0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
100 tayangan22 halaman
''postcolonist expose'' appraises various communication uses in development. The critique seeks to outline a manifesto of development communication as developed by the pioneers of the practice at Los Banos. ''quebral's role in conceiving and shaping up development communication practice, education and training cannot be discussed in isolation'
''postcolonist expose'' appraises various communication uses in development. The critique seeks to outline a manifesto of development communication as developed by the pioneers of the practice at Los Banos. ''quebral's role in conceiving and shaping up development communication practice, education and training cannot be discussed in isolation'
''postcolonist expose'' appraises various communication uses in development. The critique seeks to outline a manifesto of development communication as developed by the pioneers of the practice at Los Banos. ''quebral's role in conceiving and shaping up development communication practice, education and training cannot be discussed in isolation'
Communication: Nora Quebral and the Los Ban os School of Development Communication Linje Manyozo EDITORS NOTE: THIS ARTICLE GIVES A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION IN THE 1970S UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF PROFESSOR NORA QUEBRAL. AS PART OF THIS RETROSPECTIVE, WE ALSO REPRINT THE ORIGINAL 1971 ARTICLE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION IN THE AGRICULTURAL CONTEXT BY NORA QUEBRAL, WITH A NEW FOREWORD BY HER. How did the discipline and practice of development communication begin? Who were the founders and how were the first experiments implemented? Rejecting the ideologically populist views that locates development communication origins within western development scholarship, the following postcolonist expose appraises various commu- nication uses in development that emerged from different parts of the world in the past 50 years. The discussion holds that the pioneering development communication experiments were located between postcolonial and underdevelopment theories, and as such, to understand its origins, a study must focus on the earliest non-commissioned and community-originated experiments, as this study purports to do. Introduction This critique seeks to outline a manifesto of development communication as developed by the pioneers of the practice at Los Banos from the 1950s under the leadership of Nora Quebral. The discussion contends that Quebrals role in conceiving and shaping up development communication practice, education and training cannot be discussed in isolation from the University of Philippines College Correspondence to: Media Studies Programme, La Trobe University, Bundoora, 3086, Melbourne, Australia. Tel.: /61 3 9479 3650; Fax: /61 3 9479 3638; Email: lmanyozo@hotmail.com Asian Journal of Communication Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 79/99 ISSN 0129-2986 (print)/ISSN 1742-0911 (online) # 2006 AMIC/SCI-NTU DOI: 10.1080/01292980500467632 of Agriculture. Even though Quebral herself has been acknowledged by the Clearing House on Development Communication (CHODC) as the originator of the term development communication and for having defined it for the first time (Bessette & Rajasunderam, 1996; Lent, 1977) in death, Everett Rogers (1962, 1993) was termed the father of development communication or the pioneer in the field of communication for development (Communication Initiative, 2004; Adhikarya, 2004: 123). The discussion propounds two hypotheses. First, it contends that different development communications emerged in other parts of the world independent of Paulo Freire, the dominant modernization paradigm and even before Latin American scholars challenged the dominant paradigm. Second, the 1950s Los Banos pioneering reflexive, method-driven and theory-based nature of development communication experiments were participatory and conceived as rural development interventions in themselves, concepts that formulate foundation stones of modern- day global discourse in development communication. Development Communication: The Politics of Definition Defining development communication (devcom) has varied with time and place since Quebral coined the term in the 1950s, to an extent Keval Kumar (1994) laments the extant confusion over the lack of agreement on the concept. Such confusion exists because scholars attempt to fix and locate devcom definitions within Western development scholarship, post-war aid projects and the dominant paradigm. Whereas devcom used to be seen as communicating development to illiterate societies, non-Western and modern development communications have focused on right-based, gender-sensitive and method-informed approaches, focus being on the involvement of local people in making their own road (Freire & Horton, 1990). Concurring with Kwasi Ansu-Kyeremehs (1994) rejection of post-colonial euro- centralization of knowledge, Linje Manyozo (2004) deliberates devcom in plural and in six schools: Bretton Woods, Latin American, Los Banos, Anglophone Africa, Indian School and the Participatory Development Communication School. The Bretton Woods School of devcom can be located within the post Second World War Marshal Plan economic strategies and the subsequent establishment of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1944 (Melkote & Steeves, 2001). This Hampshire conference marked the beginning of Western-driven systematic and strategic employment of linear communications in Third World development experiments. Led by scholars like Daniel Lerner (1958), Wilbur Schramm (1964) and Everett Rogers (1962, 1993), the Schools development paradigm propagated production and planting of development in indigenous and uncivilized societies (Melkote & Steeves, 2001). Failure of many development projects from the 1960s, despite increasing donor aid, compelled the School to re-evaluate its top/down methods. Today, the Schools largest institution, the World Bank (nd), conceptualizes devcom as an integration of strategic communication in development projects that is based on a clear understanding of indigenous realities. The Schools other financial 80 L. Manyozo and academic institutions have, over the years, comprised UNESCO, FAO, Rockefeller Foundation, DFID, Ford Foundation and universities like Michigan State, Texas, Cornell, Ohio, Wisconsin, Leeds, Colombia, Iowa, Southern California, and New Mexico. Among the Schools major publications have been the works of Wilbur Schramm and Everett Rogers as well as important Development Communication Report which was published by the USAID-funded Clearing House on Development Communication under the Academy for Educational Development (AED). Emerging in the 1940s and independent of the Bretton Woods School, the Latin American School can be traced to Colombias Radio Sutatenza, and Bolivias Radios Mineras which pioneered the employment of systematically designed radio commu- nications in empowering economically and socially marginalized campesinos , helping them to lead decent and healthy lives (Gumucio, 2001; Vargas, 1995). These community-based radios implemented radio-based rural development education, which in some cases was supported with print material. The Sutatenza-Radios Mineras model of radio-based adult literacy was joined on the scene in the 1960s by Paulo Freire and his theories on critical pedagogy and Miguel Sabidos 1970s entertainment-education method, itself a change-based approach in the design and production of educational broadcast dramas focusing on social development issues (Melkote & Steeves, 2001). Other theorists of the school are Juan Daz Bordenave, Luis Ramiro Beltra n, and Alfonso Gumucio Dargon. The African School emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s, out of the continents post-colonial and communist movements, which provided a partial springboard from which African scholars began to rethink concepts of culture, communication and development (Kamlongera, 1988; Mlama, 1971). Early studies from the continent point to the employment of radio and theatre in community education, adult literacy, health and agricultural education. Whilst African rural radio was slowly being developed in Francophone and West Africa as a devcom component, Anglophone African Universities were swiftly developing the concept taking theatre to the people, known as theatre for development and locating it within