This item was submitted to Loughborough's Research Repository by the author.

Items in Figshare are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Listening to the listeners: intersections of participation, voice, and

development in community radio
PLEASE CITE THE PUBLISHED VERSION

PUBLISHER

Loughborough University

LICENCE

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

REPOSITORY RECORD

Backhaus, Bridget. 2019. “Listening to the Listeners: Intersections of Participation, Voice, and Development in
Community Radio”. figshare. https://doi.org/10.26174/thesis.lboro.8313629.v1.
 Listening to the Listeners:

Intersections of Participation, Voice, and Development in Community Radio

by

Bridget Backhaus

Doctoral Thesis

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of

Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University

March 2019

© by Bridget Backhaus 2019

Abstract
Community radio has long been considered a “voice for the voiceless”. But what good is a voice if no-one
is listening? This thesis explores the role of listening in community radio. Specifically, how community
radio broadcasters in India listen to their audiences and how these interactions influence broadcast
content and other station activities. In discussing this, this research also examines the effect of a
development agenda upon community radio stations in India.
Employing an interpretive framework of cognitive justice, this research employs a bricolage-
inspired approach to ethnography. The Hindi term jugaad reflects community radio’s contingent,
determined, occasionally haphazard spirit, and therefore forms the basis of the methodology. A jugaad
approach, in this case, means a multi-sited qualitative study that takes an adaptive approach and utilises
methods from ethnography and other approaches as appropriate.
In alignment with this jugaad methodology, the methods of data collection included participant
observation, interviews, Kusenbach’s (2003) “go-alongs”, and listener storytelling. Three types of in-
depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted: listener focus groups, staff group interviews, and
one-on-one interviews with key informants. The final method was listener storytelling which invited
listeners to share personal narratives regarding their relationship and interactions with the radio stations.
Data were then analysed using a combination of constructivist grounded theory and narrative analysis.
Data collection took place at two rural community radio stations in South India. Though the identities of
the stations themselves have been loosely disguised, the general location of this research is within the
state of Tamil Nadu in the south of India.
The foremost findings of this research relate to the influence of a development agenda on the
community radio sector in India. Manyozo’s (2017) concept of "the spectacle of development" provides a
useful frame for understanding the insidious ways in which development shapes the lives of so-called
'beneficiaries' at all levels. The spectacle of development was observed throughout the research data
through the ways that audiences and station staff interpreted and performed development. Despite the
participatory, horizontal flows of communication espoused in community radio literature, there was clear
evidence of a modernisation discourse operating through a top-down transmission of information.
While the spectacle of development clearly influences the work of community radio stations in
India, there were examples of how the spectacle and subsequent spectres can be subverted. One such
example was when community radio stations act as amplification of local or indigenous knowledge
communication systems. This was observed through the amplification of local technical knowledge, as
evidenced by the knowledge sharing practices of farmers, as well as cultural knowledge, which could be
seen in the preservation of local traditions and the sharing of various aspects of different cultures.
Community radio is intended as a participatory medium, but the spectacle of development and
other contextual factors serve to limit who can participate and how. What emerged from the research

2
was the value or meaning that audience members derived from their participation, however limited or
restricted it was. Audience members derived value in several areas - voice, ownership, identity, and
agency - all of which are collectively termed "meaningful participation”.
The final area of findings relates to listening, which emerged as a way of subverting deeply
entwined power structures to create new communicative spaces. Creating these spaces requires those in
positions of power, such as community radio broadcasters, to relinquish this power and act as "listeners"
themselves to work towards political equality.
For community radio stations working within a development agenda, audience members most
appreciate programming and activities that are deeply embedded within the contextual environment of
the community and are based on listening to their needs and interests. The broader implications of these
findings offer insight into how stations might design programming and activities to deeply engage with
their audiences and embed themselves as an essential part of the local media landscape.

3
 This thesis is dedicated to community radio listeners.

“Moving from silence into speech is for the oppressed, the colonized, the exploited, and those who stand
and struggle side by side a gesture of defiance that heals, that makes new life and new growth possible.
It is that act of speech, of “talking back,” that is no mere gesture of empty words, that is the expression of
our movement from object to subject – the liberated voice” (bell hooks, 1989, p. 9).

“You don’t have to be a voice for the voiceless, just pass the mic” (@DrSuad, 2017).

4
Acknowledgements
I am truly indebted to those who have helped me throughout my research. If it takes a village to raise a
child, it certainly takes at least to few neighbourhoods to raise a thesis. My endless thanks go to the
inhabitants of those neighbourhoods, spanning academic disciplines, countries and time zones. None of
this would have been possible without all of you.
First and foremost, I am profoundly grateful for the support and guidance of my supervisor
Professor Jo Tacchi. I consider myself very lucky to have a supervisor who is not only an academic force
but who also gave me the flexibility and space to develop my own ideas and processes. Jo’s work
continues to inspire and challenge me, and I’m so thankful for her advice and guidance. A big thank you
also to my associate supervisor Dr Rohit Dasgupta. Thank you for your reading suggestions and generous
feedback, my thesis has greatly benefitted from your perspective and guidance. I really could not have
asked for better supervisors, thank you both so much.
For providing invaluable feedback on my work at critical stages, I’d like to thank Dr Rico Lie,
Professor Nico Carpentier, Dr Aswin Punathambekar, and Dr R Sreedher.
Thank you to the UNESCO Chair on Community Media at the University of Hyderabad. Special
thanks to Professor Vinod Pavarala and Professor Kanchan Malik. Despite being legends in the CR sector,
they were both incredibly warm, approachable, and generous with their time and advice. This thesis truly
would not have been possible without them.
Thank you to soon-to-be Dr Arun John, a source of infinite reading suggestions, laughs, and
recommendations on the best biryani and momos in Hyderabad, Bangalore, and beyond.
I am incredibly grateful to my research assistant, Miss M. Pon Sowganthiya, who put her own
research on hold to take part in an adventure with a foreigner she’d never met before. She was truly an
asset to my research and it would not have been half as productive or enjoyable without her help. Thank
you also to her family for taking me into their homes and giving me endless amounts of kindness and
cups of tea. Thank you also to my unofficial local guides, Amaran Ajay, and Associate Professor Ramraj
from PSG University.
Thank you to my radio station Akkas. They both were the beating hearts of their stations, as well
as the brains and the legs. This thesis is for you. The tough women of the rural community radio stations
in India.
Thank you to the researchers at RMIT University: Dr Judy Lawry, Dr Craig Batty, Professor Linje
Manyozo and Dr Jessica Noske-Turner for starting my PhD journey and helping me to lay some rock-solid
foundations from which to launch my inquiries.
Thank you to my PhD agony aunt/mentor through the madness, soon-to-be Dr Faith Valencia-
Forrester. My love of community radio is all your fault and this thesis is too. I am so incredibly grateful for

5
your friendship and guidance. I’m looking forward to future writing retreats featuring beautiful views and
bulk cheese.
Thank you to the cast of friends that helped me grasp on to those thin, fraying threads of sanity.
Thank you to my parents and brother who made fun of me mercilessly while still providing the kind of
rock-steady, unwavering support that crosses oceans and spotty internet connections. You kept me
humble, strong, and smiling no matter where I was or whatever strange situation I found myself in. Thank
you. I am also incredibly grateful for my endlessly patient husband, Ryan. Thank you for your love,
support, and unfailing sense of humour, not just throughout this PhD, but over the last ten years. Finally,
thank you to my most unflinching confidante, critic, and co-worker, Tippy the cat. Good girl.

