news service called the Radio Farm News which was distributed to media outlets all over the Philippines.  When the department participated in the then special project of the UPCA called Rice Information Cooperative Effort (RICE) in 1965, it co-published with IRRI and the Department of Agriculture the Rice Production Manual, which became the “bible” of farm technicians of the Philippine agricultural extension service.
  
On October 30, 1968, at the Department level, the term “Information” in the original name of the department, Department of Agricultural Information and Communication (DAIC), was “edited” out and it became Department of Agricultural Communications (DAC).  The term “information” was deemed superfluous (Cadiz, 1979).  From the cramped basement of the old library building, where most of the initial work in agricultural communications were undertaken by the Los Baños-based pioneers in agricultural journalism, audiovisual communication, and extension publications,  DAC transferred (on November 3, 1969) to its new building (where it still stays today) near the main gate, across from the main UPLB Administration Building.  DAC shared the building with the Farm and Home Development Office (FHDO), then the extension arm of the UPCA.  At the time that DAC transferred to its new building, Dr. Nora Quebral was the department chair (1968-1970).  Then Dr. Juan F. Jamias became department chair in 1970-1971, and Dr. Thomas G. Flores, again, in 1971-1972 until he left for the University of Wisconsin to serve as Visiting Professor.  During that time, there were only the three of them that had PhDs and practically took turns in heading the department, although Ely Gomez had returned in 1969 from Michigan State University with a PhD in educational media.

Dr. Quebral again became department chair from 1972-1976, during which time many changes in the department occurred.  For one, DAC reorganized into three sections, namely: audio-visual communication section, broadcast communication section, and print communication section.

Earlier on in 1969, Glenn Paje came in as student assistant, and the following year Lolita Vega joined the station (from the Department of Entomology where she was Research Assistant) first as research assistant and later as program host, taking over the chores of Alysh Arejola when she left DZLB.  Many people joined DZLB for some time when they were starting their professional lives or in the process of enriching their professional lives.  Those who did creative work at DZLB included Felimon Barral, Lynn Malilin, Paul Manalo, Epitacia Calatrava, Milagros Sandoval, Noel Cartas, and Myra Beltran, who all joined DZLB during the 1970-1974 period. 

On December 9-10, 1971, a symposium with the theme “In Search of Breakthroughs in Agricultural Development” was held at UPLB in honor of Dr. Dioscoro L. Umali, who was then the Deputy Director-General for the Far East of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.  In that symposium, Nora Quebral presented her seminal paper titled “Development communication in the agricultural context” wherein she introduced to the public for the first time the term “development communication” (Quebral 1971; 1988).  Quebral made it clear in that paper that to her development communication was to be treated as science, so all the tasks associated with communicating development-oriented issues were based on rigorous scientific inquiry.  This was a strong argument for undertaking rigorous research in the field of communication even if it was, at that time, limited to agricultural and rural development efforts.  It would be safe to assume that Quebral’s enunciation of development communication may have greatly contributed to the intellectual transformation of  DAC staffers from a bridled focus on rural and agricultural development efforts to a wider development horizon that “makes possible greater social equality and the larger fulfillment of the human potential.”   

It should be borne in mind, however, that when Quebral introduced development communication, initially as a marriage between the twin concepts of development and communication, she did it at a time when the concept of development was pervasive in both the developed and developing world.  Dudley Seers’ article titled “The Meaning of Development” which became one of the “bibles” of graduate students at UPLB and the staff of DAC, was published in 1969.  Around that time, too, the Club of Rome published its book titled “The Limits to Growth.”  There was also Gunnar Myrdal’s “Asian Drama” that came off the press in the middle-sixties.  During the second half of the sixties, UPCA was host to visiting professors from Cornell University under the UP-Cornell Program, who became active, together with UPCA professors, in promoting the concept of national development, particularly through socio-economic development programs.  It was under this academic ambiance at Los Baños that Quebral introduced the concept of development communication, which fitted perfectly in the efforts of government, the academe, and international aid agencies.  It was, so to speak, an idea that has come of age.  From the point of view of this writer, that was perfect timing for a perfect idea.

In 1972, the Radio Farm News (RFN) was reconceptualized and split into two services: Development News Service (DNS), and the Development News Digest (DND).  The DNS continued to carry crisp news items about research results and other new modern farming developments from UPCA, while the DND, which began circulating in April 1973, carried feature articles about how research results were influencing the farming practices in the Philippine country sides.  These news services, including the Rice Production Manual, continued to be published by the department, but such function was transferred in 1980 to the Philippine Council for Agricultural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD).

In the same year, 1972, the Master of Science (agricultural communications) program, which was first offered in 1965, was upgraded to  MS (development communication).  With this program, a number of graduate students began flocking to Los Baños.  The first batch of graduate students in development communication who were from outside of UPCA came in as graduate assistants with teaching functions starting in 1973 included: Patricia Sto. Tomas, Esther Manigque, Rosita Valencia, Madeline Mag-uyon, and Antonio Moran.  Having completed their master’s degrees, they ultimately left the department for their respective professional calling (in 1976 Sto. Tomas transferred to the Department of Labor to join the staff of then Secretary Blas Ople; Manigque withdrew in 1978 from the academe to care for her ailing mother and she ultimately in the early 80’s succumb to cancer; Valencia went for her PhD in 1979 and ultimately migrated to the US; Moran joined the UP Mindanao in the mid-80s; and only Mag-uyon (now Suva) has stayed with the department (now College) until today.    