rural development (Kamlongera, 1988). The Indian School can be traced to the late 1960s, though from the 1940s, disorganized rural radio listening communities were formed in Bhiwandi to listen to the rural broadcasts in the indigenous Marathi, Gujarati and Kannada (Kumar, 1981, p. 259). Central to this Schools devcom is that it was located within radio, development journalism and rural development. Like in the Philippines, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, the School also used the academy to experiment development communications. Notable among the academic centres were the University of Poona, the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi University, the Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, and University of Kerala. Without mentioning the word School, Quebral was well aware that other devcom experiments were going on the world over, and thus discussed development communication, the Los Banos style (1988, p. 158). Careful examination of the Schools action research projects from the 1950s establishes that when the Bretton Asian Journal of Communication 81 Woods School was still exploring poverty and its depths within the different parts of the world, whilst searching for appropriate communication interventions, the Los Banos School was conducting groundbreaking participatory communication research experiments in and as development interventions. The School thus pioneered the design and implementation of communication tools in the promotion of sustainable development that were based on coherent method and theory (Gomez, 1975; Jamias, 1975a, 1991; Librero, 1985; Quebral, 1975a, 1975b, 1988, 2002). The Participatory Development Communication School comprises institutional collaboration between First World and Third World devcom organizations, though with increased financial prowess, the Bretton Woods School seems to be re-colonizing the devcom agendum (Ansu-Kyeremeh, 1994). Replacing the Development Commu- 1940 1950 1950s 1960 1970 >1980 The Latin America School (Radio Sutatenza for rural education; Miners Radio Network in Colombia; Television and radio entertainment-education. Theorists: ACCPO, Luis Ramiro Beltrn, Juan Daz Bordenave, Miguel Sabido, Paulo Freire, Jose Barrientos The Bretton Woods School Theorists : Everett Rogers, Daniel Lerner, Wilbur Schramm, Jan Servaes, Steeves & Melkote, UNESCO, WB, UNDP, FAO, John Hopkins Centre for Communication Programs, SADC Centre of Communication for Development. IDRC. The Los Baos School (Development broadcasting; agricultural development communication; ). Theorists: Felix Librero, Alexander Flor, Ely Gomez, Nora Quebral, Juan Jamias, Madeline Suva, Virginia Samonte, Communication Foundation for Asia, Philippine PressInstitute, International Rice Research Institute. The African School (Rural radio; Theatre for development). Theorists: Penina Mlama, Christopher Kamlongera, Zakes Mda, Robert MacLaren, Ngugi wa Thiongo, Mapopa Mtonga, Derek Mulenga, David Kerr, Jean-Pierre Ilboudo, CIERRO, The Indian School Radio/television for rural development, development journalism Theorists: Mehra Masani, George Verghese Keval Kumar, University of Poona, Joseph Velacherry, Delhi University, University of Kerala. Post-Freire School: Participatory Development Communication (Communication for social change/development-Visual anthropology, community theatre, public journalism, radio for development, development radio broadcasting). Theorists:UPLB College of Development Communication, IDRC, FAO Communication Project, UNESCO, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, World Bank. Figure 1 Mapping Out the Emergence of Development Communication. 82 L. Manyozo nication Report has been MAZI, a newsletter being published by the Ford Foundation Funded Communication for Social Change Consortium. It is yet to be seen whether MAZIs interview page will feature the major contributions and pioneering heroes from South East Asia and Africa. Guy Bessette (2004) describes participatory devcom as a communication tool with which to facilitate community involvement in local development. Drawing from Freirean critical pedagogy which situates the learner and his environment at the centre of education, modern devcom is characterized by diverse methodological and theoretical trajectories but still centres around partici- patory production and utilization of indigenous knowledge in local development (Mulenga, 1999). Karin Gwinn Wilkins and Bella Mody (2001) define devcom as a process of strategic intervention toward social change initiated by institutions and communities. Neville Jayaweera (1987) conceptualizes the same as communication strategies of a whole society or the communication component of a national development plan. The realization has been, even during the emergence of the dominant development paradigm, that communication involving community participation formulates a very important facet in the promotion of sustainable development (Bessette & Rajasun- deram, 1996; Cadiz, 1994; Mayo & Craig, 1995). Acknowledging the many changes her own concept and definition of devcom has undergone during the 30 years of jostling with reality, Quebral (2002, p. 16) defines the devcom as the art and science of human communication linked to a societys planned transformation from a state of poverty to one of dynamic socio-economic growth that makes for greater equity and the larger unfolding of individual potential. Informed by Freires critical pedagogy, Quebrals Los Banos School and further developments in visual anthro- pology and other participatory field practices, Linje Manyozo (2004) defines modern- day devcom as describing a group of method-driven and theory-based praxes that employ participatory foreground and backdrop communication tools in strengthen- ing community decision-making processes and structures with the aim of improving livelihoods and promoting social justice. Beginnings of Development Communication in the College of Agriculture The University of Philippines was established in 1908 by an act of the First Philippine Legislature Act No. 1870, otherwise known as the University Charter, to provide instruction and give professional and technical training (University of the Philippines, nd). The University (UP) observes that initially, it started with four colleges: the College of Fine Arts, the College of Medicine and Surgery, the College of Liberal Arts and the School of Agriculture at Los Banos, Laguna. Over the years, the UP established other campuses in Manila, Los Banos, Baguio, Visayas and Diliman. The Open University was established at Los Banos in the mid 1990s as an e- constituent of the University. Of the College of Agriculture, which is now the agricultural centre for Asia, the UP notes that from 1908, the College was the first of Asian Journal of Communication 83 its kind in the tropics and classes were held in the homes of faculty members (University of the Philippines, nd). Also known as the College of Development Communication (CDC), the Los Banos School (CDC, nd) details its historical development from the time it began as the Office of Extension and Publications of the College of Agriculture in 1954, under which some staff members began to carry out research in how communication could be used to address problems of rural development. Quebral (1988, pp. 113/114) reminisces about the contribution of a little nudge from Cornell University and a visiting extension professor from Tennessee and the subsequent establishment of a Unit which ended up being the Extension and Publications office. In 1960, the first devcom courses were introduced in the Agriculture curriculum after which, in 1962, the College of Agriculture elevated the Extension and Publications Office into a Department of Information and Communication (DAIC). In 1968, DAIC was renamed the Department of Agricultural Communication (CDC, nd). In 1974, the Department changed its name to Department of Development Communication. Between 1987 and 1998, the Department was elevated into an Institute and then later a College, a process of transformation that involved progressive decisions, some of which were rational and some not (Quebral, 1988, p. 113). The origins of development-oriented communication practice at Los Banos should also be understood as an intensification of efforts by the then teaching staff who were interested in extending the results of research in the agricultural sciences to the farmers and other end users of the new knowledge