6
Contents
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................5
List of abbreviations......................................................................................................................................10
1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................11
2 Research design and methodology ............................................................................................................15
Interpretive framework: viewing knowledge and realities through cognitive justice..............................15
Interpreting ‘development’ ......................................................................................................................23
Media, communication and development ...........................................................................................26
Researching community radio ..................................................................................................................28
Alternative approaches to researching development and community radio ......................................30
Methodology: a jugaad approach to ethnography ..................................................................................33
Tracing a phenomenon through multi-sited research..........................................................................36
Reflexivity in ethnographic practice .....................................................................................................37
3 Methods .....................................................................................................................................................39
Participant observation ............................................................................................................................39
Interviews .................................................................................................................................................41
Storytelling................................................................................................................................................43
Data analysis .............................................................................................................................................46
Grounded theory ..................................................................................................................................46
Narrative analysis .................................................................................................................................47
Translation ................................................................................................................................................51
Limitations ................................................................................................................................................53
"You better leave" ................................................................................................................................53
"That's it?" "That's it." ..........................................................................................................................55
4 Background and context ............................................................................................................................58
Community radio ......................................................................................................................................58
Democratising media access ................................................................................................................60
"Community" ........................................................................................................................................61
Research context ......................................................................................................................................67
Community radio in India .....................................................................................................................68
Sites ..........................................................................................................................................................72
Enkal Vanoli ..........................................................................................................................................76
Malai Vanoli ..........................................................................................................................................77

7
5 Development: spectacles and spectres .....................................................................................................79
"The spectacle of development" ..............................................................................................................79
'Spectres' of development ........................................................................................................................82
The spectacle in action .........................................................................................................................86
Swachh Bharat......................................................................................................................................90
A story of the spectacle ........................................................................................................................96
6 Amplify .....................................................................................................................................................101
Context of the spectacle .........................................................................................................................101
IKCS .........................................................................................................................................................105
Technical .............................................................................................................................................108
Cultural ...............................................................................................................................................111
IKCS and the rhizome..............................................................................................................................114
Social...................................................................................................................................................115
Other organisations ............................................................................................................................118
7 Meaningful participation .........................................................................................................................122
Defining participation .............................................................................................................................122
Access .................................................................................................................................................125
Interaction ..........................................................................................................................................130
Power..................................................................................................................................................132
Limited participation ..............................................................................................................................133
Meaningful participation ........................................................................................................................135
Voice ...................................................................................................................................................137
Ownership ..........................................................................................................................................139
Identity ...............................................................................................................................................141
Agency ................................................................................................................................................142
8 Pass the mic .............................................................................................................................................145
Defining listening ....................................................................................................................................145
The façade of listening............................................................................................................................147
Layers of listening ...................................................................................................................................149
Social...................................................................................................................................................152
Incentivised.........................................................................................................................................154
Political ...............................................................................................................................................159
"Listeners" ..............................................................................................................................................161
9 The bowstring ..........................................................................................................................................165
References ..................................................................................................................................................172

8
Appendix 1: Interview details .....................................................................................................................193
Appendix 2: Participant interview questions and prompts ........................................................................195
Malai Vanoli ............................................................................................................................................195
Group interviews with staff ................................................................................................................195
One-on-one interview with station manager .....................................................................................195
Listener focus group discussions ........................................................................................................195
Storytelling .........................................................................................................................................196
Enkal Vanoli ............................................................................................................................................196
Group interviews with staff ................................................................................................................196
One-on-one interview with station manager .....................................................................................196
Listener focus group discussions ........................................................................................................196
Storytelling .........................................................................................................................................197
Appendix 3: Translator debrief interview ...................................................................................................198

9
List of abbreviations

AIR All India Radio

AMARC World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters
BJP Bharatiya Janata Party
C4D Communication for Development
CR Community radio
CR-CIT Community Radio Continuous Improvement Toolkit
EAR Ethnographic Action Research
GBP Great British Pounds
ICT Information Communication Technology
ICTD Information Communication Technology for Development
IKCS Indigenous Knowledge Communication Systems
INR Indian Rupees
IPDC International Programme for the Development of Communication
KVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra (agricultural science centre)
M4D Media for Development
MCD Media, Communication and Development
MDG Millennium Development Goals
NGO Non-Government Organisation
ODF Open Defecation Free
RJ Radio Journalist
RSS Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
RTI Right to Information
SBM Swachh Bharat Mission
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WHO World Health Organisation

10
1 Introduction
In India's southernmost states, there is a folk music style called willupattu. A genre of musical storytelling,
willupattu directly translates to "bow song" and draws its name from the bow-shaped instrument that
accompanies the singers. A willupattu group usually consists of seven or eight members supporting a
lead singer-narrator. There are several formats that a willupattu performance might take. The lead
narrator might take up a local folk legend or one of Hinduism's great epics, with the rest of the group
forming a chorus that repeats refrains from the story or simply says in unison "Yes, yes" or "Is that so?"
(Varadpande, 1987). Alternatively, a secondary narrator may assist the lead narrator, occasionally
introducing new material into the narrative sequence but mostly embodying the role of an "ideal
listener" (Herring, 1991). In this willupattu format, the secondary narrator responds to the lead narrator
at each appropriate moment in the way most appropriate to the flow of the story. In this role, the
secondary narrator articulates responses to rhetorical questions that are usually merely implied and left
unspoken. The final format of a willupattu performance is a debate. Extempore debates can take place
during performances where the group divides into "leftists" (Idathe padupavar) and "rightists" (Valathe
padupavar). The rightists compose a verse on the spot about any topic at all, and the leftists respond in
the same tune (Bhatt, 2006). Careful listening, not only to the content, but also to the metre, rhythm, and
tune of the argument, is essential to formulating a response. Debates can go on for many hours. This
format is one of the most unique aspects of willupattu.
Willupattu acts as a useful metaphor for this thesis. Listening may be simplistic and acquiescent,
like the chorus agreeing with the narrator; it may be active but performative: the secondary narrator
playing the role of an ideal listener; it may be engaged, even critical, but ultimately working within
confines set by others, like the leftists trying to beat the rightists at their own game. What this thesis aims
to make clear is the structures that govern listening in community radio in India. The structures implicit
within community radio stations and their interactions with listeners. The structures that determine how
listeners are able to participate. The broader structures that dictate what community radio stations
should be doing and saying. Understanding these structures is crucial to understanding the work that
takes place within and despite them.
Community radio can be many things to many people. It can be the voice of the young and
disenfranchised, who tune in to hear their music and their politics. It can be a voice from home, that
speaks in a familiar tongue in a foreign land. It can be a voice for those without sight. It can be a voice for
those without representation. In some rural and remote areas, it can be the only voice. Community radio
can be a lifeline. The voice of safety and reason in times of disaster, natural or man-made. It can be a
local, human voice in a media environment saturated by over-produced, over-exposed products of
globalisation and corporatisation. Community radio, as generally defined and understood, is a
conversation, not an autocue script. It represents people over profit. Community radio is gaffer tape,

11
hand-me-downs, and baptisms of fire, rather than the latest technology and professional media training.
Community radio creates alternative spaces of opportunity, representation, and voice. From remote
indigenous communities in Australia (Fisher, 2012), to the coal mines of Colombia (Gumucio-Dagron,
2001); from post-conflict reconciliation in Cyprus (Carpentier & Doudaki, 2014), to listening clubs in
Malawi (Manyozo, 2007), community radio is a "voice for the voiceless" (Gumucio-Dagron, 2008; Jallov,
2003; Scott, 2014; Sterling, O’Brien, & Bennett, 2009).
It is easy to be swept up or seduced by the rhetoric and quaint charm associated with your
friendly neighbourhood community radio station, particularly when discussing development and social
change. While development might suggest the blue helmets of peacekeepers or crates of rice
parachuting from a passing helicopter, community radio suggests empowerment, democracy, a free
press, and voice for all, even the world's poorest and most downtrodden citizens. Voice in this context
has variously been associated with "personhood", "individuality", embodiment, and the right to engage in
social and political discourse (Appadurai, 2004; Couldry, 2010; Kunreuther, 2012; Tacchi, Watkins, &
Keerthirathne, 2009). And yet, to paraphrase the ontological question of a tree falling in the forest, what
is the value of voice if no-one is listening?
This question is central to this thesis. As Servaes and Malikhao observe, being 'voiceless' is not
attributed to having nothing to say but rather having no-one to listen (2005). Can the same be said for
community radio in development contexts? In what ways is it a bastion of voice, free speech, and media
diversity? That is what this thesis aims to explore: how listening manifests within community radio in
India; if and how this listening influences broadcast content and other station activities; the effect of a
development agenda upon community radio stations in India; and, arguably most important, if
community radio audiences in India, who are traditionally conceived as the 'listeners', feel that their
voices are heard. These questions were explored through qualitative research that takes an ethnographic
approach at two community radio stations in South India.
In Chapter 2, this thesis begins by presenting the interpretive framework underpinning this
research. Informed by constructivism, postcolonial feminism and the idea of cognitive justice, this
framework informs the research design and the broader approach to inquiry. The chapter then identifies
and defines the key contested terms employed throughout the research so as to establish conceptual
clarity. Next is an introduction and discussion of a jugaad approach to ethnography as a methodology,
and a rationale for choosing this methodology as an appropriate framework for the exploration of the
research questions.
Building on this methodology, Chapter 3 discusses the specific methods of data collection and
analysis which include traditional methods from the ethnographer’s toolbox such as participant
observation and interviews. Other more novel methods are also discussed including Kusenbach's "go-
alongs" (2003) and, drawing on the work of King (2015), listener storytelling, both of which are aimed at
eliciting more descriptive qualitative data while mitigating the influence of lines of questioning imposed