Development Journalism and SANDIWA

Agricultural journalism was a popular field of study in the Land Grant colleges of the US in the 60s.  It came as no surprise that agricultural journalism was to be one of the focuses of extension education and agricultural communication in Los Baños.   In fact, it was agricultural reporting and feature writing that became the first skills undergraduate students in agricultural communications learned with some level of mastery, both for radio and the newspapers.  Agricultural journalism was part of print communication which was one of the three major areas in agricultural communications, the two others being community broadcasting and audiovisual communication.  Naturally, with the introduction of development communication in the early 70s as the main area of study, agricultural journalism became development journalism.  During that time, too, the field of development journalism was also a new area of professional practice being espoused by the Press Foundation of Asia through its news service, DEPthnews, highlighting the areas of development, economics, and population as the new beats in news reporting.  DEPthnews was also part of the international network of news services focusing on developmental issues that was being sponsored by UNESCO at that time, which included the Tanjug News Service of Yugoslavia, the Bernama News Service of Malaysia, among others.

A few years earlier in 1967, Elinora Moral, already with a Master of Arts degree in journalism, was recruited Instructor, and Carmencita Navarro,  English major graduate from UP, Diliman was recruited as editor.  The following year, Navarro transferred to the International Rice Research Institute.  Moral became active in agricultural journalism and then development journalism.  When the Department of Agricultural Communications transferred to its new building in 1970, the young faculty of the department began conceptualizing a community newspaper that could demonstrate the principles and skills being learned by development journalism students,  working seriously to be able to demonstrate their expertise in the media triumvirate of the newspaper, radio, and audiovisual media. 

About October of 1971, five faculty and staff (comprised of Elinora Moral, Ponciano dela Paz, Pedro Bueno, Antonio Frio, and Felix Librero) of agricultural journalism and farm broadcasting brainstormed on the possibility of starting a weekly community newspaper as an outlet for farm information in tandem with DZLB.  Picking up from the philosophical orientation of development communication, the group decided  to coin the name Sandiwa, from the Tagalog terms isang diwa (one soul).  Moral became the Editor and I became an active columnist, writing the print version of my Balitang Pambukid (Farm News) radio program.  Sandiwa came out with its maiden issue in January 1972.   Through the efforts of the young faculty of development communication, SANDIWA’s readership spread to the provinces of Laguna, Batangas, Cavite, and Rizal. 

The following  year 1973, the PhD in development communication program was approved by the UP Board of Regents.  Then, on March 11, 1974, the Bachelor of Science in Development Communication (BSDC) was also approved, thereby completing the three-tiered formal education in development communication in Los Baños, the first such set of programs in development communication worldwide (Cadiz, 1979; Quebral, 1988).  Finally, the inevitable had to follow.  On March 28, 1974, UP’s Board of Regents approved the renaming of DAC to Department of Development Communication (DDC).  Cadiz (1979), reviewing the department’s history, said, “The transformation signified the culmination of the department’s almost 20 years of experience in extension-communication, an experience that brought about a widened understanding of the meaning of development and the crucial role of communication in advancing development” (p. 84).  For a young professional who was just introduced to the concept of social development in a Third World setting, the transformations of the 70s were of profound significance. 

When Martial Law was declared on September 21, 1972, Radio DZLB voluntarily went off the air.  As Radio Station Supervisor, I had to personally supervise the silencing of the radio station to avoid physical closure by the Philippine Constabulary.  I personally had to demagnetize all our canned programs on that day (Sunday) and told the technician not to turn on the transmitter anymore.  Our Station Manager, then, was Ponciano de la Paz, and he was stranded in Marikina, Rizal.  The only radio stations allowed to operate then were the stations belonging to the government network.  However, we continued to publish Sandiwa, and, in the Summer of 1973, a huge regional development journalism conference was held in Los Baños in collaboration with the Region IV Office of the Ministry of Public Information.  During that conference, the MPI-Region IV made an offer that the Department of Development Communication could not refuse, to take over the publication of Sandiwa.  As usual, we of Sandiwa were operating as academics with only the  good intensions of development journalism as an academic field of study in mind, so the Department turned over publication of Sandiwa at the start of 1974.  We of Sandiwa had our own doubts about this transaction, but we probably silently agreed that if we wanted Sandiwa to continue publishing then it must have some sure funding, which was something UPCA could not provide.   Unfortunately, it folded up after only two quarterly issues.  In each of those two issues, it was clear that about 70% of content was in direct support of the Martial Law government but was passed as developmental issues, while about 30% was focused on real developmental issues such as those about population, economic development in the country sides, and health and nutrition. 

Sandiwa was a very good concept, but it came out when the Martial Law regime was scouting for an appropriate media project to help legitimize its existence.  Development journalism, through Sandiwa, was a good promotional strategy for the Martial Law government and became a powerful argument for the critics of development communication who had been claiming that devcom was nothing but government propaganda of the Martial Law government of the Philippines. 


Development As Focus for Communication Studies

In the past, informal categorization of areas of specialization in development communication was expressed in terms of the research one undertook for a thesis.  In the absence of a better parameter, this may be used as a yardstick to provide a general idea of where graduates of development communication believed they had critical advantage over their peers in mainstream communication.

From 1963 to 1974, the graduates were agricultural communications major and their respective theses would show that they studied mostly the use of extension media and their variations.  From 1975 onwards, however, when the BSDC was already offered and the three major areas of community broadcasting, development journalism, and audiovisual communication, the nature of undergraduate theses being undertaken by students started to spread out to concerns not purely agricultural, such as community nutrition, sanitation, family planning, deforestation, and the like (Maslog, 1988).  As the graduate program in development communication strengthened, so did efforts in the analysis of the role of communication in the development process.  Development models became popular frameworks for the in-depth study and analysis of the role of communication in the planning and implementation of development programs in the country.



