I

THE "NEW DOMINANT PARADIGM" IN COMMUNICATION:

TRANSFORMATION VERSUS ADAPTATION

I Robi n Manse1 1

1 Simon Fraser Uni versi ty

The field of 'communication and development' research within the "dominant paradigm" has been subjected to criticism for several decades. It has been suggested that this criticism has led to significant transformations in theoretical perspective and methodological approach. The implication has been that research conducted within this tradition is finally on the road to making substantial contributions to the study of 'communication problems' as they have been de- fined by UNESCO and other international agencies concerned with promotion of communication stra- tegies in Third World areas.

In contrast to this optimism, an analysis of this "new dominant paradigm" indicates that the revitalized approach is, at root, little more than superficial revisionism. This conclusion can be supported at the theoretical level of debate and at the level of the usefulness of the new approach for analysis of real problems con- fronting agencies concerned with communication planning and implementation. The "new" approach remains unconcerned with the importance of the political, economic, and social context in which the process of communication development must take place.

The models and conceptual tools of those working within the "dominant paradigm" frequent- ly have been simply renamed. The shift in theoretical perspective has been so slight that it can be viewed as the result of political ex- pediency (although not necessarily with con- scious intent) rather than as a response to the content of criticism leveled against it.

The response to a continuous review process does not reveal a movement away from the re- strictive theoretical and methodological con- straints of the earlier models within the "dom- inant" tradition. The research questions that can be raised are still largely irrelevant or inapplicable to the real world of decision- making. Revisions to the "dominant paradigm" can be linked more fruitfully to the exigencies of international research organizations, and the role of U.S. research within this context.

The overwhelming dominance of U.S.-based models and perspectives applied to 'development problems' has been well documented. Lent (1980) has concluded that, "the United States designed a type of social science that fit its structural circumstance^"(^): while Kent (1980) has linked communication and development research to domin- ant U.S. political and economic priorities.(2) In the past ten years the "structural circum- stances" confronting the U. S. have changed. Representatives of Third World countries have obtained greater influence in international fora. Research models are no longer viable in their overt and explicit form which supported ideological perspectives concerning the 'free' flow of information, the 'neutrality' of tech- nology transfer, etc. In this changing environ- ment, other means of influencing the direction or outcome of communication and development research conducted through international agen- cies have become necessary.

Rather than relinquish influence, a revital- ized research programme has been developed. The "new paradigm" is less visibly in conflict with new orientations toward communication 'problems' in the development context. The contradictions are camoflauged by the adoption of new terminol- ogy and 'catch-phrases' sprinkled throughout the recent literature. Research proposals generated from within the "new" approach have an aura of

acceptability that is enhanced by their accommo- dation to the priorities of the international research community. Unfortunately, analysis shows that the "new" approach is capable only of reinforcing the objectives of the earlier 'com- munication and development' models.

2. Adapt ing t h e "Dominant Paradigm"

Changes that have taken place within the "dominant paradigm" can be traced over the past ten years. The early literature in the 'commun- ication and development' field, typified by the works of Lerner, Rogers, and ~chramm(~), is widely known. The representative works in this tradition can be broadened to include many others.(4) glthough this body of literature can be easily dismissed as atheoretical, atomistic, and ahistorical, its impact has been far- reaching in terms of the support it has lent to communication policy decisions and programme implementation.

The roots of the "dominant paradigm" which lay across many social science disciplines, went largely unquestioned by those working within the tradition. The ongoing debates within other disciplines as to the validity of theoretical and methodological perspectives were ignored. Economics provides a good example. The concept of 'development1 which found its way into 'com- munication and development' theory, was borrowed from neoclassical ideas concerning the dual economy and stages of economic growth, both of whict5yre and remain subject to severe critic- ism. This controversy does not appear in the comunication and development literature of the 1960s or 1970s.

The ideological perspective underlying the early works in this field was bound to a belief in the benefits of industrialization in a cap- italist economic system. The technological pro-

ducts of the industrial system were assumed to carry solutions to the political and economic problems experienced in "under-developed" re- gions or countries. The "problem" defined for research was to determine and measure beneficial economic, political, and social changes coincid- ing with industrial development and technologi- cal change. If the changes were not as ex- pected, the "problem" was attributed to the failure of the technological innovation rather than to characteristics of systems of institu- tional relations.

