All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

An Analysis of Participatory Communication for Development: A Social Construction Perspective
Unformatted Document Text:  Participatory Communication for Development 19 important to know about trust than about educational standards, pedagogical methods, media technology, or communication benchmarks” (p. 125), yet they acknowledge that cultivating trust can be a difficult goal. Beyond the assertion that “authentic listening fosters trust” (p. 126), the authors do not clearly explain how trust can be achieved. In another discussion of facilitation, Servaes (1999) goes further in describing trust and acknowledges that: It will take some time to develop rapport and trust. Continued contact, meeting commitments, keeping promises, and following up between visits is important. Development of social trust precedes task trust. Both parties will need patience. (p. 89) From this description we can see the similarities between Servaes’ and Tilakaratna’s requirements for facilitators. They must spend extended time in the community, interacting socially with local people in order to build trust and create the conditions for future participation. A co-construction perspective on trust can further explicate the communication processes involved in facilitation. Co-construction requires that trust be understood relationally, rather than as an individual trait or personal characteristic. Facilitators on their own do not create the conditions for trust, for the conditions are negotiated in interaction. Rogers (1998) explains that trust “rests on the mutual predictability of other relative to self” (p. 80) and that this is constantly being negotiated in the relationship. Rogers describes this negotiation in terms of the “relational level information [which] is ‘given off’ within a given context [to] indicate how close or how far members are invited or allowed to be in the ‘distancing dance’ that is being performed” (p. 80), a dance which she emphasizes is co- constructed by the participants. The dialogic co-construction of trust has also been examined in theories and research in interpersonal communication. Stewart (1978), among others, approaches interpersonal issues such as trust from a theoretical framework which privileges dialogic communication. From this perspective, humans are understood not as individuals, but as persons-in-relation, such that trust becomes a

Authors: Dare, Alexa.
first   previous   Page 19 of 29   next   last



background image
Participatory Communication for Development 19
important to know about trust than about educational standards, pedagogical methods, media
technology, or communication benchmarks” (p. 125), yet they acknowledge that cultivating trust can
be a difficult goal. Beyond the assertion that “authentic listening fosters trust” (p. 126), the authors
do not clearly explain how trust can be achieved. In another discussion of facilitation, Servaes (1999)
goes further in describing trust and acknowledges that:
It will take some time to develop rapport and trust. Continued contact, meeting commitments,
keeping promises, and following up between visits is important. Development of social trust
precedes task trust. Both parties will need patience. (p. 89)
From this description we can see the similarities between Servaes’ and Tilakaratna’s requirements for
facilitators. They must spend extended time in the community, interacting socially with local people
in order to build trust and create the conditions for future participation. A co-construction perspective
on trust can further explicate the communication processes involved in facilitation.
Co-construction requires that trust be understood relationally, rather than as an individual trait
or personal characteristic. Facilitators on their own do not create the conditions for trust, for the
conditions are negotiated in interaction. Rogers (1998) explains that trust “rests on the mutual
predictability of other relative to self” (p. 80) and that this is constantly being negotiated in the
relationship. Rogers describes this negotiation in terms of the “relational level information [which] is
‘given off’ within a given context [to] indicate how close or how far members are invited or allowed
to be in the ‘distancing dance’ that is being performed” (p. 80), a dance which she emphasizes is co-
constructed by the participants.
The dialogic co-construction of trust has also been examined in theories and research in
interpersonal communication. Stewart (1978), among others, approaches interpersonal issues such as
trust from a theoretical framework which privileges dialogic communication. From this perspective,
humans are understood not as individuals, but as persons-in-relation, such that trust becomes a


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 19 of 29   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.