Communication as Art/Science: The Debate

Development communication was clearly defined by Quebral (1971) as the “art and science of human communication applied to the speedy transformation of a country and the masses of its people from poverty to a dynamic state of economic growth that makes possible greater social equality and the larger fulfillment of the human potential.”  This formal definition has been taken both literally and figuratively by experts in the twin areas of development and communication, sometimes in combination with one another, and frequently independently. 

The discussion as to whether Devcom was art or science, even if it was clearly enunciated in the Quebral definition, did not stop.  The debate even became more lively with the administrative developments on the Los Baños campus in the early 1970s when Proclamation No. 53 was issued by Malacañng on March 5, 1972 creating the University of the Philippines System, with UPCA becoming the first autonomous campus of the UP System.  UPCA became known as the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB).  Immediately, the then UPCA was reorganized and many of its departments were elevated into colleges.  One of these was the Department of Humanities, which became the College of Arts and Sciences. 

Immediately after the reorganization of the UPCA to the UPLB, the then Department of Agricultural Communications, which was still part of the College of Agriculture, submitted its curricular proposal for a four-year BSDC, which was approved in March the following year.  It is difficult to pin down on individuals certain events that transpired during the interim period because there are no existing documentary evidences.  Suffice it to say, however, that there was a proposal for an AB in Devcom (privately believed by many to have been formulated by two faculty members of the Department of Agricultural Communications) which was being considered by the newly set-up Department of Humanities in the new CAS. 

It was not as if there was completely no basis for the idea of offering an AB program in development communication.  It should be noted that at UPCA, student organizations (fraternities and sororities) were very active promoters of cultural life through regular and frequent theatrical productions of both Shakespearian and Filipino stage plays.  In other words, many students already studying at UPCA were arts-oriented, and their number was steadily increasing.  Private conversations with those believed to be  proponents of the AB in development communication proposal would point out to this trend as one of the more important bases for proposing to offer an arts-oriented development communication program in Los Baños. 

The idea of an AB in Development Communication curriculum, however, was earlier vetoed by the DAC with the belief that devcom should remain as science-oriented curriculum in communication based on the fact that it (devcom) was being developed as a social science rather than plainly arts program.  This generated lengthy and passionate debates. 

From a dispassionate point of view, however, we have raised the issue that devcom, whether or not it was art or science, was beside the point.  The more significant point that was being offered for discussion was the issue of why the need for two separate communication curricula in a small campus like UPLB which was known to be a campus for life sciences rather than social sciences or the arts.  This issue reached the discussions in the Social Science Commission created by then UPLB Chancellor Emil Javier to discuss the role of social science in the life of the UPLB as an academic institution.  The Commission did not deal squarely with the issue of the two communication curricula at UPLB, but it declared that the social sciences in Los Baños were treated as second class citizen.

The original proposal of an AB in Devcom was renamed AB Communication Arts, which became a banner program of the Department of Humanities in the new CAS.  The AB Comarts initially had two major areas: public speaking and expository writing.   In the mid-1970s, due to persistent requests from ComArts students, the Department of Development Communication decided to permit Comarts students to cross-enroll in the first four basic courses in devcom: introduction to development communication, fundamentals of development journalism, fundamentals of community broadcasting, and fundamentals of educational communication.  This raised the issue of how different these two programs were, which may be viewed from two points: vertical difference in terms of depth, and horizontal difference in terms of breadth.  Development communication runs deep in its commitment to development.   Here is what Quebral (1988) said in her foreword of her book in 1988:

Development communication has gone by some other tag in the past and may be called differently in the future.  Its present name could go out of fashion after a while.  Not likely to disappear, though, is the idea that underlies it: that the art of communication, infused by social science principles, can be consciously directed towards improving people’s lives.  This is the essence of development communication, regardless of how it is labeled or what else may be imputed to it.

While there may have been some sort of moratorium in the debates as to whether or not devcom was art or science from the late 80s to the present, one still feels the silent disagreements as well as commonality in concern among both the faculty and students of these two curricular programs.  Some of the faculty members of the Comarts Program were graduates of devcom in both the bachelor’s and master’s degree levels.  Some have even pursued their PhDs in devcom.  There is still wisdom in reviewing dispassionately the relationship between the two curricular programs.


The Growth Years of Devcom at Los Banos

The 1970s and the 1980s could easily be considered the growth years of devcom in Los Baños.  One must recall that Quebral introduced the term “development communication” for the first time in December 1971.  In a succession of events after that, the then department of Agricultural Communications was renamed Department of Development Communication in 1973, then the Bachelor of Science in Development Communication and the existing MS in agricultural communications was renamed MS in development communication both in 1974.  The PhD in development communication was first offered in 1977 (Librero, 1991).

The BSDC was designed to provide the students the opportunity to (BSDC Brochure as cited by Librero, 1991):

1.     acquire a theoretical base in the sciences and applied arts that underlie the study of human communication;

2.     learn practical skills in mediated and interpersonal communication;

3.     gain a basic grasp of the issues and problems of development in general and of the subject of development area in particular; and

4.     apply the concepts, principles and skills of communication to the solution of problems in a developing society.

On the other hand, the MS in development communication program “offers the students advanced training in the principles and practice of purposive communication for development,” while the PhD program “explores in depth and breadth the synergistic relationship between communication and development”  (MS in Development Communication and PhD in Development Communication brochures, respectively, as cited by Librero, 1991).