and technology (Jamias, 1975b, p. vii). Nora Quebrals Manifesto of Development Communication The earliest UPLB College of Agriculture lecturers who pioneered experimenting with method-driven and theory-based extension efforts in using communication to promote sustainable development comprise mostly of Western trained agricultural doctorates (Quebral, 1988, 2002). This group, comprising Nora Quebral (1975a, 1975b, 2002), Felix Librero (1985), Juan Jamias (1975a, 1991), and Ely Gomez (1975) among others, were the first to use the term development communication in reference to an organized and systematic art of human communication applied to speedy transformation of a country and a mass of its people from poverty to a dynamic state of economic growth so as to achieve greater social equality (Bessette, 1996; Freire, 1972; Freire & Horton, 1990; Quebral, 1975a, p. 2). The current Los Banos School however contends that devcom cannot really change people, but can only help them change themselves at their own enlightened pace and that there is no speedy transformation of societies as development is a protracted and long process (Freire & Horton, 1990, p. 216; Quebral, 2002, pp. 5, 18; 1988, p. 10). Alongside or with the Los Banos School were Philippine Press Institute, Press Foundation for Asia, the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication (AIJC), the Asian Institute for Development Communication (AIDCOM), Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Centre, UNDPs Development Commu- 84 L. Manyozo nication Support Service, the International Rice Research Institute, the Universities of Singapore and Malaysia and the Manila-based Communication Foundation for Asia (CFA), which comprised Alfredo Cafe, Pedro Chanco III, Teresita Hermano, Noel de Leon, Demetrio Maglalang, Genaro Ong and Raphael Vallejo (Jamias, 1991; Maglalang, 1976; Quebral, 1988). AIJCs Crispin Maslog (1999) traces the role of what he calls heroes of Asian journalism by looking at the contribution of people like Amitabha Chowdhury Mochtar Lubis, Tarzie Vittachi, Zacarias Sarian, Ton That Thien and Gour Ghosh. The School has been responsible for publishing ground- breaking devcom research, manuals and journals, the most notable being AIDCOMs Journal of Development Communication. The Los Banos experiments in agricultural communication therefore provided a springboard for the birth of the devcom discipline (Quebral, 1988). Having experimented with using strategically and purposively designed communication tools in agriculture extension, Nora Quebral, then a PhD and Chairman of the Department of Development Communication, proposed a four-year Bachelor of Science Degree curriculum in Development Communication, which was approved by UPLBs Council on 11 March 1974 and courses began to be offered in the 1974/1975 school year (Quebral, 1975b). By offering this full fledged curriculum, the department became the first to offer devcom degree training in the world. From the very beginnings, the devcom syllabi was broad-based and multidisciplinary, with roots in sociology, psychology, economics, agriculture, linguistics, philosophy, anthropology, theatre arts, political science and other social sciences, information technology and multimedia (Quebral, 1975b, 2002). This pioneering undergraduate curriculum was interdisciplinary which, Quebral herself (1975b, p. 31) argues, was designed to enable students to: Acquire a theoretical base in the sciences and applied arts that underlie the study of human communication. Learn practical skills in interpersonal and mass commu- nication. Gain a basic grasp of the issues and problems of development in general and of the subject matter of one developmental area in particular. Apply the concepts, principles and skills of communication in the solution of problems in a developing society. The 1974 curriculum included general courses in English and Spanish communication skills, biology, chemistry, mathematics, political science, economics, physics, huma- nities, social and political thought, English literature, speech, and statistics (Quebral, 1975b). The core courses comprised Introduction to Development Communication, Fundamentals of Development Communication, Community Broadcasting, Audio- Visual Communication, Communication and Society, Communication Campaigns and Programs, Testing and Evaluation of Communication Materials, Communication Research, Basic Photography, Print Production, Broadcast Speech and Performance for Community Radio, Playwriting, Science Reporting, Publications Writing and Editing, Management and Production of a Community Newspaper, Advanced Development Writing, Visual Aids Planning and Production, Radio Drama and Documentary, Educational Broadcasts (Quebral, 1975b, pp. 35/36). The curriculum Asian Journal of Communication 85 also included social science electives in Sociology of Developing Countries, Social Psychology, Politics of Developing Countries, Social Anthropology, Community Survey and Program Planning, Rural Sociology, Economics and World Agriculture, Agricultural Policy, Rural Development Programs, Agricultural and Economic Development (Quebral, 1975b). The Schools devcom targeted a mass of people with a low rate of literacy and income and the accompanying socio-economic attributes (Jamias, 1975a, p. 13; Quebral, 1975a, pp. 2/3). Though seemingly massifying people, Virginia Samonte (1975, pp. 101, 103, 111) used what could be today confused as Freirean terms, describing devcom research as problem-oriented, issue-involved, strategy-conscious and multidisciplinary, during which, the research itself is theoretical, methodological and pragmatic, and whose results are used in implementation and theory-building. Freires notions of critical pedagogy could, however, unlikely have influenced the pioneering Los Banos experiments because, though Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972) was published in Spanish in the late 1960s, the English version would not be available to much of the world until the mid 1970s and, for South East Asia, until the late 1970s. Evidently, Freire is absent from the Schools agricultural communication research, though notions of participation loom large (Bunnag, 1975; Byrnes, 1975; Childers & Vajrathon, 1975; Cuyno, 1975; Gomez, 1975; Jamias, 1975b, 1991; Librero, 1985; Quebral, 1975a, 1975b, 2002; Ross, 1975; Samonte, 1975). Though Freires critical pedagogy has provided rewarding insights into the theory and practice of devcom, it is an academic and humanitarian injustice to overlook the Los Banos origins of theory-based and method-driven devcom. The absenting and footnoting of Los Banos should raise ideological concerns on Western re-colonization of devcom debates and programs (Manyozo, 2004). Actually, Luis Ramiro Beltra n (2004) laments the deliberate ignorance and footnoting of other devcom schools especially Latin American theorists through a system in which academic publications in Spanish and Portuguese, papers on communication for development were seldom printed and in which Western publishing industries do not grant any validity or trustworthiness to Latin American research, as empirical as it may be. It is not surprising therefore that even when the Los Banos School had introduced degree level professional training in development communication both at masters and under- graduate level by 1974, writing for the October 1976 Information Centre on Instructional Technology (ICIT) Report , Erskine Childers observed that as far as I know, there is no academic or technical training institution that fully provides all the essentials (of development communication training) in an integrated program (Childers, 1976, p. 5). This brings up concerns over the achievements of Third World development communication scholars being ignored because of inability of Western scholars to understand or learn of global developments in the field. Manyozo (2004) again observes that the School conceptualized devcom at three major levels, considerations for which provides modern-day scholars with the context in which the concept evolved as a practice. None of the members of the pioneering and current Los Banos Schools use the word manifesto, yet critical examination of 86 L. Manyozo their published and unpublished literature does establish that the devcom, Los Banos style was centred around three cornerstones of agriculture, rural development journalism and educational broadcasting. First, the location of the Department of