Another convenient locus of the "problem" was attributed to common cultural and psychological characteristics of individuals . ( 6 ) Attitude and behaviour changes, i.e., adoption of North American belief systems, values, modes of social, economic and political organization, were considered to be necessary and could be accomplished by exposure to communication tech- nology. The technology was to be used as a channel for transmission of messages containing 'modern' information. This was expected to change the traditional personality of the masses and, subsequently, their social and political organization. Systemic constraints that would prevent economic growth and development were overlooked.

The orientation of the 'communication and development' research was embodied in diffusion theory. Developed largely by ~o~ers,(7) it was designed to explain the contribution of communi- cation technology, hardware and software, to the process of economic growth. The transfer of technology was the key determining factor in the development process. Research was intended to contribute to an understanding of the process whereby traditional societies could 'catch up' to western monopoly capitalism. Technology, i.e., mass media, was seen as an exogenous

factor capable of causing or stimulating the kind of development that was considered accept- able.

The assumption underlying empirical correla- tional field research techniques went unques- tioned. Strong correlations between the intro- duction of communication hardware and economic, political, social and cultural change indicators were interpreted as evidence of probable causa- tion. Where correlations were low or negative, it was suggested that this was because of the limitations of the research tools. The possi- bility that a complex system of relationships was a contributing factor in the results was overlooked insofar as the appropriate approach to research required that these relationships, i.e., the context, should be held constant so that they would not influence the clarity of, or interpretation of, empirical data.

In summary, "The Diffusion model theorists argued that progess would be achieved through the spread of modernity to backward, archaic and traditional areas. Through the diffusion of technology and capital, these areas would inevitably evolve from a traditional society towards a modern state. "(*I

By 1976 the "dominant paradigm" in which com- munication technology was enshrined as the key to the entry of Third World nations as full participants in the largely American-dominated economic order, was said to have "passed". ( 9 ) The older approach was replaced by a focus on the development of telecommunication technol- ogies that would facilitate 'two-way' communica- tion. It was assumed that if 'one-way' comuni- cation promoted cultural, political, and econom- ic imperialism or dependency, then a different technological configuration could promote a redefined participatory development process.

This change in definition was said to have great theoretical significance. Those working within the "dominant paradigm" also argued that changing definitions of development accom- paniedW..the passing of the mechanistic view of communication as message-transmission based on a 'top-down' vertical structure. The role of com- munication, which was essentially to inform and influence people, was being revised and then proposed as a process of social interaction, through a b lanced exchange of information and experience". 410)

Some have gone so far as to liken these changes to the rev0 utionary paradigmatic crisis envisioned by Kuhn. t ' ' ) In the 'communication and development' field some of the indicators observed by Kuhn are present, e.g. "..the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamen- tals.~('~) However, in this case, this signi- fies an adaptation process rather than one of fundamental change.

Others have suggested that changes in the orientation of 'the "dominant paradigm" are the result of successive attempts to build a scien- tific discipline of communication. The deficin- cies of past research have been attributed to the youthfulness of the 'new' science. The task for the future has been described as:

The main challenge really lies in the realization of the third stage, the creation of a harmonic unity, of insti- tuting the theoretical and methodologi- cal elements into a coherent system and thus as erting the science of commun- ication. 713)

This analysis overlooks the fact that despite the 'age' of other social science disciplines, synthesis has been illusive. But more impor- tantly, this analysis assumes that the changes in the rhetoric reflect fundamental change.

3. A d a p t a t i o n versus T r a n s f o r m a t i o n

An examination of reformulations of theory and research within the dominant tradition clearly displays a lack of transformation. Empirical research that has been designed to examine the role of telecommunication technology in the development process provides one example. A pre-occupation with quantification and mea- surement of 'external' benefits has character- ized research in this area. The following quo- tation summarizes criticisms resulting from a comprehensive review of this literature that was conducted for the International Telecommunica- tion Union.