12
by an interviewer. Methods of data analysis are discussed, with a rationale for employing constructivist
grounded theory alongside narrative analysis. Given the location of the research and the background of
the researcher, Chapter 3 also includes a discussion of the issues surrounding translating and
interpreting, and the techniques in place to account for these potential issues. Finally, the chapter
explores the key limitations of this research and suggests how they may be overcome in future projects.
Community radio is complex in its theoretical underpinnings as well as how it is enacted. Chapter
4 offers some background and context into community radio by exploring its rationale and key theoretical
approaches. Before delving more specifically into the research sites, this chapter provides an in-depth
exploration of the modern history of community radio in India. Finally, Chapter 4 introduces the specific
research sites, first, by introducing their state, Tamil Nadu, then offering a brief description of the
stations themselves. As a point of ethics, the stations are lightly disguised, the rationale for which is also
explored in this chapter.
Chapter 5 introduces the ways in which development agendas impact on community radio in
India. Drawing on Manyozo's (2017) concept of "the spectacle of development", this chapter traces the
history of development thought and the subsequent critiques of its dominant approaches. After a critical
review of the literature in this field, the chapter then turns to practical examples from the research data
to demonstrate how this "spectacle of development" manifests throughout the day-to-day activities of
community radio stations in India through language, broader societal phenomena, and the impact on
listeners.
Despite the bleak picture painted in the preceding chapter, Chapter 6 explores the positive work
taking place within community radio in India, first discussing more in-depth historical context before
turning to the research data. Drawing from development and communication literature, as well as
examples from the data, the argument here is that the most beneficial or valued work of community
radio is based on the amplification of existing local knowledge communication systems. These systems
pertain to both cultural and technical knowledge, and also relate to the theoretical approach to
community radio as rhizome.
Chapter 7 turns to the role of participation in community radio. This chapter applies a critical lens
to the supposedly participatory nature of the medium to interrogate how participation is framed in both
community radio and development literature, and how the literature aligns with practice. What emerges
from this, in conversation with the data, is an alternative conceptualisation of participation, where the
value or meaning of the participation is determined by those participating - namely, community radio
audience members - rather than the extent to which the participation occurs.
The notion of listening is inherent throughout this thesis, but Chapter 8 is a dedicated discussion
of listening in light of earlier findings. In this chapter, listening is first defined, in itself a complex task,
before being contextualised and applied to the spectacle of development and its various manifestations.
Turning then to the data, several 'circles' of listening that were observed are introduced and discussed.

13
Finally, Chapter 8 examines the role of community radio staff members as listeners themselves.
To conclude, Chapter 9 offers a summary of the discussions thus far before suggesting the
implications of the research for both theory and practice, and directions for future research in this area.
This thesis sits at the intersection of two key research disciplines, namely media studies,
specifically radio and alternative media studies, and communication for development and social change.
By bringing these fields together, this research contributes to the broader understanding of the role of
community radio within communication for development and social change. A focus on broadcaster
listening adds new dimensions to the body of research surrounding community radio, while exploring this
phenomenon within the context of a development agenda provides new insight which is particularly
significant given the role that community radio has played in media, communication and development
projects and interventions around the world.

14
2 Research design and methodology

Interpretive framework: viewing knowledge and realities

through cognitive justice
“Sometimes our homemade traditional medicine is good for some things, better than English medicine. I
had thyroid, blood pressure and cholesterol problems. I took tablets for these, which never seemed to
work. It worked in the morning but I get shivering in the evening. Now after facing this much trouble, I
completely reduced the use of cooking oil. It is not oil that gives taste to the food. It is in the method that
we make it. On the radio, they go and speak to the grandmothers for traditional medicines and cooking.
One old woman spoke in the radio and she told that she drinks Ragi porridge from traditional ingredients,
and that keeps her strong. I prepared it for the first time and my husband loved the taste. He
complimented me, and the next day he asked me to prepare some more porridge to give it to his brothers.
They too loved the taste and my porridge became famous overnight. Through these recipes, and walking
every day, I worked on myself and reduced my weight. Now I have got it under control and stopped taking
medicines for thyroid and blood pressure. So, for some cases we should definitely consult a doctor and for
some cases we should not believe in the doctor alone.”

***

The interpretive framework informing this research is a weak constructionist worldview. This paradigm
guides the scope, methods, and epistemological and ontological positions of the research (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994). While traditional constructivism focusses more on processes within the mind of the
individual (Gergen & Gergen, 2007), this research draws more from social constructionism, which places
more emphasis on social actors, interactions and collective meaning (Crotty, 1998). Schwandt suggests
that such an approach “might focus on how our experience of some particular object or idea, our
classifications of same, and our interest in same are socially constructed” (2001, p. 33). Weak
constructionism recognises the socially constructed nature of our experiences without denying the
existence of reality in the everyday sense of the term (Schwandt, 2001). The interpretive nature of the
research questions requires a flexible worldview that considers a multiplicity of views and understandings
around knowledge and reality.
While constructionism broadly captures the understandings of reality and the nature of
knowledge underpinning this research, I have taken a bricolage approach to crafting specific aspects of
this paradigm. Originally used by Levi-Strauss in his work on structuralist meaning-making in human
knowledge, in this context, bricolage is used as a metaphor for qualitative, flexible, and emergent
research design (M. Rogers, 2012). Denzin and Lincoln first applied the term to qualitative research when
discussing the eclectic, multi-theoretical and multi-methodological approaches developed by postcolonial

15
and poststructuralist researchers (2011). Lincoln, Lynham and Guba also suggest that, where borrowing
from other viewpoints seems useful, allows for greater depth of inquiry, or is theoretically heuristic, there
is great potential for incorporating multiple perspectives, interweaving viewpoints, or employing
bricolage (2011, p. 100). Crafting a bricolage interpretive framework informed by constructivism, rather
than uncritically subscribing to the broader paradigm, allows space for addressing the blind spots of the
traditional approach. Particularly pertinent, in this respect, is constructivism’s problematic goal of
consensus. Guba and Lincoln (1994, p. 113) observe that consensus is an aim of constructivism with
progress achieved through the formulation of more “informed and sophisticated constructions”. This
implies that some interpretations are more “informed and sophisticated” than others, and positions the
researcher as the unquestioned arbiter or, as Guba and Lincoln describe, the “facilitator of consensus”
(Guba & Lincoln, 1994). A bricolage approach to crafting the interpretive framework allows space to
navigate these issues and to draw from relevant theories, in this case, both feminist and postcolonial
theoretical perspectives. A postcolonial feminist perspective is important in this context because, when
researching the work of community radio practitioners, it is essential to take into account that “form and
effectivity of the author-function is reliant on the cultural, and thus necessarily social, values of the era in
which it emerges and those in which it is subsequently evaluated” (Lewis, 2013, p. 26). Postcolonial
feminism offers a lens through which to deconstruct hegemonic representations of a “feminized Oriental
other” so as to understand how such constructions contribute to imperialist ideas and policies (Lewis,
2013). Slack offers that “successful theorizing is not measured by exact theoretical fit but by the ability to
work with our always inadequate theories to help us move understanding ‘a little further on down the
road’” (1996, pp. 114–115). This bricolage inquiry paradigm aims to inform sensitive research that
considers historical and cultural factors while remaining reflexive and aware of the privileged position of
the researcher and the power structures embedded in that role. Far from attempting to represent or
“speak for” participants, this research aims simply to move understanding further on down the road.
The first theoretical perspective to influence this work is that of postcolonialism. Postcolonialism,
in its most general form, is the area of study that deals with the cultural effects of colonisation (Ashcroft,
Griffiths, & Tiffin, 2013). A broad field of study, postcolonialism incorporates many different bodies of
work. In contemporary terms though, Sethi suggests that “it has less significance as denoting ‘after
colonialism’ than in emphasizing the persistence of colonial tendencies in terms of a continuing
imperialism” (2011, p. 5). In his seminal title on colonialism, Orientalism, Edward Said scathingly
discusses the history of western knowledge silencing and oppressing their research subjects by speaking
for them and ignoring their capacity for voice (1979). “The Orient” and those who dwell within it was
constructed as an object of fetish, intrigue, and study, but also as one of control. Schwarz and Ray
suggest that postcolonial studies works towards righting the imperialist, Orientalist tendencies of past
research in this area through addressing unequal power structures and avoiding participation in “the
politics of dominance” (2008). Bailur (2008) suggests two key subsets within postcolonial theory: the first