From 1982-1986, the then DDC implemented the first and so far only national R&D program in development communication titled A National Development Communication Research and Research-Based Information Utilization Program of the Philippines with funding from the Philippine Council of Agricultural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) of which Dr. Felix Librero was Program Leader.   Participants in this national program were UPLB, Central Luzon State University (CLSU), Central Mindanao University (CMU), and the Visayas State College of Agriculture (ViSCA), now Leyte State University (LSU).  Under this program, the department also initiated and published a low-cost journal called the Devcom Quarterly, which published articles, research reports, and essays from local and foreign authors.  Without institutional funding after 1986, however, Devcom Quarterly was ultimately turned over to the Philippine Association of Communication Educators (PACE) to become its official journal following the recommendations in 1987 of a review committee comprised of Drs. Quebral. Jamias, and Crispin Maslog, all senior faculty of the then Institute of Development Communication.  As following events proved later, the PACE published only two issues (1988 and 1989) under a different publication name before the publication went out of circulation due to lack of financial resources.

In November 1987, the then Department of Development Communication was elevated to the Institute of Development Communication, still under the UPLB College of Agriculture.  During that time, DDC was acknowledged, at least informally, by the Philippine Association of Communication Educators (PACE) as having the strongest faculty of communication in the Philippines, one reason the UP Board of Regents approved its elevation to the IDC.  There were 23 members of the DDC/IDC faculty with almost a 50-50 gender distribution and the following proportion in terms of graduate training: 11 in-residence with PhD degrees, 10 in-residence and two affiliate faculty with PhD degrees (Maslog, 1988).  All members of the non-teaching staff of IDC at that time have earned at least a master’s degree. 

In 1988, the IDC, conceptualized and implemented a summer internship program for its graduating students majoring in community broadcasting.   Through the efforts of Felix Librero, then IDC Director, the German Foundation, Freiderick Ebert Stiftung (FES), became involved in this program by providing IDC with partial funding for 1989 to open up the broadcasting internship program to graduating communication students, particularly those majoring in broadcast communication, from other educational institutions in the Philippines. 

This was a highly successful program, judging from the number of interns (a total of 15) from other educational institutions (10 schools) all over the Philippines that enrolled, however the Institute could not sustain the financial resources required after the two-year FES funding assistance was completed.   The internship program was comprised of 120 hours of guided training in the entire process of community broadcasting with the following components:

1.     Review of Concept and History of Radio Broadcasting
2.     Overview of Community Broadcasting
3.     Radio Program Conceptualization
3.1.                  Generating a program idea
3.2.                  Designing various radio program formats

4.     Program Production
4.1.                 Script writing
4.2.                 Program construction
4.3.                 Actual program broadcast

5.     Program Monitoring and Evaluation
5.1.                 Conducting a listenership campaign
5.2.                 Formative evaluation of radio program broadcasts
5.3.                 Content adjustment based on feedback information
5.4.                 Summative evaluation of radio program

During the same period, IDC also conceptualized and implemented another program, the publication of the IDC Monograph Series and the IDC Faculty Papers Series, also with initial FES funding.  Again, when the funding assistance was completed, these programs could not be sustained given the available budget of IDC at that time.  Two issues of the IDC Monograph Series were:

Barroga, Serlie and Ely D. Gomez.  The Agenda-Setting Function of Selected Philippine Newspapers in a rural Setting (MS Thesis of Barroga).

Casal, Ma. Stella L.; Centurion, Diosnel, Fr.; and Gomez, Ely D.  Communication Roles of the Catholic Church (MS thesis of Casal and Centurion).

The lone issue published under the IDC Faculty Papers Series was:

            Jamias, Juan F.  Understanding Development Communication Today.

In 1999, the Institute of Development Communication was finally elevated to its current status, the College of Development Communication, with the following objectives (proposal submitted to the BOR, 1998):

1.     Provide higher education for students who will pursue careers in development communication practice, teaching and research;

2.     Investigate the interrelationships between human development and the processes and structures of communication with emphasis on research that promotes equity, empowerment, environmental sustainability, peace, and human rights; and

3.     Undertake training, advisory and action programs that help build up the resources and communication capabilities of people, communities, institutions and other participants in the development process.

It should be noted that when the UP Board of Regents approved the elevation of the IDC to the College of Development Communication (CDC), it had the following academic staff complement: 23 full-time, in-residence (12 with PhDs, 9 with MA/MS, and 2 with BS degree); 9 part-time or Affiliate faculty (7 with PhDs and 2 with MA/MS degrees).  The new College also had seven (7) individuals who were considered “under study” as potential teaching staff.  Over-all, in 1998, CDC had in its faculty 19 with PhDs, 11 with MA/MS degrees, and 2 with Bachelor’s degrees, for a total of 32 warm bodies that were performing teaching functions, still considered the strongest faculty of communication in any educational institution in the Philippines then. 

 Perhaps one of the most significant milestones in the life of the CDC so far was when it was designated in 1999 by the Commission on Higher Education of the Philippines as one of two Centers of Excellence in Communication in the Philippines.  On top of this, the BSDC is the model curriculum in development communication that is being copied in other tertiary educational institutions throughout the country as well as in other developing countries (CDC Brochure, 2008).  Besides, in 2008, the CDC published the maiden issue of the Philippine Journal of Development Communication, becoming effectively a continuation of the research publication efforts of the previous departments starting with the Devcom Quarterly, then to the IDC Monograph and Faculty Papers Series, and finally to the Philippine Journal of Development Communication.  Indeed, this publication pattern might be likened to the institutional-structural development pattern of devcom beginning with the OEP, DAIC, DAC, DDC, IDC, and finally to the CDC.  In other words, none among the major and minor events in the history of development communication in Los Baños could be treated independently of other events.  All are chronologically interrelated when put in appropriate context.