While there has been a growing body of research by those concerned with impro- ving economic development through com- munications technology since the late 1960s, theoretical and empirical research in this area is still very weak...The first group of studies, while provocative, have failed to pro- vide the type of evidence necessary for national planning and investment deci- sions particularly given the large cap- ital investments necessary for telecom- munications development...Case studies of individual projects and applications of communication indicate potential indirect benefits of telecommunication, but generally are not designed to con- trol for other factors and cannot safe- ly be generalized. The third group of studies typically show relationships between telecommunication and develop- ment indicators but do not answer the question of causality.( 14)

Despite these criticisms, the result has been an increased effort to build more sophisticated measurement tools. Renewed efforts are being

made to develop empirical data in the hope of influencing decisions to allocate financial resources for investment in communication facil- ities.

Research "problems" are defined by the need to establish solid evidence of direct cause- effect relationships between the availability of technology and changes in other factors. Analy- tic techniques borrowed from economics are being used to provide supposedly more definitive mea- sures of these relationships. Unheard, at least by those financing the studies, are the criti- cisms that econometric techniques that quantify social benefits and costs inevitably lead to circularity. The criteria chosen to define benefits and costs are at least as dependent on social, economic, and political factors, as the decisions to invest in technology. Also un- asked, is the question as to whether it is really necessary to demonstrate causality. Will decisions be altered assuming an eventual (though unlikely) demonstration of cause and effect relationships?

The questions raised for reseach avoid exam- ination of the dynamics of the economic and political context where decisions affecting policy implementation will occur. But, rather than recognize the inapplicability of the ana- lytical techniques, efforts are being made to incorporate temporal change within the existing methods. Costly, statistical time-series analy- sis of multiple variables have been suggested with the expectation that incentives for invest- ment in telecommunication services will be improved by the results of these studies.

It is assumed that if private industry does not enter a market, government 'aid' will be provided to meet communication policy objec- tives. Unfortunately, even the most sophisti- cated methodology will not alter institutional

constraints to communication policy implementa- tion, or further an understanding of them. This research fails to address the crucial question as to whose responsibility it is to ensure that services are available. The impact of the "new Paradigm" has not been felt in this area of research.

A recent paper by Rogers (1980) provides another representative illustration of research within the "New Dominant Paradigm". The adapta- tion response to criticism is evident here. Rogers describes the "new" perspective as fol- lows :

... Communication is conceptualized as a convergence process in which two or more individuals create and exchange informa- tion as they seek to reach a mutual understanding. The shift from linear to convergence models of communication must be accompanied by a different type of communication research. One example is network analysis, a method of research for identifying the communication struc- ture in a system, in which relational data about communication flows are ana- lyzed by using some type of interper- sonal relationship as the units of ana- lysis. ( 15)

To further underscore the importance of the "new" perpsective, Rogers paraphrases Bateson's conclusions concerning the erroneous treatment of information and communication as a physical entity. The view that, the "..The individual mind is an isolated entity, separate from the body, separate from other minds, and se arate from the environment in which it exists, -(P6) is no longer tolerated. We are lead to assume that the use of terminology, i.e., 'context', 'rela- tion' , 'environment' , ' system' , ' structure' , and

'exchange', etc., is a response to a recogni- tion of fundamental errors in previous theoreti- cal formulations .

However, when the incentives for change are examined more closely several points can be raised. Concepts such as 'context', 'environ- ment', and 'relation' have not been sprung upon an unsuspecting North American academic milieu. If an incentive to look beyond the boundaries of 'communication and development' had existed, researchers would have found that co-incident with the ascendency of S-M-R models in the 1960s, Bateson was lecturing on the character- istics of a very different theoretical model for communication. For example, in 1959, Bateson can be quoted as follows:

The hypothesis...assumes that what occurs within the narrow context.. .will be affected by the wider context within which this smaller one has its being... Our hypothesis...is focussed precisely upon the determining relations between larger and smaller contexts...The dif- ference between the Newtonian world and the world of communication is simply this: that the Newtonian world ascribes reality to objects and achieves its simplicity by excluding the context of the context...excluding an infinite regress of such relationships. In con- trast, the theorist of communication insists upon examing the metarelation- ships while achieving its simplicity by excluding all objects .( 17)

The importance of 'relations' and 'context' can if one wishes, be traced at least back to Marx's writings in 1845 .(I8) These concepts were not previously undiscovered, but rather they were ignored. It is more convincing to argue that the current shift in conceptual labelling is the

result of incentives that have little connection with the theoretical premises of models of com- munication that have evolved parallel to those within the "dominant paradigm".