16
refers to those works aimed at deconstructing colonial literature in order to understand the process of
colonisation. Hemer et al. fall into this category, observing that literature and research played a crucial
role in supporting colonial empires and therefore have the capacity to deconstruct and dismantle them as
well (2005). Similarly, the work of Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin (2003) explores the perceptual influences
of colonisation through the study of postcolonial literature. The second subset of postcolonial studies,
according to Bailur (2008), is subaltern studies. Though it stems from Gramscian theory, subaltern studies
is most closely associated with Ranajit Guha and the work of the Subaltern Studies editorial collective
who engaged in a postcolonial writing of “history from below” (Chakrabarty, 2000). “Subaltern” refers
primarily to systemic disadvantage in South Asian society however it manifests whether it be through
caste, class, gender, and so forth (Spivak & Guha, 1988), and examines the impacts of colonisation on
previously “colonised” groups (Bailur, 2008; Bhabha, 1985; Spivak & Harasym, 1990). Spivak warns,
however, of treating subaltern as a synonym for oppressed or ‘Other’, and instead recognising that
“everything that has limited or no access to the cultural imperialism is subaltern” (De Kock, 1992, p. 45).
For example, the working class may be oppressed, but they are not necessarily subaltern (De Kock, 1992).
Given the complexities and various interpretations of the “postcolonial”, Akindes argues that, rather than
a movement along a theoretical continuum or a chronological progression, postcolonialism acts as an
epistemological position aimed at de-privileging colonial worldviews (2003). This research predominantly
draws from the latter two interpretations of postcolonialism, focussing on recognising the perspective of
“subaltern groups” and understanding postcolonial as an epistemological position.
Though a postcolonial theoretical perspective provides an essential frame for this research, the
field is not without its critics. One particular critique worth discussing comes from Mohan, who asserts
that, while a postcolonial perspective highlights the epistemic violence of western discourses, such a
perspective may also serve to isolate cultural processes from material conditions, and that it fails to offer
any viable alternatives to the dominant epistemological frameworks it seeks to subvert (2001). Though
this is a broad assertion, it prompts a consideration of the practical implications of a postcolonial
perspective for research. Cognitive justice emerged as a guiding principle that offers an alternative
epistemological perspective while still considering the various aspects of postcolonial scholarship. The
concept of cognitive justice emerged from Indian scholar Visvanathan, well-known for his writings on
science and technology as well as social anthropology. He introduced the concept of “cognitive justice” as
a way of considering the hegemony of modern western science, considered “the best” and the most
dominant form of knowledge, while alternative knowledge sources are either dismissed as folklore,
ethnoknowledge, or superstition (Visvanathan, 2006, 2009). Santos refers to this destruction,
marginalisation, and oppression of non-western, non-scientific knowledges as “epistemicide” (2006).
Parallels are drawn between the domination of western scientific knowledge and the dominant
development paradigm which implies that the “diffusion” of technology from the cities to the peripheries

17
is enough to prompt development or “modernity” (Santos, 2006). Visvanathan (2009, para. 7) offers
cognitive justice as a practical way of recognising the value of alternative or traditional knowledges:
“Cognitive justice recognises the right of different forms of knowledge to co-exist but adds that
this plurality needs to go beyond tolerance or liberalism to an active recognition of the need for
diversity. It demands recognition of knowledges, not only as methods but as ways of life.”
Cognitive justice offers a framework for understanding and actively recognising local knowledge,
grounded in its own cultural, political, and historical environment. Cognitive justice suggests that western
and “alternative” knowledge can co-exist as equal contributors to understanding and provide equal
platforms from which to launch inquiry. Sethi (2011) observes that postcolonialism is often critiqued on
the grounds of being overly theoretical and textually-focussed, and thus losing touch with historic-
material reality. Cognitive justice presents a framework that draws from postcolonialism but recognises
the historical and political realities that shape alternative knowledges.
In addition to postcolonialism, this work is also influenced by a feminist theoretical perspective.
A critical inquiry paradigm, feminist research views gender as a fundamental organising principle that
shapes the conditions of life; research, therefore, aims to be transformative and create change (Creswell
& Poth, 2017; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). A feminist perspective encourages considering the role of power,
not just in terms of representation of research participants, but in all aspects of the research and the
research context. Fenton (2016, p. 11) explains that “appreciating who holds power, how it is wielded
and in what forms it exists – visibly or invisibly – enables us to understand how those who have it
influence the decisions that are made, which structure and organise the distribution of resources –
including knowledge resources – throughout societies.”. Understanding these power relations also helps
to establish “collaborative and nonexploitative relationships” between the researcher and participants, a
key aim of feminist research practice (Creswell & Poth, 2017, p. 28). Employing a feminist perspective
encourages considering the roles of gender and power in everyday life, and how these aspects shape
individuals’ experiences.
Though this emphasis on power has clear parallels with postcolonial theory, therein lies a key
critique of feminist theory. The primary criticism relates to privileging the experiences of white, western
women by viewing gender as the only relevant aspect of feminist inquiry (Carbin & Edenheim, 2013;
Gouws, 1996). Though intersectionality in feminist research is no longer just a metaphor but rather the
feminist theory (Carbin & Edenheim, 2013), even intersectional western feminist models are problematic
for exploring the experiences of postcolonial women (Olesen, 2011). In describing the multiple,
intersecting layers of oppression faced by postcolonial women, Spivak offers this summation: “White
men are saving brown women from brown men” (1988, p. 92). Through this, she argues that the female
subaltern cannot speak but is “spoken for” or “ventriloquized” (Moore-Gilbert, 2000; Spivak, 1988).
Indeed, this was one of Spivak’s principal critiques of subaltern studies: in representing subaltern
experiences, historians and scholars were exercising their discursive power to speak for these groups

18
rather than making their experiences visible. Further, she argued that subaltern studies as a field was
biased towards the experiences of men, effectively silencing the voices of subaltern women; perhaps
unsurprisingly, the members of Guha’s subaltern studies collective were all men (Spivak, 1985, 1988).
Indeed, this represents a critical issue for feminist theorists, in questioning how their work represents
‘others’ and the political and power relations implicit in said representations (Gouws, 1996; Hinterberger,
2007). Deconstructing dominant representations of what Lewis calls the “other woman (the feminine and
feminized Oriental other)” illuminates the gendered specificities of colonialist norms and characteristics
of Orientalism (2013, p. 27). Centring the “other woman” is critical in understanding and challenging the
“structural role of racism in the history and praxis of feminism” (Lewis, 2013, p. 29). Feminism and
postcolonialism have a fraught relationship; the multiple layers of oppression affecting postcolonial
women must be recognised, and any representations must be carefully considered at the risk of
reproducing the biases under scrutiny.
A fundamental understanding inherent to both postcolonial and feminist theories is the concept
of plurality of knowledge and reality. Constructivism posits that there is no one, single reality or truth,
instead individuals construct their own realities based on lived experiences, culture, language and so on.
Knowledge and worldviews are ‘constructed’ rather than simply absorbed or discovered (Creswell, 2013;
Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This ontological relativity, a cornerstone of constructivist philosophy, denies the
existence of universal truths and posits that reality depends on a worldview or conceptual scheme
(Patton, 1990; Schwandt, 2001). Reality is constructed through our lived experiences and interactions
with others; the interactive, collaborative nature of a relativist ontology implies that reality is fluid, as it is
constantly being socially renegotiated (Spencer, Pryce, & Walsh, 2014, p. 86). For Lincoln et al., this
means that research is a collaborative process between researchers and participants to ensure that the
knowledge that is co-constructed is reflective of the participants’ realities (2011). Spencer et al. elaborate
on this, explaining that “if our reality is constructed, then, too our knowledge and meanings are derived
from social interactions” (2014, p. 85). Ontological relativism aligns with subjectivist epistemologies in
that knowledge is viewed as the result of an individual’s feelings, beliefs, and points of view, rather than
any absolute Truths (Kral, 2007; Schwandt, 2001). Such subjective beliefs emerge from the social,
cultural, and historical norms that affect individuals in their daily life (Creswell, 2013). As such,
subjectivities also refer to “social selves and collectivities” (Kral, 2007). Furthermore, Schwandt (2000)
notes that social constructionist epistemologies, such as subjectivism, recognise that knowledge is not
“found” or “discovered”, but constructed against a background of shared understanding, language,
practices and so on. Taking such epistemological and ontological stances also allows space to understand
“postcolonial” as an ontological condition of a particular community (Mohan, 2001). The reality of this
group is co-constructed through shared experiences and knowledge. Taking such ontological and
epistemological perspectives present a unique set of challenges for researchers in this field: if knowledge
and reality are simultaneously individual, emerging from a slew of cultural and historical factors, and

