Global mechanism
From my UN agency and technical programme perspective:
C4D/media, social and behaviour change is such a cross-cutting area needed by all technical programmes to achieve their objectives. C4D has many common strategies, models and principles that can be adapted to individual programmes, therefore having a single platform to gather and improve guidelines, tools, data and expertise would be useful. So far all agencies and programmes have been trying to establish their own C4D components which leads to fragmentation of efforts and often duplication. Such a platform can also help generating a collective response to emerging challenges such as anti-vaccine movements.
Also in the digital age there are evolving needs. People reach alternative sources of information easily and can have an informal line of communication among each other, so engaging communities in the debate is the key. People want to have a more informed choice on certain behaviours
The mechanism should facilitate information exchange and have a well moderated discussion platform. Working groups on key areas may be established. It may also host a searchable roster of experts to facilitate access to specialized expertise. Periodic screening of new publications and guidance documents and posting of links on the website would be useful.
The mechanism should aim to sustain its presence in the long term in order to achieve some results. It needs a core group of people to shoulder most of the work, with commitment from all (or at least most of the) other stakeholders. Adequate funding for the platform itself is a must, but the core group is better to be kept lean, away from heavy bureaucracy.
Comments
Integrating the mechanistic and humanistic: Global Mechanism
I have previously emailed some thoughts on the consultation. Reading further replies since the London meeting, which I could not attend, it strikes me that the title:
Global Mechanism for Communication, Media, Social and Behaviour Change
- highlights a role for the adoption of a generic conceptual framework to integrate these themes and aspects of your work. This might mitigate - even if it cannot wholly prevent - the fragmentation that occurs as Oya Zeren Afsar has highlighted. I champion Hodges' model as a framework for the following reasons, which may resonate with your goals and objectives(?).
It is open in not being tied to a particular discipline.
It is simple in its basic form but lends itself to complex formulations as required.
It is a tool that once learned can facilitate lifelong learning.
It can be used on a one-to-one basis clinically, with a family, or groups (locally, globally, glocally).
It is applicable across education and all healthcare, policy applications (including forensic care).
As already suggested - the model is situated, encourages reflection and is flexible according to the model of communication adopted:
- informational - technical
- client - professional
- interpersonal
- health promoting
- literacy
- sign - diagrammatic
the form of media:
social and behavioural contexts.
The model is subject to research as evidence for the above is of course vital. Finally, two questions in support of the model to ponder upon?
1. Is there an overarching theory of global health (care) communication?
2. Amid the policy goal of 'integrated' healthcare / education (curricula) why is this so elusive?
While the model may not solve 1 & 2 it provides a 'conceptual plugin' for a gap that continues to stymie our efforts.
Best wishes in your ongoing deliberations.
Peter Jones
Community Mental Health Nurse
CMHT Brookside
Aughton Street
Ormskirk L39 3BH, UK
+44 01772 773770
& Graduate Student - Lancaster University: Technology Enhanced Learning
Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD"
- Log in to post comments