Enrollment Trend in Devcom

Enrollment trend on a decade-basis, from the 1960s to the last decade shows a continuing climb even if there may be slight shifts within the decade.  The decade’s enrollment peak was during the school year 2003-2004, when there was the largest undergraduate enrollment of 1,685 during the decade.  Graduate enrollment peaked at 136 during the school year 2005-2006.  The enrollment trend for the last decade is shown in Table .

Table   .  Aggregate enrollment, UPLB-CDC, 2001-2010*.
School, Year
Undergraduate
Graduate
Total
2000-2001
1,259
67
1,326
2001-2002
1,467
67
1,534
2002-2003
1,607
91
1,698
2003-2004
1,685
117
1,802
2004-2005
1,644
133
1,777
2005-2006
1,601
136
1,737
2006-2007
1,463
114
1,577
2007-2008
1,350
117
1,467
2008-2009
1,454
99
1,553
2009-2010
1,512
82
1,594
*SOURCE: UPLB-CDC Secretary’s Office.

It may be noted that while the enrollment figures are certainly encouraging, historically there has not been any active student recruitment undertaken by the College of Development Communication.  Therefore, one might surmise that promotion of devcom as a field of study has been mainly through word of mouth.

As of 2010, the full-time and part-time faculty complement of the CDC has the following profile:

Table   .  Full-time faculty members, UPLB-CDC as of 2010 (actual head count).

Name
Academic Rank

Degree

Field

Institution
1.     Albia, Joclarise E.
Instructor 6
BS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
2.     Balinos, Aiza M.
Instructor 2
BS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
3.     Cabrera, Liza A.
Asst. Prof. 1
MS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
4.     Canubas, Aletheia G.
Instructor 2
BS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
5.     Carpio, Lynette B.
Asst. Prof. 1
MS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
6.     Castillo, Hermilea Marie C.
Asst. Prof. 1
MS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
7.     Centeno, Edmund G.
Asst. Prof. 2
MS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
8.     Chico, Mark Lester D.
Instructor 2
BS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
9.     Custodio, Pamela A.
Asst. Prof. 5
PhD
Devcom
UP Los Baños
10. Custodio, Rhodora Ramonette D.
Asst. Prof. 2
MA
Masscom
UP Diliman
11. Dagli, Winifredo B.
Instructor 3
BS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
12. Daya, Rommel A.
Asst. prof. 1
MS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
13. Francisco, Rosa Pilipinas F.
Asst. Prof. 1
MS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
14. Flor, Benjamina Paula G.
Asst. Prof. 6
PhD
Devcom
UP Los Baños
15. Jamias, Serlie B.
Assoc. Prof. 4
PhD
Devcom
Macquarie Univ.
16. Lim, Aldo Gavril T.
Instructor 7
BS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
17. Maligalig, Jon Paul F.
Asst. Prof. 1
MS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
18. Montemayor, Garry Jay S.
Instructor 5
BS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
19. Osalla, Ma. Teresita B.
Asst. Prof. 3
MS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
20. Suva, Madeline M.
Assoc. Prof. 7
PhD
Comm.
U. of Wisconsin
21. Tatlongthari, Rosario V.
Asst. Prof. 1
MS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
22. Tirol, Ma. Stella C.
Assoc. Prof. 2
MS
Devcom
UP Los Baños
23. Torres, Cleofe S.
Professor 2
PhD
Ext. Com.
UP Los Baños
24. Velasco, Ma. Theresa H.
Professor 8
PhD
Devcom
UP Los Baños
25. Villar, Ricarda B.
Instructor 3
BS
Devcom
UP Los Baños

 
Table 2.   Part-time faculty members of UPLB-CDC as of 2010 (actual head count).

Name
Academic Rank
Highest Degree

Field

Institution
1.     Cadiz, Ma. Celeste H.
Assoc. Prof.
PhD
Ed. Tech.
Australian National Univ.
2.     Campilan, Dindo M.

PhD
Devcom
UP Los Baños
3.     Flor, Alexander G.
Professor
PhD
Devcom
UP Los Baños
4.     Lapitan, Julian A.




5.     Lumanta, Melinda F.
Professor
PhD
Comm
Michigan State University
6.     Magor, Noel P.




7.     Quebral, Nora C.
Prof. Emeritus
PhD
Comm
University of Illinois




References

Cadiz, Na. Celeste H. (1979).  Department of Development Communication.  Philippine Agriculturist, Vol. 62, Special Issue, pp. 78-85.

College of Development Communication Brochure.  (2008).  College, Laguna, Philippines: UPLB College of Development Communication. 

Librero, Felix.  (1991).  Contemporary thinking in development communication as expressed in the academic program: the case of Los Baños.  Proceedings of the Seminar on development Communication: Application and Prospects for the Asia-Pacific Region, Asia-Pacific Development Communication Center, Dhurakijpundit University, Bangkok, Thailand, December 16-18, pp. 9-14.

Maslog, Crispin C.  (1988).  The Institute of Development Communication, University of the Philippines at Los Baños.  Paper presented in the 2nd Meeting of the Research Committee, Press Foundation of Asia Survey of Mass Communication and Journalism Education in Asia, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, August 21-27.

Quebral, Nora C.  (1971).  Development communication in the agricultural context.  Paper presented at the Symposium on the theme :In Search of Breakthroughs in Agricultural Development” held in honor of Dr. Dioscoro L. Umali, December 9-10.

Quebral, Nora C.  (1988).  Development Communication.  College, Laguna, Philippines: UPLB College of Agriculture.

Sison, Obdulia F.  (1979).  The UPLB College of Agriculture turns seventy: some historical milestones.  Philippine Agriculturist, Vol. 62, Special Issue, pp. 1-56.




