Several significant features characterize the "New Paradigm". When taken together they reveal the superficiality of the changes in both theory and practice. The new approach is described as "holistic". ( 19) An holistic or pattern modeling perspective has an attraction for those attempt- ing to break the rigidities of the "scientific method". But, despite greater flexibility rela- tive to strict empiricist methods the holistic perspective does not magically relieve the re- searcher from concerns as to the definition of relevant research questions. This alternative methodological perspective and its practical ap- plication emerges as much from the researcher's subjective perception of those factors that should be considered as parts of the whole as traditional methodologies. Some parts may be neglected, others subordinated, and relations between them misrepresented.

4. The "New Dominant Paradigm" -- I m p l i c a t i o n s

What are the consequences of the application of the "new" model for the analysis of 'communi- cation and development' issues? The model serves to effectively mask the nature of commun- ication relationships in the development con- text. This point can be illustrated through the following examples. The "new" perspective re- cognizes the "interdependency" of communication- a1 relationships. However, no allowance is made for incorporating dependency relationships with- in the context of inter-dependency. Attention is deflected away from one of the central factors affecting communication relationships that exist between First and Third World coun- tries. This criticism applies regardless of whether the model is used in the analysis of in- terpersonal or institutional relationships.

Communication is defined as "a process in which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding" .(20)

The assumption built into the model is that communication relationships are inherently mu- tually beneficial and positive, and that they are entered into voluntarily by all partici- pants. Clearly, the reality of communication relationships in the context of international relations has not been characterized by this assumption.

The communication process is viewed as one of reaching a consensus, i.e., convergence which forms the basis for collective action.(21j The model, therefore, implies mutual causation and reciprocity, i.e., having the same relation each toward the other or others. The omission of crucial factors that characterize real com- munication relationships is again evident. If a relationship is reciprocal and balanced, it is not one of dependency. The existing imbalances in political and economic power and authority in decision-making related to communication and development are assumed away. Research built from a model with this foundation cannot focus on critical analysis of institutional relations. Thus, factors that contribute to the maintenance of existing imbalances must be left unquestioned and unexamined .

While the "new" model does permit partic- ipants in communication relationships to be regarded as active,(22) the sum total of its effect is to neutralize and deflect critical analysis of real relations between those partic- ipants. The new model retains most of the major problems associated with the older version. The assumptions underlying linear models cannot be removed by simple addition of one or more dimen- sions, i.e., feedback loops and temporal rela- tions. The "noise" or inaccuracy of the old

model was not primarily attributable to a fail- ure to study 'two-way' relationships, it was to the omission of the socio-economic and polict- ical content in which these relationships occur. The new model adds together a number of isolated 'sender-receiver' relationships, but the process of reaching semantic and/or pragmatic consensus is still not subjected to analysis in terms of the locus of power that determines the interpre- tation of the relationship.

The ideological premise of the 'free' flow of information remains implicit in the new models. It does not incorporate, either theoretically or methodologically, factors that constrain commun- ication. Central factors relevant to communica- tion in the international development context are avoided. The new model adheres to the con- cerns of its forerunner, i.e., how does the communication structure affect the rate and choice of adoption of innovations? It is the "Diffusion Model" in new clothes.

Another indication of the superficiality of the changes in the "New Paradigm" is the absence of any recognition of "Dependency Theory". Many theorists have argued that the institutionalized structure of communication technology and infor- mation flows has created dependent relationships between First and Third World countries.(23) Despite many disagreements among dependency theorists, few would disagree that research is needed to break the strength and direction of these relationships. The call for a New World Information and Economic order provides an ex- ample of this consensus. The "New Paradigm" cannot contribute to the analysis of this 'problem'. Its results can do little more than inform those with an incentive to engage in technology transfer as to the optimum method of achieving the desired impact regardless of their objective.

In summary, the "new" model does not provide access to further conceptual clarity or insight into systemic factors that constrain development processes. Rogers suggests that the new per- spective can be usefully applied to questions such as "What is the role of community-level groups and networks in participatory communica- tion for development?" However, although net- work analysis may produce descriptively precise maps of communication patterns, it cannot sug- gest answers for the removal of barriers con- fronting participants in communication pro- cesses.