19
collective, co-constructed through social interactions, the question remains how to access and
understand the complex perspectives of others.
The interrelated concepts of socially negotiated knowledge and realities lead us to explore ways
in which the experiences and realities of others can be accessed and understood. The focus here, and
often in constructivist research more broadly, is on understanding and reconstruction rather than
developing explanations and theories (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). When discussing feminist perspectives in
research, Gouws offers intersubjectivity as a way of accessing the shared experiences of others despite
different ontological orientations (1996). Intersubjectivity has its roots in phenomenology and the work
of Edmund Husserl (1929) and refers to how different people’s perspectives relate to one another
through shared meanings or empathy to others’ mental processes (Coelho Jr & Figueiredo, 2003;
Gillespie & Cornish, 2010). The study of intersubjectivity is not concerned with object truth, but
interpreting shared, socially constructed meanings (Kral, 2007). Considering these potentially shared
knowledge and experiences contribute to establishing an intersubjective understanding between the
researcher and research participants; understandings that attempt to consider the unique cultural and
historical underpinnings of each perspective, while forging connections through shared constructions.
Returning to the research questions reveals a potential operationalisation of intersubjectivity in
the form of listening. By no means a revolutionary concept, the notion of listening emerges as a way for
researchers to access what Murru calls “the intersubjective space of otherness”, taking into consideration
both “text and context” (2016, pp. 395–396). Listening offers a way of accessing the multi-faceted
knowledges of others through dialogue and the co-construction of knowledge between researchers and
participants. This does, however, eventually return to the problem of “speaking for” or representing the
knowledge of others. From a postcolonial perspective, speaking for others privileges western ways of
knowing which amounts to “epistemological violence” (Mohan, 2001; Raju, 2002, p. 174). The
environment of listening, then, is as critical as the act itself. Murru suggests that “the possibility of
understanding is affected by the kind of orientation we bring to listening” (2016, p. 395). Similarly,
Manyozo ponders an excerpt from the 1930s novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God (Hurston, 2008, p. 8),
in which a character asks, “If they wants to see and know, why they don’t come kiss and be kissed?”. He
applies this question to development theory and practice, explaining that it “implies establishing a
relationship with subaltern groups as a precursor to speaking for or on their behalf” (Manyozo, 2017, p.
71). The use of the term “subaltern” refers us back to Spivak’s perennial question: “Can the subaltern
speak?” (1988). The question is rhetorical but has powerful implications for the so-called “benevolent
academics” who position themselves as transparent vessels of oppressed communication (Spivak, 1988).
This is indeed the general constructivist approach: positioning the researcher as a “facilitator of
multivoice reconstruction” (Lincoln et al., 2011, p. 105). In her critique of feminist epistemologies, which
draws on the work of Spivak, Hinterberger argues that “feminist representational practices must
therefore not assume to know, or have unmediated access to knowledge of ‘others’… ethical strategies of

20
representing ‘others’ need to be based on working responsibly within this framework of impossibility, not
trying to sidestep it” (2007, p. 77). Raju elaborates on this impossibility, explaining that authentic voices
cannot be retrieved for two reasons: firstly because, at an existential level, the experiences of research
participants are largely private; and secondly, because knowledge based on these experiences is co-
constructed and therefore shaped by the researcher as well as the participant (2002). Therefore, a
postcolonial feminist approach to constructivism recognises that knowledge emerging from research is
co-constructed between researchers and participants, and that full or complete knowledge of others is
impossible. If the co-created knowledge is to be truly situated within the experiences of the participants,
it needs to emerge from reciprocal relationships based on respect and listening rather than representing
and speaking.
The research design and selection of methodology of this work is also influenced by the axiology
or values and ethics of the research. Given the interpretive framework and where this research is
situated within its field, it is important to recognise the morals and ethics underpinning the research, as
well as the positionality of the researcher. A constructivist interpretive framework is values-laden, which
implies that researchers recognise that their background shapes their interpretations and reflect on how
this happens (Creswell & Poth, 2017; Schwandt, 2000). In stark contrast to empiricist approaches that
claim research as objective and descriptions as ‘pure’ (Gouws, 1996; Hammersley, 2013), this research
draws on critical and transformative stances that recognise that knowledge, and research, is inherently
political, ideological and value-laden (Schwandt, 2000). While eschewing “objective” positivistic
frameworks can lead to critiques based on subjectivity and bias, transparency around the values and
positionality of the researcher, as well as reflexive and self-aware practice, can help to mitigate risks of
bias.
In order to extricate the influencing factors on researcher values, I draw on Ransome’s discussion
on research ethics in the social sciences. He suggests that “core values are drawn from the strong society
thesis, from the strong individual thesis and, as a manifestation of the attempt to reconcile these two
sets of values, the pragmatic quest for knowledge based on lived experience” (2013, p. 19). Using these
three factors as a guide, I interrogated my own personal ethics and values as a researcher. I interpret the
strong society aspect of this equation to refer primarily to the academic community and the codes of
practice and ethics that govern research practice. In terms of individual thesis, my values are informed by
my personal background, as well as my professional and social experiences. What has emerged from
these experiences is a values system based around respect for human dignity, agency, and voice. In
discussing alternative sociologies aimed at critically identifying non-hegemonic knowledge, Santos
suggests an “axiology of care” exerted through “possible future alternatives” (2006, p. 31). This aligns
with Sen’s interpretation of development as the freedom to exert capabilities to achieve various lifestyles
(1999). These linkages illustrate how my values system has influenced both the interpretive framework of
this research, as well as the interpretations of key themes.

21
 The final aspect of core values, according to Ransome, refers to reconciling the first two aspects
through a “pragmatic quest for knowledge” (2013, p. 19). This prompts a further key question in terms of
research axiology, one which refers to the ultimate purpose of inquiry. Heron and Reason take a more
critical approach than Ransome, advocating for an interrogation of “what sort of knowledge, if any, is
intrinsically valuable” (1997, p. 277). In my position as the researcher, I believe that knowledge is not
necessarily inherently valuable; for knowledge to be meaningful or valuable, it must be useful. Applied
knowledge or knowledge that affects change is, to me, infinitely more valuable than the positivist
tradition of knowledge for knowledge's sake. As such, the core values of the research which underpin this
research consider academic codes of practice and ethics, personal values centred on respect for human
freedom, dignity and voice, and a commitment to reconciling these values through a search for practical,
applied knowledge.
Though slightly tangential to axiology, given the postcolonial feminist perspectives underpinning
this research as well as its location within the field of media, development, and communication, it is
worthwhile to briefly discuss the positionality of the researcher. In light of the critical perspectives of
feminism and postcolonialism that inform this research at a theoretical level, as well as the location of
this research within development studies, Raju (2002, p. 174) poses a pertinent question: “Is the
positionality of a researcher so irreconcilably privileged that there can be no bond of commonality
between the researcher and the researched?”. Perhaps idealistically, I would respond with no, though
with several obvious caveats. A constructivist framework seeks input and recognition from participants in
order to align with postcolonial aspirations, and challenge earlier paradigms that present an
unproblematised view of the researcher’s position of power (Lincoln et al., 2011). Having said that, it is
my view that “researcher” is inherently a position of power. Though steps were taken to mitigate the
effects of this, it is important to recognise the potential impact of this position on the participants and
the research broadly. This position of power is further complicated by my status as a white female from a
wealthy western nation, a subject position that comes with further layers of inherent privilege. Bearing
this in mind, we return to Raju, who asks “we are different, but can we talk?” (2002). Therein lies a key
approach to reconciling the positionality of the researcher with that of differently-privileged participants:
dialogue, specifically listening rather than talking.
It is no coincidence that a key theme of the research questions acts as a guide to principled and
mindful research practice. Listening is an ethical act that displays a commitment to understanding and
appreciating the perspectives and knowledge of those who may be marginalised or “Othered” (Dreher,
2009b; Manyozo, 2016; Wasserman, 2013). By employing listening as a key ethical value and revealing
my own multiple layers of privilege, I hope to maintain awareness of and reflexivity about my
positionality in terms of both a postcolonial feminist theoretical perspective and the hegemony
associated with the role of researcher. As a researcher with multiple layers of privilege, I commit to
seeking common ground while maintaining a respect for the agency of individuals through open, honest

22
communication, and to careful listening with critical attention to silences. Accepting that power
structures and layers of privilege are an unavoidable aspect of this research, I hope to maintain
transparent and reflexive awareness of my positionality and listen rather than speak.