Development Communication within the College of Agriculture determined the agricultural orientation of the early experi- ments. Most of the Departments staff were Communication PhDs who had Bachelors or Masters degrees in Agriculture, Agricultural Journalism or Extension Education, like Quebral, Juan Jamias and Rogelio Cuyno. In fact, most staff got their PhDs under a Cornell /Los Banos contact funded by Ford and Rockefeller Foundations (Quebral, 2005, personal communication). The early experiments would thus focus on areas like dairy farming, forestry management, agriculture leasehold, livestock, farmer constituents (Jamias, 1975a). Quebral and Ely Gomez (1976, pp. 1/2) outline this agricultural focus, noting: When we speak of development communication today, we are mainly concerned with the mass of people in the so-called developing societies [which have] a colonial past, a basically agricultural economy and a galloping birth rate. We focus [. . .] on the small farmers, labourers, fishermen and others [. . .] who make up the greatest number in any developing country [and are] poor. About 30 years later, one of Quebrals students, Celeste Cadiz, would add to Quebrals and Gomezs list, a category of rural and cultural minorities, and then term the whole grouping as development beneficiaries (Cadiz, 1991). Quebral (1988, p. 35) would, also, years later, clarify the relationship of development and rural communities, contending, development communication is not rural communication per se. Second, the Los Banos School focussed on rural development journalism with emphasis being placed on the development communicator and community media (Quebral, 1975a, 1988). The School developed its list of priority areas for the development communicator and community media from the 1970s Four-Year Development Plan of the Philippines, which primarily aimed at uplifting the general well-being of every individual citizen, as Quebral and Gomez (1976, pp. 1, 8) observed, that: One look at our national development plan and they [development communica- tion topics] are easily named. The priority topics in the Philippines at this time are food production, family planning, health and nutrition, agrarian reform, national unity, relevant education, the wise use of the environment, more rational attitudes and values. To achieve these development objectives, Quebral and Gomez (1976, p. 4) outline the requirements for the kind of communication that can bring about desired change. They distinguish advertising and propaganda from devcom in that the latter educates for purposes of greater social equality and larger fulfilment of the human potential. Focussing on a branch of devcom called development journalism, Quebral and Gomez (1976, p. 6) seek their development journalism to: Circulate knowledge that will inform people of significant events, opportunities, dangers and changes. [. . .] Provide a forum where issues affecting national or Asian Journal of Communication 87 community life may be aired. [. . .] Teach those ideas, skills and attitudes that people need to achieve a better life. [. . .] Create and maintain a base of consensus that is needed for the stability of the state. Like Freire in Brazil, Quebral and Gomez (1976, pp. 7/8) realize the inadequacy of the formal school system in energizing its Pilipino student citizens. They propose the supplementation and reinforcement with other non-formal schooling. The respon- sibility of designing this out of school system was conceived as a central government responsibility, for it was already framing national development goals; thus it was responsible for explaining to people why certain projects are needed, how each of the projects may benefit individuals and their communities and the required sacrifices from the people. Placing the responsibility of designing development projects unilaterally may seem to suggest that the Schools devcom was only a mask over the modernization paradigm, but Quebrals (1988) emphasis on community consultation in development interventions only demonstrates the different positioning of participa- tion as a practice. Whereas in participatory development, indigenous peoples are conceived as capable of taking an active part in planning, implementing and evaluating interventions, the Los Banos devcom conceived participation as a precondition to implementation, in which case if a project was rejected, the government could modify its plans and take it back to the community (Quebral & Gomez, 1976). The School grounded its conceptualization of rural development journalism around three cornerstones, which Juan Jamias (1975a) identifies as purposive, value- laden and pragmatic communication, and in which the whole field of study was structured around innovation, dialogical communication and performance. The Schools 1960/1970s conceptualization of devcom could therefore be only positioned within the context of developing economies (Quebral & Gomez, 1976). The positioning of devcom curriculum within low economic levels and human aspects of communication was made in light of the Philippines rising poverty and agrarian economy. Such positioning could also have been meant to produce a competent and truthful development communicator who would not pass off someone elses ideas as their own otherwise without being accurate and honest, one who professes to be a development communicator forfeits the title, a diploma notwithstanding (Quebral, 2002, pp. 2, 4). The preference of rural over urban development was justified by Quebral and Gomez (1976, p. 5), noting: There also certainly is urban development. Years from now it could be that urban development will take precedence over rural development at the national level, when thirty percent now living in the cities will have doubled in number. Right now, however, its sheer number and its central role in the economy give the rural family the edge. Our statistics [show that] seventy percent of Filipinos live in the rural areas. This makes the rural family the foremost users of development communication. Years later Quebral (1988, p. 161) would acknowledge that devcom methodologies can be used to solve development challenges of the First World. The essence of the Los Banos devcom lay therefore in consciously diminishing poverty, unemployment 88 L. Manyozo and inequality, goals that have not changed a bit even in modern-day practice (Quebral & Gomez, 1976). The third factor in the Los Banos devcom was the notion of development broadcasting, emphasis being placed on community broadcasting and educational programming. Referring to a community radio, Quebral and Gomez (1976, p. 10) argue that the station serves as a facilitator of interpersonal relationships in a rural community. The UPLB-based community radio DZLB itself was established for purposes of non-formal education in the rural setting (Librero, 1985, p. 1). Local media, of which community radio is an important part, were thus conceived as excellent teaching channels (Quebral & Gomez, 1976, p. 9). Between the 1960s and the early 1970s, the Los Banos School produced much action research in devcom. Mentioning the notion of development broadcasting for the very first time whilst focussing on the role and nature of local community radios in community development, Gomez (1975, p. 91; 1976) conceptualizes the role of radio practices in micro level development through what she terms localized programming and personalized broadcasting which would in the end encourage audience involvement and participation. Though Gomez (1975, p. 92) seems to have located the role of radio and rural development within the contemporary dominant Lerners modernization paradigm through her labelling of radio as greater multiplier, smoother of transition and provider of climate of development, she however advocates bottom/up program- ming. She conceives a community radio as serving a specialized and an identified audience, providing them with relevant programs that concern and help them deal with their problems and importantly, programs in which they participate in making (1975, pp. 93/94; Librero, 1985, p. 8). When the World Bank produced its first detailed study of the role of radio in Third World rural development (Spain, Jamison, & McAnany, 1977), the Los Banos School had already, in the early 1960s, executed its rural education broadcasting project. In 1962, Radio DZLB was conceived as an experimental rural radio station primarily established to serve as an agricultural extension