5. The Locus o f t h e I n c e n t i v e f o r Adaptat ion

There is clearly more to the shift in the "Dominant Paradigm" than recognition of faulty theoretical premises. As mentioned above the explanation lies in the fact that the old models are no longer politically acceptable. Expedi- ency requires that the research proposed in the 'communication and development' field at very least adopt the terminology sanctioned by inter- national research agencies such as UNESCO and the newly created International Programme for the Development of Communication.

Changes in international communications plan- ning and policy objectives and their manner of expression began to appear in U.N. documents as early as 1969. For example, the Montreal UNESCO meeting in 1969 recommended that international studies of the "present and future effects of communication on relations between changing societies and social groups.., be under- taken" .(24) In 197 1, the "Proposals for an International Programme of Communication Research" stated bluntly: "We do not wish to add further to the many discrete piles of unin- tegrated data which litter the communication research field".(25) In 1976, at the UNESCO General Conference at Nairobi, it was concluded

that: "in the past, the role of communication in human society was seen essentially as to in- form and influence people. It is now being proposed that communication should be understood as a process of social integration through a balanced exchange of information and experi- en~e".(~~) Although these statements reflect compromises, by 1976 the shift in both terminol- ogy and objectives was well underway. Is it merely coincidental that the "Dominant Paradigm" "passed" in the same year?

6. Conclusion

The rhetoric of the "New Dominant Paradigm" parallels that adopted by International agen- cies concerned with communication and develop- ment. This in itself is not particularly sig- nificant. The significance lies in the impact that the application of this "new" model will have on the international research community. Further in depth analysis will undoubtedly show that the incentive for these changes arises primarily from the need to avoid outright rejec- tion by research funding agencies. As the revi- sions to both theory and method are superficial, it can be expected that research within this tradition will support unexamined multilateral and bilateral aid for communication technology transfer. The impact of the "New Dominant Par- adigm" will be to support and contribute to the maintenance of existing dependent relationships in the communication sector.

A more detailed assessment of the impact of this "new" model, would entail analysis of the research funded through a selection of inter- national agencies. It would also be necessary to examine how the results of such research are linked to the production of communication tech- nology marketed to Third World countries. Does the research serve to legitimate communication projects that are contrary to the objective ap- proved by international communication agencies?

Communication technology transfer projects provide a useful focal point for this kind of research. Large scale projects usually involve a multitude of agencies concerned with various aspects of needs assessment, project evaluation, research and development, production, marketing, etc.

Finally, it must be recognized that the "Dominant Paradigm" has not passed, and that it should not be ignored. Important questions arising within the changing international commu- nication context will remain unanswered if re- sources supporting research are allocated in substantial part to studies within this tradi- tion. The contradictions between the explicit objectives of international communication agen- cies, and at least some of the research that they finance require further study. Myrdal has said that "We never face a random lack of know- ledge. Ignoranc like knowledge is purpose- fully directed". ?j7) The factors contributing to the specific direction of research in the 'communication and development' field represent a useful area of study.

7. References

1. Lent, John, A. "Communication Research in the Third World: Removing the Ideological Tints, Methodological Snobbery and Vested Interest? -- A Literature Review." Paper presented at IAMCR, Caracus, Venezuela, 1980.

2. Kent, Kurt, E.M. "Ethical Issues in Inter- national Communications: The Contributions in Research." in Nobliza C. Asuncion-Laude. ed., EthicaZ Perspectives and CriticaZ Issues i n IntercuZtumZ Comunication. Falls Church, Va: Speech Communication Associa- tion, 1980, p.38-42. See also, Schiller, H.

"Waiting for Orders --Some Current Trends in Mass Communication Research in the United States." Gazette, 1, p.11-21.

3. See Lerner, D. The Passing of the Tmdition- a2 Society: Modernization i n the f iddle East. N.Y. Free Press, 1958; Rogers, E.M. Modernization Among Peasants N.Y. : Holt , Rinehart and Winston, 1969; Schramm, W. Mass Media and National Development. California: Stanford University Press, 1964.

