Module 2: Behaviour and Social Change Theory in C4D

Unit 4: Theory-Led C4D Research and Planning

  • Introduction
  • Discussion
  • Readings/Resources

 

bckgrndIntroduction

In the previous three units, we examined three different sets of theoretical tools: individual-level behaviour change theories, interpersonal-level behaviour change theories, and community-level behaviour change theories. In this unit you will learn how to assess which theories to choose and how to combine different theories depending on the level of change you are aiming for. You will also explore theory-driven research questions and learn how data can lead us to select certain theories.

To explore ways to choose among theories – of choosing between communication tools – we will cover the following topics:

  • Traditional (scientific) approaches to evaluating theory
  • Alternative (ethical) approaches to evaluating theory
  • The Social Ecological Model of approaching theory

 

l_objectivesLearning Objectives

Based on the readings, viewings, and discussion, by the end of this unit, you will be able to:

  • Describe the role of values and assumptions embedded in theory;
  • Distinguish among different levels of theory for application to C4D interventions to achieve social and behavioural change; and,
  • Argue for the use of different levels of theory when engaging with different social issues.

 

bckgrndBackground

Communication theories are similar to the tools we use to build a house or fix a car – different tasks call for different tools. Different communication tasks are best performed with the right theories. And, in order to build the most effective communication strategy, you probably want a variety of tools and knowledge of when and where to use each tool.

However, since you have a set of individual-level tools, another set of interpersonal-level tools, and yet another set of community-level tools, how do you know which tool to use for the job? This is the question you will answer in this unit.

 

[Jump to: Discussion Questions]

DiscussionDiscussion Scenario

The Government of Waheheland (Case Study 5) is faced with several challenges affecting child nutrition and survival. In spite of being a middle income country, unemployment is rampant and 43.3% of children live in poverty. There is widespread under-nutrition among children less than five years of age throughout the country. In a 1992 National Demographic and Health Survey, 28% of children were found to be stunted, almost 9% of the children in the survey were wasted, and 26% of the children nation-wide were underweight. Children in the northeastern region experienced the highest rates of underweight and stunting, while wasting was most prevalent in the central region.

Malnutrition accounts for up to 10% of all U5 child mortality. While the percentage of children underweight (too thin for age) has declined in the last two decades, stunting (too short for age) and wasting (too thin for height) have increased. With one out of every three children under the age of five stunted, the country has almost twice the percentage of moderately stunted children and three times of severely stunted children than what is expected for a country with its level of economic development. This national data also masks significant regional and mother-tongue disparities. All forms of under-nutrition among the U5 age group are more prevalent in the rural areas in comparison to the urban areas. 31% of U5 children are stunted in the rural areas compared to 24% in the urban areas. Regionally, severely high levels of stunting affect at least one third of the regions of the country with the worst affected areas at 40% prevalence.

The link between nutrition and sanitation is only recently becoming evident. Simple but effective and inexpensive interventions to reduce stunting, micronutrient deficiencies, and child deaths such as keeping the environment clean, washing hands with soap at crucial times, encouraging mothers to breast feed, encouraging appropriate complementary feeding and vitamin A, zinc, iron and iodine supplementation, could be very effective in addressing issues related to malnutrition.

[^ back to top]


 

respDiscussion Questions

You have been approached by the Ministry of Child Welfare to develop a communication strategy to address child survival and nutrition in the country. Potential funders are interested and partners are in the process of developing a multi-sectoral nutrition strategy into which the C4D strategy will be integrated.

  • Describe three theories and key constructs that you would draw on to inform your strategy recommendations. Remember that these theories are most effective when they include all layers of the social ecology (individual, interpersonal and community).

  • The first step in C4D planning is usually a situation analysis. Review the data available (under key resources), identify some data gaps (or simply put what you need to know) and formulate 2-3 theory based research questions. Please reference the theory you are drawing on.

 

Example: How do people perceive the risk of not consuming iodized salt? (Health Belief Model)

 

If you are in group 1: ../landings/discussion_landing.html

If you are in group 2: Click here to go to the discussion site.

If you are in group 3: Click here to go to the discussion site.


 

[^ back to top]

 

readingReadings and Resources

Required Readings

Celebrating Everyday Heroes in Nepal: A Comprehensive C4D Strategy (2014). Theoretical Framework, pp. 9-11.

  • The traditional (scientific) means of evaluating theory:

Littlejohn, S., (1983). Theory in the process of inquiry. In S. Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication (3rd ed.), (pp. 21- 37). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. [17 p.]

WikiBooks (2009). Introduction to Communication Theory/Evaluating Theory (web page). Retrieved from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Communication_Theory/Evaluating_Theory. [3 p.]

National Guidance Research Forum (n.d.).How do we choose between theories? Retrieved from http://www.guidance-research.org/EG/impprac/ImpP2/how-do-we [2 p.]

Lau, J., and Chan, J. (n.d.). Choosing among theories. Critical Thinking Web. Retrieved from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/sci/induction.php. [1 p.]

  • Alternative (ethical) means of evaluating theory:

Gumucio-Dagron, A., (2007). Playing with fire. CFSC/MAZI articles. Retrieved from http://www.communicationforsocialchange.org/mazi-articles.php?id=354. [7 p.]

 

NOTE: In Module 1, Unit 1, you read Silvio Waisbord’s (2001) article, Family tree of theories, methodologies, and strategies in development communication. You do not need to read this article again, but you may wish to refer to it as a tool for considering the position of theory in C4D.

 

readingOptional Readings

  • Means of combining theories:

Stokols, D. (1996).Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion 10(4). 282 – 298. [16 p.]

California Department of Public Health (n.d.). Social ecological model [white paper]. Retrieved from http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/cpns/Documents/Network-Appendix6SocialEcologicalModel.pdf. [3 p.]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (n.d.). Violence prevention – The social-ecological model: A framework for prevention (web page). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/overview/social-ecologicalmodel.html. [2 p.]

Brieger, W. (n.d.). Health behavior and the ecological model [powerpoint presentation]. Retrieved from http://ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/SocialBehavioralFoundations/PDFs/Lecture2.pdf. [Slides 53-72]. [22 slides (powerpoint).]