Interpreting ‘development’
A key guiding concept, one that is critical to designing an appropriate methodology for this research, is
development. Based on the interpretive framework, this research takes a critical view of development,
adopting instead a definition based on cognitive justice and respect for individual agency. The term
“development” can have negative connotations, particularly in the context of the Global South, which has
a long history of being subjected to all nature of ill-advised, externally-imposed projects in the name of
“development”. Western development discourse has a tendency towards a narrow focus on economic
growth and centring market logics with little regard for long-term solutions and broader social
consequences (Tufte, 2017). This could be seen in the assumption that economic development
progressed along a linear succession, with “developed”, wealthy countries at one end and
“underdeveloped” countries lagging behind (Frank, 1969). Critical development theorist Escobar (2011)
argues that, despite various reiterations of approaches under different guises, – “another development”,
“participatory development”, and so forth – little has changed in development discourse since the 1950s.
An illustrative example of the dominant model of development in relation to media is the 1960s attempt
to “modernise” the education system in American Samoa through televised lessons. Students were
disengaged, teachers were disenfranchised; it was posthumously summarised by the American project
advisors who asked “primarily whether television was feasible, not whether it was best” (W. L. Schramm,
Nelson, & Betham, 1981, p. 193). While the “modernisation” paradigm is widely regarded as outdated, no
single paradigm has truly replaced it (Waisbord, 2005). As Escobar (2011) observes, the approaches may
have changed but the concept of development remains incontrovertible. This research, therefore, takes a
critical perspective, rejecting any definition or interpretation of development as relating to
unproblematic “modernisation”.
Similarly, in interpreting development as a key concept of this research, arbitrary measures such
as gross domestic product (GDP) or other organisationally-imposed indicators are viewed through a
critical lens. Lister (2004, p. 38) describes the “hegemony of the measurable” within poverty and
development studies, in which empirical, usually quantitative measures, such as economic growth or
GDP, dominate definitions and approaches to development. This measurability hegemony is symptomatic
of the current state of the broader development and aid industry. As Ramalingam observes, every
country in the world is involved in the aid system whether as a donor or a beneficiary or, in some cases,
as both (2013). The pervasiveness of the industry has given rise to what Manyozo terms the “spectacle of
development”, also more colourfully conceptualised as “bullshit” by Franfurt (1988, in Manyozo, 2017).
The spectacle of development refers to the oppressive capitalist system of institutions that govern

23
development thinking and the elaborate regime of arbitrary rules and regulations that keep it in place
(Manyozo, 2017). The spectacle consists of co-opted methodologies, irrelevant strategies, disregard for
local context, and the fallacy that because one was born into a country of peace and prosperity, one
knows how to achieve this for others; all of which are inconsequential to the lives of the intended
beneficiaries (Easterly, 2006; Manyozo, 2017). According to the spectacle of development, “developed”
societies in the West came to be that way due to linear, cause-and-effect processes; therefore,
“developing” countries simply need to follow these same processes. Easterly draws parallels between the
colonialism of the past and the pervasive attitudes and approach to development now: “the West should
learn from its colonial history when it indulges neo-imperialist fantasies. They didn't work before and
they won't work now.” (2006, p. 305). As simplistic and imperialist as it sounds, this line of thinking is at
the root of the political economy of development and therefore manifests in foreign aid and
development efforts (Ramalingam, 2013). Seminal development author Nora Quebral questions whether
any society is truly “developed”. For her, development is transitioning “communities from poverty in all
its forms to a dynamic state of overall growth that fosters equity and the advancement of individual
potential… Given this definition, all societies are developing societies” (2012, p. 63). This definition begins
to capture some of the problems with dominant approaches: the emphasis on poverty in all forms and
dynamic states of growth hints at a much more complex model than exists in many development
projects. Existing approaches to development employ overly simplistic, linear change models which are
reinforced through a hegemony of measurable results.
A key issue with the prevailing approaches to development is simplistic change models.
Development problems are “wicked” problems: they are difficult to define, each problem is unique, there
is no set of criteria as to whether they can be solved or not, they may continue indefinitely, every
problem could be symptomatic of another problem, and once a solution is trialled, it cannot be
reproduced or undone (Ramalingam, Laric, & Primrose, 2014). In an earlier work, Ramalingam (2013)
uses the illustrative example of the attempted 1970s modernisation of subak rice farming in Bali as a
metaphor for the complexity of development systems. The project, entitled Massive Guidance,
introduced new technologies to a complex system of farming and water management that was deeply
ingrained in the religious practices, culture, and way of life of the local people. The project ignored
context and underestimated risk; pest populations exploded, and paddies were infested, social structures
were upended, and the once consistent annual yields became highly unpredictable. “In the name of
development, this thousand-year-old system was uprooted, literally sent into chaos” (Ramalingam, 2013,
p. xiv). Wicked problems are ubiquitous within development, to even begin to understand them, their
inherent complexity must be grasped. Complexity theory presents a way of studying relationships and
social systems which allows for more nuanced understandings to developing appropriate change
strategies (Lennie & Tacchi, 2013; Tacchi & Lennie, 2014). Applying complexity theory to development
offers a more realistic view of the world that does not reduce development problems to overly simplistic,

24
linear models (Lennie & Tacchi, 2013). Complexity thinking implies moving from external interventions to
supporting internal catalysts in order “to identify, expand, and sustain the space for change”
(Ramalingam, 2013, p. 361). Though complexity theory does not offer donor-friendly, marketable
catchphrases, or pre-packaged solutions to the wicked problems of development, it points the way
towards asking the right questions.
Complexity theory presents a way of understanding development problems in all their realistic,
messy, wickedness. While this provides a valuable lens through which to view development problems, it
does not move us much closer to a definition of development, aside from that it is complex. The search
though has narrowed to exclude oppressive institutional narratives and externally imposed, top-down
initiatives, while considering the complexity of development problems and respecting local cultures and
expertise. Returning to the concept of cognitive justice invites a definition of development that respects
alternative knowledges outside of mainstream, western interpretations. Offering a broader, more
inclusive definition, one that rejects the “hegemony of the measurable”, is the work of Bengali economist
and Nobel Prize-winner, Amartya Sen. Sen proposes thinking of “development as freedom” and
employing what he terms a “capabilities approach” (1999). Rather than thinking in terms of wealth
indicators and economic progress, Sen refers to what a person might value doing or being as
“functionings”, and those functionings that might be feasibly achieved as “capabilities” (A. K. Sen, 1999).
The focus of development, then, is on increasing these capabilities or substantive freedoms (Jacobson,
2016; Kleine, 2009). As such, “expansion of freedom is viewed as both (1) the primary end and (2) the
principal means of development” (A. K. Sen, 1999, p. 36). Wealth is factored into this interpretation, but
primarily as a means to an ends rather than the key indicator of poverty or development (Jacobson,
2016). This definition recognises that what is valued in mainstream development discourses is not
necessarily what people are struggling to achieve (McMichael & Morarji, 2010). The most obvious
critique of this approach to development is its flexibility and broadness which Sen himself defends,
arguing that human preferences cannot be limited or restricted and that individuals alone can define
these preferences (A. K. Sen, 1999). The articulation of these preferences is where communication and
participation become essential to Sen’s capabilities approach (Jacobson, 2016; A. K. Sen, 1999). In a later
work, Sen himself discusses this more overtly, stating that “an overarching value must be the need for
participatory decision-making on the kind of society people want to live in, based on open discussion,
with adequate opportunity for the expression of minority positions” (A. K. Sen, 2000, p. 44). The
argument here, and indeed the definition of development that this research will employ, is that
development is something that must be determined by the community involved, which makes
communication and participation essential. This stance is echoed in much of the modern development
literature. Servaes and Malikhao conceptualise development as an “integral, multidimensional, and
dialectic process which can differ from one society to another” (2008, p. 163). Similarly, Tacchi and
Lennie (2013) explain that there is no one path to development or social change, it is neither linear nor

25
predictable and relies heavily on contextual factors. As such, this research interprets development as the
expansion of those freedoms that individuals and societies have reason to value. Whether those
freedoms take the form of school attendance, vaccination rates, or something less easily measured such
as confidence or mobility, development is simultaneously deeply personal and socially constructed, and
as such can only be articulated through deliberative dialogue with those directly involved.

Media, communication and development

The role of media and communication has been recognised as an important part of development
programmes since the 1950s. Echoing the development industry more broadly, approaches evolved from
diffusions of technology to more critical, emancipatory paradigms, to the pervasive “participatory turn”.
Quarry et al. summarise the relationship between media and communication, and development: “it is in
fact good development that breeds good communication” (Quarry, Ramirez, & Ramírez, 2009, p. 25). A
number of scholars and practitioners have deconstructed the history and movement of paradigms and
definitions around development and communication (see McAnany, 2012; Servaes, 2008; Wilkins,
Obregon, & Tufte, 2014; among others). Rather than engaging in what Mansell 1982 calls “superficial
revisionism” by reiterating these arguments, this research opts to use Manyozo’s (2012) suggested
terminology of “media, communication, and development”. The use of this term clearly demarcates the
distinctive but interrelated aspects of the field without assigning overt value or meaning to any one in
particular. Media, communication and development, and the definition of development, as they have
been employed in this research, are intentionally broad. Specific definitions can be limiting and can fail to
account for the diversity of development communication projects. Manyozo explains that “the different
approaches that characterise the study and practice of the field of media, communication, and
development (MCD) make it very impractical to develop a single theory or model that may attempt to
explain the heterogeneous field” (2012, p. 52). Lie and Servaes write of framing the field, which they refer
to as “communication for development and social change”, in terms of subdisciplines as a way of moving
from “an emphasis on homogeneity toward an emphasis on differences” (2015, p. 252). Utilising the
terminology of MCD encompasses the interrelated aspects of the field without privileging any one in
particular and encourages a focus on practical approaches rather than a sweeping overarching definition.
Drawing from the literature, there are three approaches prominent within the field of MCD. The
first is media for development or M4D. M4D draws its theoretical underpinnings from the modernisation
paradigm (Scott, 2014). As discussed, this paradigm was characterised by top-down, centralised
approaches towards development, which were reflected in the approaches to communication. Imperialist
overtones aside, an additional criticism of the modernisation paradigm was its simplistic, prescriptive
approach which can be summarised through one of the more prominent theories of the paradigm.
Everett Rogers’ (1995) diffusion of innovations theory detailed the stages that individuals work through in
order to adopt innovations, which were assumed to facilitate development. As “awareness” and

