Combination of extent of mass communication capacity and the degree of social sensitivity of the issue being addressed will determine the most appropriate and effective response
2. Core Questions
a. Relevant Behaviors
population groups affected - by age,sex, geography
main direct behaviours of concern
incidence of those behaviours
trends in those behajviours - the last 10 years
primary factors explaining those trends
primary reasons for those trends
usage of services responding to this issue
trends in usage - the last 10 years
b. Social Setting
tone of any recent legislation related to this issue
expressed views on this issue by:
political leaders
traditional leaders
religious leaders
women's organisations
youth organisations
specific behaviours causing most public concern
perceived views on this issue by the above groups
tone of coverage in the media
cultural context - eg expectations and taboos
extent and nature of any household discussion
extent and nature of discussion amongst peers
stigmas related to this issue
priority assigned by government - perhaps as indicated by trends in budget allocations
Placed on the Communication Initiative site November 04 2003
Last Updated November 04 2003
How useful did you find the knowledge and contacts on this page to your work?
Post your comments (review comments from others below):
COMMENTS POSTED
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 1999-11-30 00:00.
I am puzzled why most of these models only draw on mass communication theory or deviratives of models such as the 'transmission' model.
So many communicators still believe in the transmission model, where the receiving partner is invariably placed in a passive role. Good communication is like a good conversation—it is respectful, mutually beneficial, gives both parties a chance to negotiate and clarify points and leaves people feeling as though the conversation was worthwhile.
Sending and receiving is not an appropriate metaphor for communication—communication is not a linear process, it is the dynamics of interaction and negotiated understanding that need to be addressed by communication professionals.
There is also a tendency to make the assumption that people's attitudes will influence their behaviour. That is if you send someone enough messages their attitudes will change and as a result so will their behaviour. This is incorrect. Despite the prevalence of traditional commuication models, 50 years of research has shown that there is no absolutely no correlation connection between attitude and behaviour. What people say is not necessarily what they do. I may have a positive view towards protecting the environment, but I may also choose to use very toxic cleaning fluids because I think they work better. I perpetually wonder why we keep using attitudes as an indicator of behaviour. No wonder so many communication products don't stand up to useability testing.
For those of us who don't use traditional models for the reasons cited above, we work furiously to bring the rest of the profession and those that they advise up to speed with more sophisticated processes for communicating in truly interactive ways. True Change is not brought about by changing people's attitudes but showing them how to experience things in different ways than they are used to. This is one of our company's key aims as communicators.
How central to democracy are newspapers - some of which are being lost to budget cuts and other changes - as opposed to blogs, YouTube, emails, text messaging, twittering, and the like?
I am puzzled why most of these models only draw on mass communication theory or deviratives of models such as the 'transmission' model.
So many communicators still believe in the transmission model, where the receiving partner is invariably placed in a passive role. Good communication is like a good conversation—it is respectful, mutually beneficial, gives both parties a chance to negotiate and clarify points and leaves people feeling as though the conversation was worthwhile.
Sending and receiving is not an appropriate metaphor for communication—communication is not a linear process, it is the dynamics of interaction and negotiated understanding that need to be addressed by communication professionals.
There is also a tendency to make the assumption that people's attitudes will influence their behaviour. That is if you send someone enough messages their attitudes will change and as a result so will their behaviour. This is incorrect. Despite the prevalence of traditional commuication models, 50 years of research has shown that there is no absolutely no correlation connection between attitude and behaviour. What people say is not necessarily what they do. I may have a positive view towards protecting the environment, but I may also choose to use very toxic cleaning fluids because I think they work better. I perpetually wonder why we keep using attitudes as an indicator of behaviour. No wonder so many communication products don't stand up to useability testing.
For those of us who don't use traditional models for the reasons cited above, we work furiously to bring the rest of the profession and those that they advise up to speed with more sophisticated processes for communicating in truly interactive ways. True Change is not brought about by changing people's attitudes but showing them how to experience things in different ways than they are used to. This is one of our company's key aims as communicators.