4. Among many authors that may be included in the "dominant paradigm" are the following: Hagan, E. On the Theory of Social Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962; Hudson, H.E. and Parker, E.B. "Telecommuni- cations Pl-anning for Rural Development". IEEE Tmnsactions on Communication. Com 23:10, 1975; Inkeles, A. and Smith, D.H. Becoming Modem: Individual Change i n Six Developing Countries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974; Lerner, D. The Pass- ing of Tmditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. N.Y.: Free Press, 1958; Pye, L. ed. Communications and Pol i t ical Develop- ment . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963; Yu, F.T.C. "Communication Policy and Planning for Development: Some notes on Research" in Lerner, D. and Nelson, L.M. eds. Comunication Research --A Half- Century Appmisal. Honolulu: The University of of Hawaii, 1977.

5. See for example, Myrdal, G. The Challenge of World Poverty. London: Penguin, 1970, and Dos Santos, T. "The Structure of Depend- ence". American Economics Association, 60, 1970, pp.231-236.

6. Inkeles, A. and Smith, D.H. i b i d .

7. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations. N.Y. Free Press, 1962.

8. O'Sullivan-Ryan, J. and Kaplun, M. "Communi- cation Methods to Promote Grass Roots Parti- cipation" UNESCO, Comnication and Society, No. 6., 1981, p.5.

9. Rogers, E.M. "Communication and Development: The Passing of the Dominant Paradigm". Com- munication Research, 3, 1976, p.233.

10. O'Sullivan-Ryan, J. ibid., p.20.

11. Kuhn, Thomas, S. The Structure of Scientific RevoZutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

12. Kuhn, T.S. ibid.

13. Martelanc, T. "The Need for Long-Range, Systematic and Focussed Research in Mass Communication" Paper presented at IAMCR, Caracus, Venezuela, 1980, p.7. Also, Tate, E.D. "Developments in Communication Theory," Canadian JournaZ of Comnication, 7, 1980, pp. 57-7 1.

14. Hudson, H.E. et.al. "The Role of Telecom- munication in SocioEconomic Development: A Review of the Literature with Guidelines for Further Investigation". Report prepared for ITU, 9-GLO, 001-11-02, 1979, pp. 5-6.

15. Rogers, E.M. et.al. "Future Directions in Communication Research: Toward Network Analysis and Convergence Models". Paper pre- sented at IAMCR, Caracus, Venezuela, 1980, p.i.

16. Rogers, E.M. ibid., p.4.

17. Bateson, G. "Minimal Requirements for a Theory of Schizophrenia". A.M.A. Archives of GenemZ Psychiatry, 2, 1960, pp.477-491, in Steps to an EcoZogy of Mind. N.Y.: Ballan- tine Books, 1972, pp.245-246,250.

18. See for example, Marx, K. and Engels, F. The German Ideology Part One With Selections from Parts Two and Three, together with Marx's 'Tntroduction t o a Critique of Polit- i ca l Economy". Edited and with Introduction by G.J. Arthur. N.Y.: International Publi- cations, 1970, pp.47. Quotation written between September 1845-1846.

19. Rogers, E.M. ibid., p.20

20. Rogers, E.M. ibid., p.5.

21. Rogers, E.M. ibid., p.6.

22. Rogers, E.M. ibid., p.18

23. See for example Amin, S. AccumuZation on a World Scale. N.Y.: Monthly Review Press, 1967; Frank, A.G. "Dependence is Dead, Long Live Dependence and the Class Struggle". World Development, 1977, 5, pp.355-370; Beltran, L.R. "Alien Premises, Objects and Methods in Latin American Communication Research". in Rogers, E.M. Communication and Development. California: Sage Publications, 1976; Chilcote, R. "Dependency: A Critical Synthesis of the Literature". Latin American Perspectives, I, 19 74 , pp. 4-29.

24. UNESCO. Meeting of Experts on the Informa- tion Media and Society. Montreal, 1969.

25. UNESCO. "Proposals for an International Pro- gramme of Communication Research". Paris, COM/MD/~O, 1971, p.5.

26. UNESCO. General Conference, Nairobi, 1976, in UNESCO, "Communication Methods to Pro- mote..." ibid., p.3

27. Myrdal, G. Objectivity i n Social Research. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1969..