tool and assisting the School in conducting rural broadcasting research relating to the effective dissemination of agricultural information (Librero, 1985, pp. 2/3). With financial assistance of US$7800 from a New York-based Agricultural Development Council Incorporation for establishing and operating the radio for a year, DZLB went on air in 1964. By the 1970s, the station had been turned into a community broadcaster, with communities requesting specific programs and the School was already conducting radio schools and instructional broadcasts (Flor, 1995; Librero, 1985). Felix Librero conceives rural educational broadcasting as the use of radio for non- formal education purposes primarily to support planned social change in the rural setting, focus being on promoting human development consciously through the broadcast of programs designed to help people diagnose their problems and clarify their objectives so that they may be able to make wise decisions (1985, p. 1). As if Asian Journal of Communication 89 concurring with her colleague, Quebral (1988, p. 80) elaborates on an ideal rural education broadcaster: The broadcast media that I propose will not stand alone beaming disjointed information to a mass, faceless rural audience. They will be components of a distance learning system for small groups in which the field worker, the subject matter specialist, the non-broadcast media, among others, are bound together in an educational plan. To remove them from the political propaganda charge, let them be housed in the universities, which are more neutral institutions. As a rural development project itself, Radio DZLB, also known as The Voice of the Village, became a pinnacle of local development collaboration, coordination and cooperation with government agencies and other institutions, conducting localized and personalized broadcast programming, encouraging audience involvement, as well as conducting evaluations and research (Gomez, 1975, p. 91). The radio enabled local villagers to introduce new programs and use some airtime as fora for conflict resolution over agricultural disputes (Librero, 1985). The location of radio practices in development was therefore based on the philosophy of development through shared education, as noted by Felix Librero (1985, p. 17) himself: Radio as an educational medium should be employed as a tool for non-formal education, with the concept that most people must be reached at their present state of educational development and level of interest and understanding in order to help them attain their articulated needs and interests. [. . .] The success of rural educational broadcasting depends on two equally important factors*/the knowl- edge and understanding of subject matter, and ones understanding of the people. [. . .] This is accomplished through programs, which the audience and broadcaster work out together, and not merely through schemes thought out and planned entirely by the broadcaster for his audience. To achieve these objectives, DZLB broadcasters used to execute semi-structured and interactive research activities through which they attempted to understand the ethnography of their intended audience by, for instance, asking them what they would like to hear on the radio, length and format of programs (Librero, 1985). Though not mentioning participatory development or Freires critical pedagogy, Librero argues that rural educational broadcasting is purposive, audience-oriented, service-oriented, research-based, participatory and strategic with well-defined objectives. He contends that such a radio must inspire individuals, families and communities to work together in identifying needs and problems and help them determine their objectives and counsel and supply technical knowledge since the radios philosophy was based on the principle of serving peoples interests and needs (Librero, 1985, pp. 18/21). Like the miners radios in Bolivia, Gomezs community radio became the communitys representative or what she terms as a social lubricant, through which radio provided a sphere on which people could share experiences and facilitate interpersonal relationships (Gomez, 1975, p. 94). Gomezs social lubrication also involved peace and conflict resolution, like the case of three farmers who visited DZLB in 1969 to air their problems with regards to pests that were destroying their 90 L. Manyozo rice, having escaped from a neighbouring farm that was sprayed with pesticides and, secondly, their fears of being evicted by some landlords (Librero, 1985, p. 37). By bringing in relevant stakeholders to conduct dialectical discussions in a radio program, the farmers and representatives from the government and the larger farms resolved their differences amicably, and importantly, the poor farmers were never evicted (Librero, 1985, pp. 37/38). At the time when the notion of participation was heresy in the modernization paradigm, Radio DZLB was already engaging in what would be termed today as participatory broadcasting. One of the important aspects of Radio DZLB was the school on the air, a concept of which was borrowed from USs Columbia Broadcasting Corporations (CBC) 1920s rural broadcasting series (Flor, 1995). Under the Philippine governments Bountiful harvest campaign, Masagana 99, a countywide and extensive rice production scheme was launched in the 1970s with the aim of creating self- sufficiency in rice as the staple food in the country. Leading the project, the Ministry of Agriculture embarked on a food production initiative which involved a complete package of technology, an elaborate credit system without collateral, a market system and a comprehensive communication campaign that included and largely involved radio (Librero, 1985, p. 43). Radio DZLB was responsible for training the Ministrys farmcasters from 1976 to 1979 and it also organized and conducted several schools on the air after which every student received a Certificate of Graduation (Librero, 1985, p. 68). The school on the air was based on objectives, short and well- planned programs, each of which composed of one subject matter. Librero (1985, pp. 67/72) observes that the school on the air must be a cooperative project such that their establishment should be preceded by ethnographic research to understand audiences, their compositions, preferred listening patters and behaviours, family structures and the level of importance of the subject matter to them The Los Banos School acknowledges the Latin American radio forums and farms radios, as comprehensive and well documented (Flor, 1995, p. 17). Still, by the early 1980s, numerous dissertations and other staff reports on rural educational broad- casting had been produced in the School, focus being on rural development listenership, radio developmental messages, farmers radio sessions, radio learning group campaign, development broadcasting and broadcast-based distance learning systems. The Los Banos School Today Acknowledging the Latin American influence, especially Freires humanism, Quebral (1988, p. 160; 2002, p. 2.) outlines the central ideals of the Los Banos School, observing: The program we created was not meant to be all things to all men and women. Neither was it meant to do what others were already doing, perhaps better than we ever could. We focussed on a segment where Los Banos had a comparative advantage and took off from there. Within the general field of communication, Asian Journal of Communication 91 development communication now occupies a niche where Los Banos has a reputation for pre-eminence. Today, the Los Banos School has been joined in the arena by many schools and institutions in Europe, Africa and the Americas in propagating people-centred development communications though the School continues to stand out as a pioneer in development communication teaching and the most productive in development communication education in the world (Cadiz, 1991, p. v; CDC, nd; Quebral, 2002, p. 1). Most Bretton Wood organizations have worked with or are indirectly linked to the School. The School is now a full College on its own, and its curricula offer training in development broadcasting, educational communication, science commu- nication and development journalism. The School offers Bachelors, Masters, Masters of Professional Studies and Doctorate degrees in Development Communication (CDC, nd). For the Bachelor of Science, the School seeks to help students to acquire a theoretical and ethical base in the sciences and arts that underlie