26
“knowledge” were the two initial stages, the diffusion theory made use of mass media to achieve these
steps, engaging in a one-way transfer of information (McAnany, 2012; Scott, 2014). Both the diffusion
theory and modernisation more broadly were reflective of communication theory at the time, which
assumed the communication process was linear and predictable (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009b). Despite
this, M4D initiatives are widespread, with modernisation, among other early MCD paradigms still
seeming to inform practice and policy (Tacchi, 2013). Simply disseminating information is not enough to
affect long-term behavioural changes (Dagron & Bleck, 2001; Scott, 2014; Servaes, 2008). Within M4D
also lies the assumption that audiences are passive, predictable, and will accept media messages without
question. Disregarding audience agency reveals the problematic behaviour models used by many M4D
interventions (Scott, 2014). In terms of community radio, Pavarala concedes that M4D is a “legitimate
idea” but that using community radio as simply a way of disseminating “development” is a legacy of a
postcolonial nation-building paradigm in which audiences are seen as merely passive recipients of
information (2015). M4D represents a common approach to MCD, despite the problematic aspects of the
underlying development paradigm.
The second approach to MCD is media development, which refers to building the capacity of the
media in order to achieve and support a free, pluralistic, professional, and sustainable press (Deane,
2014). Building media capacity may refer to physical infrastructure and advocacy work to improve
government policies, media ownership and training opportunities (Manyozo, 2012). As opposed to the
communication for development (C4D) approaches that will be discussed in upcoming sections, media
development in its purest form is focussed on the support of journalism and democracy rather than
achieving specific development goals or agendas (Deane, 2014). Media development initiatives generally
fall into one of two streams: the good governance stream, which derives from political theory and the
assumption that because a pluralistic and independent press has contributed to democracy in the West,
it will do the same in the global South; and the community development stream, which involves
increasing citizen access and participation in local media by working within, rather than in opposition to,
traditional governance systems (Manyozo, 2012). Media development is critiqued for its interventionist
tendencies, despite the evidence to suggest the most successful examples of media development were
derived from local governments and people rather than external influencers (Scott, 2014). Media
development programs focus on establishing and supporting a pluralistic media environment. Though
there is undeniable value in projects of this nature, locally-driven media development projects have
enjoyed more success than interventionist approaches.
The final area of MCD is participatory communication, which can trace its origins back to the
work of Paulo Freire and the Latin American school of thought on development communication
(Manyozo, 2012). Emerging independently from western development thinking, early participatory
communication projects yielded success stories like Radio Sutatenza in Colombia and the miners’ radio
stations in Bolivia (Gumucio-Dagron, 2005; Manyozo, 2009, 2012). Local participation and collective

27
decision-making are involved throughout the development process, from identifying the issues to taking
action. Participatory communication also places emphasis on indigenous knowledge and experiences,
which are understood to be essential to understanding and addressing local problems (Jacobson, 2003).
Participatory communication rapidly gained popularity and is said to represent a new paradigm in
development communication (Servaes & Malikhao, 2005). While this “participatory turn” did much to
advance the role of more equitable access to development communication processes, there was little
true democratisation of knowledge (Visvanathan, 2009). A point to note is that this research takes a
critical perspective on the use of the term “participation”, which will be further discussed in Chapter 7.
This discussion is purely aimed at situating the research within the historical context of media,
communication, and development, rather than accepting the application of participation here as
unproblematic.
It is within this “participatory turn” that community radio’s role in development emerged.
Community radio has a long history with development projects. It is pervasive, an oral medium thus
overcoming literacy constraints, it has the ability to facilitate interactive social communication, and deals
with local issues in an appropriate language and cultural context (C. Fraser & Restrepo-Estrada, 2002;
Girard, 2003). Community radio stations are, theoretically, deeply rooted within their communities,
staffed by local people and focussed on local issues. Hussain and Tongia (2007) suggest that the
participatory model of community radio facilitates empowerment, particularly when compared with the
top-down approaches of state-run and commercial radio stations. Similarly, Scott discusses the
importance of the inclusive nature of community broadcasting, explaining that it is “widely accessible and
do(es) not require certain levels of expertise, resources or (media) literacy” (2014, p. 49). He goes on to
explicitly suggest community radio as an appropriate medium for participatory communication in
development, a recurring assertion in the literature (Bennett, 2003; Dagron, 2003; C. Fraser & Restrepo-
Estrada, 2002; Manyozo, 2009). The role of community radio in development is particularly relevant given
the environment in which this research takes place. This research is situated within the community radio
sector in India, which has developed its own interpretation of community radio. Though community radio
stations all over the world serve a multitude of different purposes, in India, community radio is
“development, development, development” (Bailur, 2008, 2015). This interpretation of the role of
community radio is, naturally, contested and contestable, but more on this later (see Chapter 4). For
now, however, this dominant model or raison d’etre of community radio in India has implications for
research design.

Researching community radio

Having established the interpretive framework underpinning this research, this section reviews several
relevant approaches to researching community radio that serve to inform the methodology of this
research. A range of approaches has been taken to explore the various facets of community radio over

28
the years. There is a significant body of theoretical literature, as well as studies devoted to policy and
legislation. This brief review focuses only on the practice of research relevant to community radio.
Both quantitative and qualitative research have been used to research various aspects of
community radio. Though both undoubtedly have their place in researching community radio, of
particular interest to this research is the use of qualitative methodologies. This includes studies of
community radio journalism (Forde, Foxwell, & Meadows, 2003; Forde, Meadows, & Foxwell-Norton,
2002; Meadows, Forde, Ewart, & Foxwell, 2009), policy-making (Tacchi, 2003), connecting communities
(Carpentier & Doudaki, 2014; Pavarala, 2003; Santana & Carpentier, 2010), volunteering (Guo, 2015;
Milan, 2008), and broadcast presentation styles (Kosnick, 2007; Siemering, 2000). Though community
radio audiences have often been the subject of qualitative research (Forde, 2011; Guo, 2014; Ratan &
Bailur, 2007), there is still a tendency towards seeking numbers in community radio audience research
(Forde, Ewart, Foxwell, & Meadows, 2007). This echoes what Downing describes as the historically
predominant dynamic of mainstream media research which is “expensive, initially secret, quantified, but
actually very loosely estimated broadcast ratings” (2003, p. 634). He goes on to suggest that questions
posed by those researching alternative media, such as community radio, need to be much more complex
than “commercial surveys” in order to yield “illuminating results” (Downing, 2003, p. 638). In their
comprehensive qualitative study of the Australian community broadcasting sector, Meadows et al. argue
that, while quantitative data, or “numbers”, are necessary to gain an understanding of audience reach,
they reveal little about the audiences themselves (2007, p. 18). Foxwell argues that attempts to quantify
community radio’s role as a cultural and social resource are inappropriate at best (2001). Qualitative
audience research allows for stations to develop a more nuanced understanding of their listeners,
information which can be used for more targeted programming and engagement, for potential station
sponsors, and to demonstrate philosophical and legislative commitments to serving certain audiences
(Meadows, Forde, Ewart, Foxwell, & Morris, 2005). Though quantitative research has an undeniable role
in community radio audience research, numerical data can fail to capture the nuances of the audiences
themselves which are key to understanding the true role and impact of community radio.
Traditional approaches to broadcast audience research more broadly, such as perfunctory
surveys and ratings data, have been critiqued in the literature (Ang, 1996; Downing, 2003; Juluri, 2003;
King, 2016; Napoli, 2011). There has, particularly in relation to community radio, been a push to establish
methods and methodologies of audience research that better capture contextual details about audiences
and their media consumption. Ethnography has repeatedly been suggested as a way of circumventing the
traditional traps that audience research has fallen into in the past. Ethnography helps to capture the
complexity of the contextual details surrounding media audiences. While it is much easier and more
manageable to consider the audience of a particular media text as a coherent, homogeneous group, this
is rarely the case in reality, as media consumption represents just one facet of an individual’s life (Algan,
2003). Ethnography helps to consider the overall role of media consumption within the broader picture