Tuesday, December 29, 2015

A Very Significant Date

29-XII-15 
A Very Significant Date


“It was my fault that Lex and Nita did not receive anything from the proceeds of the sale of our properties in Itbayat, Batanes because I told Nana that we would not accept any share from it; that all of it should go to her,” thus said Kuya Flor in his explanation of what he said he was about to do for us, his siblings.  To be clear, we did have properties in Itbayat.  These comprised of a couple of parcels of agricultural farms in Riaxogay and Kasupitan, as well as a house and lot in the town of Itbayat.  These were inherited by our mother from her Ninang, our Lola Cela, who had practically adopted Nana Nitang. These properties, by any means, didn’t make our family well-to-do.  In fact, we worked these farms like hell so we could survive the harsh realities of life in Itbayat.  If one is not hard worker in Itbayat, one would not survive one minute even with large tracts of land to one’s name.  Too, one must understand that in Itbayat, Batanes owning a property means nothing if one isn’t ready to work it.  We could have had these farm lots, but if we didn’t work them we wouldn’t have survived.  Still, we were lucky we had these farm lots.  With hard work, we were able to survive the harshness of island life, dependent only on mother nature and hard work.  We had little use for money, by the way, but through hard work (hard labor, really) we did have enough food on the table, even if only kamote tubers and tops.

After completing our studies, we started working and we had practically migrated to Los Banos (my brother finished his studies at UPCA, so did I), and our sister finished her studies in Laguna.  When my brother finished his studies, he sent me to school (High School and College), and when I finished college and started working, I sent our sister to school (college).  That’s exactly how things had to work for us; that’s the value system we grew up in: those younger than us were our responsibilities.  We had fully accepted those responsibilities, we never complained.  Instead, we had to be thankful that we were able to get to where we were at.

The time had come to bring our mother to Los Banos to stay with us.  We knew we had come to the point where we would begin taking full responsibility for the welfare of our mother, who, as a single parent, raised us all within a demanding value system framework.  She had been highly successful, and we have not been able to thank her enough for that.  So it was that when she got to Los Banos, we told her in no uncertain terms that we were not going to take any share from the proceeds of the sale of properties in Itbayat, that she owned all of it and may do whatever she wanted to do with her money.  She has always lived a frugal life and every now and then, without our knowledge, she would spend for some gifts to her grand children.  Unfortunately, Kuya didn’t have any child and I had one.  This was perhaps another reason Kuya must have felt it a responsibility to share with us, his siblings, what he has been able to generate through the years.  Under the value system we were brought up, we always accepted the decision of those older than were were.  So, while I expressed concern and disagreement with Kuya’s decision to share his resources with Nita and myself, I was aware that Kuya has made his decision and so I had to accept that but with some suggestions.

A footnote to this: earlier on Kuya apparently had talked to Nana about the proceeds of sale of our properties in Itbayat, then Kuya told me about it later.  I completely agreed with him.

Anyway, Kuya has decided to give us a share from his share of the proceeds in the sale of Panyesanan.  I know that this was not a difficult decision for him because I know his basis, but I’m not so sure about Ate Aida.  Of course, the significant point is that they shared the proceeds right down the middle, 50-50, and each one responsible for his/her share.  Here, I’m not touching on what Ate Aida intends to do with her share because that’s her business.  I’m saying something about Kuya’s share because I’m party to it.  I am pleased however, that Kuya listened to me and has retained a larger proportion because he has a lot of expected expenses.  I really wouldn’t have made a fuss if he didn’t give me a share at all.  And I know my sister Nita thinks the same way.  But we accept Kuya’s decision because that’s how we were brought up.  And that’s that.

I’ll not talk about amounts here because I consider talking about these unethical and uncalled for.  Besides, we’re not talking here of figures anywhere close to that of  Bill Gates’ coins.   All I wish to share here is what I have decided to do with what I have no matter the amount.  First, some I have already decided to allocate for Jegs’ Mom’s health concerns, and I hope Jegs would agree with me that I need some amount (less than what I have allocated for the health benefits of her Mom) to complete the transfer of my son’s inheritance from me.  This is part of my responsibility and commitment and I haven’t been able to do this (I still have to discuss this with Jegs.  I do hope she agrees with me.  I shall not ask any more for myself.   The rest would go towards a residential abode or an investment, all of which will end up in the hands of Jegs, anyway.

When I’m gone, which I feel is sooner than later, I’ll not be able to leave much for Jegs, but she would have either a respectable abode, or a small investment package that would provide her enough elbow-room for her financial transactions.  We don’t have much right now but she’ll have all what we now have, including a car, which I already have put under her name.  The investment package will, sooner or later, be in her name.  If we decide to invest in a small house and lot, such holding will be hers when I'm gone.  Meantime, I will also live in the place.  But this is not for long anymore.


###

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Your Article Appeared in a Predatory Journal? That’s Become a Problem Now


At the UPOU, I’m a member of two committees at the university level: Committee on Professor Emeriti  and Committee on the UP Science Productivity System, both requiring stringent criteria that have something to do with scientific output.  The Committee on Professor Emeriti is responsible for the evaluation and  nomination of retiring faculty members with the rank of Professor 12 to the title of Professor Emeritus.  The Professor Emeritus title is for life.  The other committee that I’m a member of is responsible for the evaluation of faculty members to determine if they’re qualified to be nominated for the Award UP Scientist I, UP Scientist II, or UP Scientist III; or UP Artist I, UP Artist II, or UP Artist III. 