the study of development communication. This involves training students in principles on development as well as giving them practical skills in communication. The Master of Science program attempts to Synthesize knowledge, theories, principles and strategies of communication and apply them in addressing problems of development at different levels (CDC, nd). Focus is also on developing innovative and integrative leadership and research skills. Though students in the Master of Professional Studies in Development Commu- nication will also acquire strong foundation in both theory and practice, the programs is geared towards communication practitioners who are in government and non-government research and development institutions, community media outfits, state colleges and universities, and other communication schools (CDC, nd). For the Doctorate program, the Schools candidates Acquire and advance a broader and deeper understanding of theories, principles and approaches of devcom objective is to have candidates (CDC, nd). This involved broadening research, analytical and evaluation skills of candidates. Like the pioneering 1974 curriculum, the current curriculum is broad-based, as Quebral (2002, pp. 15/16, 18) observes: A curriculum is not a random patchwork of courses. It is a representation of a worldview that the curriculum developers think their intended learners should have. [. . .] Reciprocity of thought is the very essence of communication, and its practice is central to genuine human development. [. . .] Because in the academic scheme, development communication is classed as a branch of communication, we teach our students that communication derives from sociology, psychology, linguistics and other social sciences and we try to steer them to study those basics. [. . .] Development communication would not stay development communication for long if it were cut off from ideas coming from various sources and disciplines */ and by which it is nourished. [. . .] The field was never meant to stay in place. It is expected to branch out, to reinvent itself from time to time, even to lead the way as we grow in wisdom. 92 L. Manyozo In development broadcasting, the Schools College trains students to purposively and strategically design and test innovative techniques and approaches using radio and television as educational mediums (CDC, nd). Courses in this department include development writing, broadcast speech and performance of community, writing and program planning for community radio, radio drama and documentary, broadcast- based distance learning systems and telecommunications (CDC, nd). In science communication, the College trains students in using science for development, with focus on the content, product and process of science (CDC, nd). Courses in the department include scientific reporting, telecommunication, scientific and technical information processing, scientific and technical publications editing, and knowledge management. In development journalism, focus is on training students in ethics- conscious and reflexive reporting of development news for print and electronic media (CDC, nd). Courses include development writing, publications writing and editing, science reporting, management and production of a community newspaper, advanced development writing. For educational communication, which Cadiz (1991, pp. 2, 22) identifies as a major field in devcom, the College provides training in the audio-visual component of devcom. The focus is on exposing students to methodologies in innovating, piloting, testing, refining and assessing mediated and non-mediated approaches in inducing and enhancing leaning among disadvantaged groups, who make up a substantial segment of populations in Third World countries. The courses in the department comprise writing for educational communication media, basic photography, broad- cast-based distance learning systems, visual design and techniques, visual aids planning and production and video production. Quebral (1988, p. 22) also observes that devcom has reoriented itself to focus on emerging issues of development, like child prostitution, art forms, human rights and culture, since, by being seamless in nature, human development entails economic, social, political and cultural independence. Emphasis is thus on collaborative, interactive and participative production of communication materials and participa- tory management of the communication programs themselves (Quebral, 1988, pp. 18, 21, 46). Quebral however notes some factors that impede successful design and implementation of devcom interventions as being: the undervaluing of notions of rural, agriculture and indigenous media programs and people; lack of unified policy frameworks on communication and information technology and their role in development; the rising commercialism in both public and community media; misunderstanding over what devcom entails, resulting to equating the practice with public relations or publicity especially by administrators; inadequate training opportunities; and misconception about development communicators as constituting producers of educational materials only (1988, p. 38). Importantly, the School acknowledges and supports the growth of other devcom training institutions in the world. Probably taking a swipe at the patent hysteria in the West, where corporations are seeking ownership of biological and scientific discoveries even on the human body, Quebral (2002, p. 16) unselfishly notes that Asian Journal of Communication 93 the School does not own the intellectual property rights to development commu- nication as a field of study or teaching. This unselfishness is manifested in the willingness of the old guard of Los Banos in helping other training institutions in the region to establish their own postgraduate devcom programs seen from your own background a case in example being Professors Felix Librero and Ely Gomez, who are working with the Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication of the Kasetsart University in Thailand (Kasetsart University, 2004; Quebral, 2002, p. 17). Kasetsarts devcom courses like broadcasting for development, writing for develop- ment, management of communication system, and scientific information manage- ment for development do indeed reflect the influence of Los Banos, more so considering the agricultural origins of the Los Banos devcom. Perhaps it is old age and, consequently wisdom, but Quebral is not worried about socio-economic changes that will necessitate changing the nature of devcom teaching. She is however very worried about global imperialism and how it is already affecting the poor of the poorest. She recalls listening to a handicraftsman from a municipality in Laguna whose cottage industry that had started exporting to other countries had been virtually wiped out by globalization (2002, p. 11). Quoting Thomas Friedman (2000), Quebral (2002, p. 25) therefore worries about a borderless world in which no one is in charge. She outlines the implications for the devcom curriculum, like the further complication of the development process, the rising importance of cultural component of development, the vitality of peace as a prerequisite to development and the contradiction of globalization itself in pushing the individual in a regional and world societies in which one must learn to co-exist (2002, pp. 25/26). Afterthoughts Development communication is the in word for many development and commu- nication planners and researchers, to borrow Juan Jamias term (1975b, p. vii). From its humble beginnings as a course, then a unit, then a department, an institute and a full college today, the Los Banos School pioneered the development of a field that has outgrown itself today. Even during the heat of the dominant development paradigm, the Los Banos devcom research, despite viewing people as audiences or special audiences, rejected the massifying of people and advocated problem-oriented, action and participatory research (Quebral, 1988, p. 74). From as early as the 1970s and 1980s, this brand of devcom became an official development policy in the Philippine national development plans. The emergence of this practice-based field of study and research cannot be objectively discussed without mentioning the College of Agriculture scholars, especially Quebral. This discussion has established that Bretton Woods devcom may have its roots in the post-war aid initiatives, but due to geographical, cultural, colonial and