In evaluating the scientific or artistic outputs of the faculty members being considered for the Scientific Productivity Award, the UP Artist Award, and the Professor Emeritus Award, we look carefully at the scientific artistic publication outputs.  In other words, we take a look at books, book chapters, or journal articles published by the faculty member concerned in reputable publishers.  This has become a problematic matter beginning this year because the UP System has suddenly excluded articles published in what they have labeled predatory journals.  Why has this become a problem?

Predatory publication refers to various characteristics like weak review process, guarantees that an article would be published, the author paying a publication fee, and things like these.  We used to think of predatory journals as only those that charge publication fees, but there are more issues involved.  For example, the criteria that would identify a journal as predatory journal, or a publishing house as predatory publisher, include the following characteristics:

1.     Peer review procedure is weak or even non-existent.
2.     Board of Editors is comprised of unknown names in the field, or include names of known individuals without their permission, much less agree to become members of the editorial boards.
3.     The journal doesn’t have authentic address.
4.     The journal has an over-active promotion program, practically forcing individuals, researchers, or authors  to submit articles to the journal.
5.     The journal is usually not listed or even mentioned in the Journal Citation Report, which is usually through the Library.
6.     The journal has a high manuscript acceptance. rate
7.     The journal may be short-lived.
8.     The journal has an over-flattering characteristic such as high impact factor.
9.     The journal charges publication fee.
10. Little or no attention paid to digital preservation.

There are other characteristics, but these are the common ones.  Perhaps the most common among these is for authors to pay publication fee.  Very many journals do this, and this practice has even been bolstered by the proliferation of open access journals.  This phenomenon of open access started big time in 2002.  It is estimated that today, the number of open access journals has surpassed the 10,000 mark.  The number is probably much larger.  There are three models of open access publications (journals).

1.     Gold Model, which provides that the author pays for the publication of his article.
2.     Green Model, which means that the author shall self-archive all his previous articles published in open access repositories, and possibly make them available on request.  In other words, the journal has nothing to do with archiving the article it publishes.
3.     Platinum Model, which means that the publication is free for both author and reader, and is funded by an organization, institution, or other individual/s.

To the issue of whether or not the University of the Philippines should exclude any publication from predatory journals in its evaluation of scientific productivity of individual faculty members is really an internal matter.  My suggestion, however, is that the policy to exclude articles published in predatory journals from the evaluation of scientific outputs of the individual faculty member being considered for promotion or award  should not be applied now.  Maybe it could be applied next year,  in the next call for promotions. By then, the UP System would have completed its list of journals it considers predatory and any article published in such journals the UP shall not credit under its promotion or scientific productivity programs.  It is necessary that the UP has its own criteria for determining whether or not a journal is predatory.  Otherwise, it can use the list provided by legitimate societies or associations such as the Directory of Open Access Journals or the Open Access Scholarly Publications Association.  The list, regularly updated and published by Jeffrey Beall of Colorado State University, is controversial although used by many universities.  One of the criticisms against Beall is that it is apparent he has a bias against open access publications.  Beall’s list is commonly referred to as “black list” of journals, while those from DOAJ or OASPA is “white list,” which means they’re not predatory journals.

Just how serious is this problem in the academe?  Here are data from Jeffrey Beall. 

                    Year             No. of Predatory Publishers
                    2011                       18
                    2012                       23
                    2013                       225
                    2014                       477
                    2015                       693

The number of questionable stand alone journals:

                    Year             No.
                    2013             126
                    2014             303
                    2015             507

If anything, the number of predatory publishers as well as predatory open access journals have been increasing on a yearly basis, but the increase is largest in 2013.  In the case of stand alone journals (those that are not part of any organization or institution) Beall also reported that while in 2013 only 126 journals were questionable, this number increased to 507 in 2015.

There’s one point that needs to be discussed by all concerned individuals and institutions.  This is particularly important in the case of the University of the Philippines System.  Simply because an article was published in a “predatory” journal doesn’t necessarily mean the article per se is not of high quality.  Of course, the circumstances under which the article may have been published could be questionable.

Unfortunately, predatory publishing will not stop unless academics stop submitting their articles to these journals.  How about, “just leave them?”  Well, I wish it were as easy as that.
###


Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Flashback

In June 2004, I was invited to talk about the concept of open university at the 3rd National Research Conference in Education at the University of Santo Tomas.  I refined that paper and included it in my book, Distance Education in the Philippines, Issues and Concerns which was published by the UP Open University in 2008.  I wish to reproduce here my concluding statement in that paper because the ideas are as valid then as they are today. 

Here’s my concluding statement then:

Clearly, open learning, distance education, and the concept of the open university are rather old concepts in other parts of the world.  In the Philippines these are relatively new concepts, just beginning to take root in this country.  Still, those who feel they are innovative keep on pushing to establish open universities within their organizational set up.  They must be recognized for their forward-looking and innovative thinking.  However, I hope that they also realize there are wrong premises from which to proceed.  Let me clarify what I consider to be wrong premises:

1.     It is wrong to claim that you have an open university simply because you have announced so; and that you are offering one or a couple of courses, or even degree programs.  It is only in the Philippines where a unit of a university offers a course or a program and calls it open university.  It is also only in the Philippines where a university is subsumed under a college, as in the case of an open university under a state college.  Sometimes you have an open college under a school in a college.  I have been wondering where we are getting these ideas.

Let us abide by accepted international norms so we can be competitive worldwide.

2.     It is wrong to claim that we have well-prepared instructional modules for our distance students when all we have is a pamphlet, not designed for independent learning, and probably mimeographed years ago.  We are short-changing our students who pay good money for their education.  We may think that education is a business enterprise, and probably that may even be acceptable, but knowledge can hardly be bought.

If you want to offer open learning and distance education courses and even programs, train first your human resources and build up your expertise and non-human resources before you begin admitting students.  It should not be the other way around.