historical differences, different development communications evolved from different parts of the world. Thus it is a scant disregard for the efforts of the broadcasters of Radio Sutatenza and Radios Mineras, the travelling theatre troupes of Africa, the extension 94 L. Manyozo workers of Bhiwandi in India to discuss devcom as having emerged as a homogenous field. When David Lerner was publishing his The Passing of Traditional Society in 1959, Radio Sutatenza had already provided radio-based non-formal education to thousands of Colombian campesinos and the College of Development Communica- tion was already established as an Office of Extension and Publications, and had already initiated many rural devcom projects. These are historical facts, which the Third World should hold dear to its heart for fear of revisionism, which itself is a form of global imperialism. Ansu-Kyeremehs (1994) concern with the First World determining the world communication agenda becomes relevant in that even in the face of available and published evidence, the Los Banos manifesto of devcom continues to be deliberately ignored by major Bretton Woods School institutions and publications. Few Bretton Woods School institutions acknowledge the origins of the devcom manifesto, IDRCAs publications and collaboration with the Los Banos School on the Igsang Bagsak community-based natural resource management being cases in example. Quebrals thoughts formulated the foundation glue that erected the Los Banos School, and though she has never blown her own trumpets, she and the Los Banos School are the manifesto of devcom itself. This discussion thus makes two bold conclusions. First, it acknowledges the different development communications that emerged in other parts of the world independent of Freire, the dominant modernization paradigm and even before Latin American scholars challenged the dominant paradigm. Second, the Los Banos experiments from the 1950s were not meant to test the modernization paradigm but were an attempt to grapple with the rising poverty in Philippines, and the Schools pioneering reflexive, method-driven and theory-based nature of devcom practice was very original and defined the shape of global discourse, practice and training in devcom. Let it be emphasized here that, with due respect to the late Rogers, Schramm and Daniel Lerner for their role in conceptualizing the linear communication approaches in development, different development communications evolved at different times the world over, and that, if there is anyone who has to be accorded the honour of being the father of development communication, then it is none other than Nora Quebral. References Adhikarya, R. (2004). A personal tribute to Everett Rogers. Media Asia: An Asian Communication Quarterly, 31, 3, 123/126. Ansu-Kyeremeh, K. (1994). Communication, education and development: Exploring an African cultural setting . Alberta: EISA Publishers. Bessette, G. (2004). Involving the community: A guide to participatory development communication. Ottawa, Ontario, Dakar, Montevideo, Nairobi, New Delhi and Singapore: IDRC and Southbound. Bessette, G., & Rajasunderam, C. (Eds.). (1996). Participatory development communication: A West African Agenda. Ottawa, Canada & Penang: International Development Research Centre (IDRC & Southbound). Asian Journal of Communication 95 Bunnag, J. (1975). Development work and social sciences. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 47/58). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Byrnes, F. (1975). The role of communication in agricultural development. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 69/80). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Cadiz, M. C. (1991). Educational communication for development: Basic concepts, theories and know- how. Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Cadiz, M. C. (1994). Communication and participatory development: A review of concepts, approaches and lessons . Laguna: University of the Philippines at Los Banos. CDC. (nd). Communication for planned change: College of Development Communication. Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http://www28.brinkster.com/cdcuplb/ Childers, E. (1976). DSC: Thread for development planning. Development Communication Report , 16, 1, 5/6. Childers, E., & Vajrathon, M. (1975). Social communication components in development programs. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 37/46). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Communication Initiative. (2004). Drum Beat condolences on the death of Everett Rogers. Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http://www.comminit.com/drum_beat_274.html Cuyno, R. (1975). Assessing performance of development action programs. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 81/89). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Flor, A. (1995). Broadcast-based distance learning systems . Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin Books. Freire, P., & Horton, M. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change between Myles Horton and Paulo Freire. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Friedman, T. L. (2000). The Lexus and the olive tree. London: HarperCollins. Gomez, E. (1975). Using local radio stations in community development. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 91/100). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Gomez, E. (1976). Characteristics of development broadcasting. Unpublished mimeograph, Department of Agricultural Communication, University of Philippines at Los Banos. Gumucio, A. (2001). Making waves: Stories of participatory communication and social change . New York: Rockefeller Foundation. Gwinn Wilkins, K., & Mody, B. (2001). Reshaping development communication: Developing communication and communicating development. Communication Theory, 11, 385/396. Jamias, J. (1975a). The philosophy of development communication. In Readings in development communication (pp. 13/24). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Jamias, J. (1975b). Preface. In Readings in development communication (pp. vii /viii). Los Banos, Laguna: Department of Development Communication, UPLB College of Agriculture. Jamias, J. (1991). Writing for development: Focus on specialized reporting areas . Laguna: UPLB College of Development Communication and the Foundation for Development and Communication. Jayaweera, N. (1987). Rethinking development communication: A holistic view. In N. Jayaweera, & S. Amunugama (Eds.), Rethinking development communication (pp. 76/94). Singapore: The Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Centre (AMIC). Kamlongera, C. F. (1988). Theatre for development in Africa with case studies from Malawi and Zambia. Bonn and Zomba: University of Malawi Fine and Performing Arts Department and German Foundation for International Development. Kasetsart University. (2004). Master of Science in Development Communication: Department of agricultural extension and communication. Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http://www.aec. agr.ku.ac.th/curriculum/dev_com.php?lang_mode/eng Kumar, K. (1981). Mass communication in India. Bombay, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Calcutta and Madras: Jaico Publishing House. 96 L. Manyozo Kumar, K. (1994). Communication approaches to participation and development: Challenging assumptions and perspectives. In S. White, K. Sadanandan Nair, & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory communication: Working for change and development (pp. 76/92). New Delhi, Thousand Oaks and London: Sage. Lent, J. (1977). Development communication: Watch dog or lap dog? Development Communication Report , 19, 1/3. Lerner, D. (1958). The passing of traditional society. Glencoe: Free Press. Librero, F. (1985). Rural educational broadcasting: A Philippine experience. Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Maglalang, D. (Ed.). (1976). From the village to the medium: An experience in development communication. Manila: Communication Foundation for Asia. Manyozo, L. (2004). Locating the praxis of development radio broadcasting within development communication. Journal of Global Communication Research Association, 1. Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http://gcra.uaeu.ac.ae/journal/dec2004/ Maslog, C. (1999). Heroes of Asian journalism. Manila: Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation. Mayo, M., & Craig, G. (1995). Community participation and empowerment: The human face of structural adjustment or tools for democratic transformation? In Community empowerment: A reader in participation and development (pp. 1/11). London: ZED Books. Melkote, S., & Steeves, H. L. (2001). Communication for development in the Third World: Theory and practice for empowerment . New Delhi and Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mlama, P. (1971). Culture and development: The popular theatre approach in Africa. Uppsala: The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Mulenga, D. (1999). Reections on the practice of participatory research in Africa. Convergence, 32(1/4), 33/46. Quebral, N. (1975a). Development communication. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 1/11). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Quebral, N. (1975b). The making of a development communicator. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 25/36). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Quebral, N., & Gomez, E. (1976). Development communication primer. Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Quebral, N. (1988). Development communication. Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Quebral, N. (2002). Reections on development communication: 25 years after. Los Banos: UPLB College of Development Communication. Ramiro Beltra n, L. (2004). Ive lived my life as a communication artist, not a scientist: An interview with Alfonso Gumucio Dargon. Mazi: The Communication for Social Change Report, 1 , November. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from http://www.communicationforsocial change.org/dialogues.php?id/233 Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations . New York: Free Press. Roders, E. (1993). Perspectives on development communication. In S. White, K. Sadanandan Nair, & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Perspectives on development communication (pp. 35/45). New Delhi, Thousand Oaks and London: Sage. Ross, V. (1975). The communication process and agricultural and economic development. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 119/134). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Samonte, V. (1975). Development communication research at Los Banos. In J. Jamias (Ed.), Readings in development communication (pp. 101/118). Laguna: UPLB College of Agriculture. Schramm, W. (1964). Mass media and national development: The role of information in the developing countries . Stanford: Stanford University Press. Spain, P., Jamison, D., & McAnany, E. (Ed.). (1977). Radio for education and development: Case studies . Washington, DC: World Bank. Asian Journal of Communication 97 University of Philippines. (nd). A brief history of the University. Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http://www.up.edu.ph/ups_web_html/about.htm Vargas, L. (1995). Social uses and radio practices: The use of participatory radio by ethnic minorities in Mexico. Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford: Westview Press. World Bank. (nd). What is development communication? Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http:// www.worldbank.org/developmentcommunications/what2nlevel.htm Appendix Professor Nora Cruz Quebral, a Pioneer in Development Communication Nora Cruz Quebral, a leading pioneer in the field of development communication, is Professor Emeritus of Development Communication, University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB), President of the Nora C. Quebral Development Communication Centre, and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal of Communicating for Development Social Change. Quebral was the first Chair of the then Department of Development Commu- nication, when it was based in UPLBs College of Agriculture. This department has since become the College of Development Communication (CDC). In the early 1970s, Quebral developed the curriculum for the Development Communication BSc, now a CDC offering very relevant to the needs of developing nations. Nora Quebral has consulted for UN agencies, national and international governmental organizations, and NGOs. She has served as communication specialist, resident advisor, communication director, training resource specialist, external examiner, and evaluator for numerous organizations and projects at home and around the world. Quebral and her college colleagues established important periodicals on communication, development, and knowledge exchange, such as the ILEIA newsletter and the 1980s Agriculture at Los Banos, DevCom Quarterly. The Nora C. Quebral Development Communication Center Inc. helped plan and implement the IDRC-supported Participatory Development Communication Learn- ing and Networking Program in community-based natural resource management, known as Isang Bagsak, for researchers and practitioners in Southeast Asia and Eastern and Southern Africa. Her pioneering definition and her many other contributions to development communication are widely acknowledged in academia and appreciated by scholars and organizations in the West as well as the developing world. However, Quebral acknowledges the personal and theoretical influences that shaped her thinking and inclination towards development communication. She gives special mention to her research advisor, Professor Bryant Kear at the College of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin who, she says, broadened her perspective. Alongside Kear, she acknowledges the influences of UNDPs Erskine Childers; Dr. Wilbur Schramm, who started all this talk on communication and development; and the Philippine rural sociologist Gelia Castillo, who wrote the book on how participatory participation can be. She also drew inspiration from the works of Paulo 98 L. Manyozo Freire. She says, when we started development communication experiments in the 1960s, we hadnt heard about Paulo Freire, but as we went along, Freires writing became available. From among her contemporaries, Quebral acknowledges the support and encouragement of Gloria Feliciano, Jan Servaes, Louis Ramiro Beltran, and others. Nora Quebral was saddened by the uncertainty in the 1980s and 1990s, when development communication was confused with government communication, which compelled her to publish papers like Development communication: Where does it stand today? in 1975. Some of her major works include: Asian university network in development communication (1988); Development communication: Status and trends, the time is now (l976); Development communication primer, with Ely Gomez (1976); Exploratory study on communication technology for rural education (1978); IPM farmer field schools: A work in progress (2002); Promoting agricultural productivity: The case of National Azolla Action Program (1987); Reflections on development communication, 25 years after (2002); Research in development communication (1978); Science reporting as a development tool (1974); The CTRE study: Piloting a distance learning system for small farmers (1982) and The making of a development communicator (1974). Among her many other publications is Development communication (1988), seen as the Magna Carta of the practice and field, in which Quebral reflectively discusses development communication as a concept, an academic discipline, and as a practice. Quebral strongly believes development communication emerged in response to development challenges facing the Third World, arguing, as citizens of developing nations, we need to pull resources together so that our countries will be able to fulfill the goals and dreams of our citizens. Quebral continues to spend time at Los Banos, where she maintains a desk and gives inspirational talks on the role of development communication in todays world, which suffers from growing globalization. She gave a memorable talk, Development communication in the new millennium, at the Grand Annual Convergence of Development Communicators at CDC in October 1999. In November 2001, Quebral presented Development communication in a borderless world at the National Conference Workshop on the Undergraduate Development Communication Curri- culum at UPLB. Nora Cruz Quebral continues to zealously advocate for the field she and others pioneered in the 1950s and 1960s. With the immense amount of innovation her career has spurred and the honors she has received, Quebral personifies the current and future importance of development communication in discourse and practice. Asian Journal of Communication 99