3.     It is wrong to enroll students in distance courses and do not provide them appropriate support services so that they can gain from the courses they enrolled in.  That, to me, is cheating, pure and simple.

If you want to offer courses in the distance mode, always provide for an efficient and effective student support services.  That is the heart of distance education.
4.     It is wrong for institutions of higher learning to offer academic degree programs in the distance education mode when their own conventional programs are not even good enough.  What makes them think that they can deliver quality education in the distance mode when they cannot even do so in the conventional mode?  Distance education is not easy.  It is also very expensive to prepare good instructional materials designed for distance education delivery.

If you want to offer courses in the distance mode, do an excellent job on your conventional programs first.  You can not hope to be good in distance education if you are not good in your conventional programs.  Pour enough resources into conceptualization, planning, course development, support services, and evaluation procedures.  Follow accepted standards of excellence and quality.

5.     It is wrong to offer programs in the distance mode when you do not have sufficient manpower, expertise, and resources to deliver them.  The moment you begin offering your courses you have a psychological contract with your students that will require you to continue offering the courses until the students complete their programs and earn their academic degrees.  If you are not ready to abide by that psychological contract, then don’t start it.

Develop a human resource pool who have acceptable levels of expertise in the theory, philosophy, and practice of open learning and distance education.  It is not enough to have one trained individual on your faculty, or to have simply visited the UK Open University.  Open learning and distance education are commitments that go way beyond mere compilation of lecture notes for distribution to students.  It is a calling, a philosophy, a way of life, a professional commitment and sometimes a sacrifice.


###

Sunday, July 12, 2015

UPOU Helps Conserve Culture Through Wood Carving


Ongoing at the new UPOU Community Hub Bldg. (8-15 July 2015) is a Wood-Carving Workshop, Wood Carving Competition and Artists’ Forum where 15 wood carvers (7 from Ifugao, 5 from Besi in Guagua, Pampanga, and 3 from Paete in Laguna) are actively participating. This is part of the series of activities in celebration of the 20th Anniversary of UPOU and UPOU’s celebration of World Wood Day. 






Theme of this workshop is “Wood and Humanity” and it highlights the crucial role of wood in ensuring a sustainable future. 

The most important aspect of this Project is the Wood Carving Competition, which shall be held on July 15th at the CCDL (Centennial Center for Distance Learning) at the UPOU Campus in Los Baños.




The Project, aptly titled Artists’ Workshop and Forum, has brought together the dwindling number of Filipino Wood Carvers to work with a couple of Chinese Master Wood Carvers from the IWCS.  According to Prof. Habito, Project Leader, the winner for this year’s competition shall be sponsored by the IWCS for a European tour to observe and study woodcarving techniques in other countries in Europe.



The Exhibit of the products or outputs of the workshop shall be at the Centennial Center for Distance Learning (CCDL), UPOU Campus in Los Baños.   It should be pointed out as well that the wood used by the wood carvers come from the huge trunks and branches of acacia trees uprooted by Typhoon Glenda on the campus of UPLB.




Incidentally, UPOU’s 19th Graduation Ceremonies shall be held on 25 July 2015, 5:00 pm, at the UPOU Grounds.  UPOU shall officially announce the graduation of 378 individuals who have completed all the requirements for graduation from 24 degree programs (FMDS, 10; FEd, 9; FICS, 5).

Thursday, July 2, 2015

UPLB Graduation Crossing Over to a New Dimension



Finally, after more than 40 years, UPLB is finally crossing over to a new dimension in its perennially perspiration-soaked or rain-soaked graduation ceremonies.  At UPLB, graduation ceremonies begin at 2:00 pm and usually finish at 7-8 pm.  And the graduates have to literally sweat it out under the heat of the afternoon sun, which, by the way, they have to face frontally as well.

Historically, UPLB graduates always either are soaked with their own perspiration or in a downpour.  For sometime now, there has always been talk about shifting to morning ceremonies, but this has not been agreed upon.  Except perhaps in the case of UP Mindanao, where the graduation ceremonies are held at dawn, graduation ceremonies at UP campuses are normally held in the afternoon or evening.

This year, the UPLB Graduation Ceremonies enters a new dimension – that of what I will call “sheltered graduation.”  The entire graduation ceremonies ground, in front of the DL Umali Auditorium – which is also called the DLU Freedom Park, is covered with huge roof.  This time, both the UPLB Administrators and faculty and the graduates will be sitting under the same roof.




I believe we have Chancellor Fernando C. Sanchez, Jr. to thank for.  Previous UPLB Graduations never had the DLU Freedom Park covered with plasticized roofing material during graduation ceremonies.  Previous graduates either had to literally sweat it out under the sweltering heat of an afternoon sun or be soaked in a huge downpour.



 To repeat, the UPLB Administration has installed a steel-framed roof protection in this year’s graduation ceremonies.  This is the beginning of a new dimension in the graduation ceremonies of the University.

Up until 1968, UPCA graduates had to join the graduation ceremonies at UP Diliman.  I was a member of Class 1968, the last class to participate in the graduation ceremonies in Diliman.  Then, the first graduation ceremonies at UPLB, I believe, were held in 1972 at the steps of the old Library (which, today, is the Department of Humanities).  For four years there were no graduation ceremonies (those were the height of activism at UP).

In the interim, after the completion of the Centennial Field House, I have wondered why graduations have not been held in that Field House (there was one held there sometime back, if I’m not mistaken). 


Back to this year’s graduation ceremonies.  This is a feat to beat in next year’s graduation ceremonies.  At the very least, many would expect the same, if not better, preparation for the UPLB Graduation Ceremonies next year.
###