29
of the participants’ lives and the actual complexity and diversity of local contexts (Morley, 1993). Ang,
however, warns that ethnography is not a panacea to these problems unless “it ceases to be just a
sophisticated form of empirical audience research, but becomes part of a more encompassing
understanding, both structural and historical, of our contemporary cultural condition” (1990, p. 245). The
risk of an ethnographic approach to audience studies, however, is the privileging of the audience’s power
over media texts while ignoring that of the producers of those texts (Algan, 2003). Though there are clear
benefits to employing ethnography for audience research in media studies, it is important that all aspects
impacting upon the media consumption of audiences, including the contextual details and the
perspectives of producers, are considered.
Despite the many arguments for the use of qualitative research in community radio, traditional
qualitative methods have, on occasion, been insufficient. There have been cases where researching
community radio, particularly exploring the nuances of community radio audiences, have necessitated
the development of new or specifically tailored research methods. In their comprehensive study of the
Australian sector, Meadows et al. developed a participatory approach to audience focus groups, targeted
specifically at community radio stations, that included broadcasters in the discussions (2007). Similarly, in
her case study of a community radio station in Jordan, King drew on autoethnography and radical
education theory to craft a storytelling approach to researching community radio audiences (2015, 2016).
Qualitative research, and experimenting with alternative methods, offers an opportunity to conduct
nuanced, detailed explorations of community radio audiences and their idiosyncrasies.

Alternative approaches to researching development and community

radio
Having established the relevance of qualitative research to this study, there are several qualitative
approaches to researching community radio and development that serve to inform the methodology of
this research. While traditional methodologies, particularly case studies, understandably, feature heavily
in the literature in this field (Bailur, 2015; Bosch, 2003; Carpentier & Doudaki, 2014; King, 2016; Pavarala,
2003; Pavarala & Malik, 2007; Prabakar, 2009; Rodriguez, 2001), this section focusses briefly on three
innovative methodologies that represent alternative ways of exploring community radio and
development. Common to these methodologies is a commitment to considering the social, political, and
historical contextual environments in which community radio stations operate, and also recognising the
complexity of linking community radio stations with specific development outcomes.
The first methodology draws from the field of Information Communication Technology for
Development (ICTD), from which a significant body of community radio and development research is
derived. Community radio has been referred to as a “low-tech” approach to ICTD, with proponents
arguing that it represents an appropriate and sustainable alternative to more advanced technology
(Hussain & Tongia, 2007; Sterling et al., 2009). Aside from an ICTD intervention in itself, community radio

30
has also been used as an intermediary between old and new media: through radio internet browsing
programmes (Jeffrey, 2004; Pringle & David, 2003); in conjunction with mobile phones for grassroots
news networks (Tacchi, Kitner, & Crawford, 2012); and for the establishment of community information
communication technology (ICT) hubs, or telecentres, located at the stations themselves (Gómez &
Ospina, 2001; Ratan & Bailur, 2007). Researching these projects is a complex task: there is a tendency
towards technological determinism and treating ICTs as a “magic bullet”, and ignoring local settings and
other influencing factors (Tacchi, 2014; Thomas & van de Fliert, 2015). Ethnographic Action Research
(EAR) was developed to avoid these traps and develop a more holistic approach to researching ICTD.
Though not designed exclusively for community radio, EAR was developed over the course of a project
aimed at evaluating a community radio internet project in Sri Lanka. EAR attempts to distance itself from
traditional development monitoring and evaluation projects, and technocentric ICTD evaluations, instead
aiming to establish a framework for reflecting upon the knowledge and experiences generated by a
development project (Slater, 2013). This methodology employs an integrated range of methods in order
to capture a holistic picture of the communicative environment (Slater, Tacchi, & Lewis, 2002). A
foundational aspect of EAR is communicative ecologies which involve exploring the “wider contexts of
information and communication flows and channels, formal and informal, technical and social, to
understand communication opportunities and barriers” (Tacchi, 2015, p. 220). The role of communicative
ecologies is to facilitate more meaningful ethnographic investigations by considering the entire system of
communication structures in an environment and the relationships and dependencies (Tacchi & Lennie,
2014). Slater describes the strategy as “a broad mapping of the organization of communication without
any prior commitment to specific kinds of entities, such as media, or to definitions of people, practices or
place” (2013, p. 42). EAR combines ethnography with participatory techniques and action research in
order to firmly ground new development activities in the local context and ensure they are relevant to
the local community (Tacchi et al., 2007; Tacchi, Slater, & Hearn, 2003). The strength of this methodology
is that it allows the researchers to generate deep understandings of the social environments and
communicative contexts (Slater et al., 2002). Community radio stations are deeply embedded within the
social fabric of their communities, but still represent just one part of the broader communicative ecology.
Traditional monitoring and evaluation techniques, particularly quantitative methods, are unable to truly
capture these interrelationships and the role that community radio plays in this environment.
Investigating development outcomes adds an entire layer of complexity to this process. EAR represents a
way of researching community radio within its broader communicative environment. Though this study
does not involve an action research component, there is much to be learned from EAR’s commitment to
understanding how community radio fits into communicative ecologies, as well as assessing development
outcomes based on the experiences of the local people involved in the project, rather than any
predetermined benchmarks.

31
 The second major area of community radio and development research focusses on monitoring
and evaluation. The difficulty of establishing indicators and instruments for evaluating the developmental
impact of community radio led to a prevalence of quantitative studies focussed on measurable impacts
rather than the historical and cultural contexts in which the programs took place (Manyozo, 2009). As
such, there was a distinct gap when it came to qualitative data about community radio stations and
development. While monitoring and evaluation methodologies are common in the development field,
there are only a limited number of methodologies specifically developed for use in community radio
settings. In somewhat of a ground-breaking effort to address this gap, Jallov developed “barefoot impact
assessments” to systematically evaluate the impact of community radio stations on the development of
their communities (2005). This grassroots process uses local indicators and instruments to measure the
effectiveness and impact of stations. Manyozo suggests that barefoot impact assessments offer “a
perfect blueprint for participatory evaluations of rural and community radio alongside communities”
(Manyozo, 2009, p. 14). Jallov offers three levels of impact that should be assessed: the radio station as
an organisation, the radio programmes, and the impact on development changes within the community
(2005). Barefoot impact assessments are community-driven and community-run, with the bulk of the
monitoring, evaluation, and analysis conducted by community radio volunteers as opposed to expensive
external consultants (Jallov, 2005). As Jallov herself puts it: “if we want to really promote people-based
social change and improved lives, we need to listen to the people themselves” (2005, p. 34). Again, there
is much to be learned from this methodology. While monitoring and evaluation is not the strict aim of
this research, Jallov’s appreciation of local knowledge and the experiences of those directly involved in
the stations, and the subsequent operationalisation of this knowledge for monitoring and evaluations,
presents an exemplary for incorporating and respecting multiple constructions of knowledge and reality.
The final methodology represents an evaluative approach specifically tailored to the South Asian
community radio environment. The Community Radio Continuous Improvement Toolkit (CR-CIT) is an
evolving framework that allows community radio stations themselves to evaluate their performance
(Pavarala, Malik, Belavadi, Deshbandhu, & Raghunath, 2014). Developed through participatory,
collaborative work with community radio station staff members and volunteers, and drawing on theories
of continuous improvement and communities of practice, the CR-CIT incorporates both the mandatory
provisions of the Indian community radio policy guidelines and identified “non-negotiable” principles of
community media globally (Malik, Pavarala, & Belavadi, 2014; Pavarala et al., 2014). Instead of focussing
on the impact of the stations, CR-CIT explores nine broad areas including: “content generation and
programming; policies and guidelines; volunteers; technology – access and management; on-air
standards of broadcast; governance; feedback and grievances; content-sharing and networking; revenue
generation and financial accountability” (Pavarala et al., 2014, p. 8). What the CR-CIT makes extremely
clear is that it is not intended as a tool for comparison between different community radio stations, nor is
it intended to be an external evaluation with a pass/fail grade (Pavarala et al., 2014). An evaluative report

32
found that stations who participated in CR-CIT noted “palpable change” and demonstrated
“internalization and ownership” (A. Sen, 2015, p. 14). What can be drawn from CR-CIT is the importance
of expanding the scope of evaluations of community radio out from just impact on the community. This
broadening of scope serves to recognise the behind-the-scenes operations of community radio stations
while still considering the unique local circumstances of each station. Both of these aspects of CR-CIT
offer a useful frame for this research, which is similarly not focussed on community impact or comparison
between stations, but instead on the day-to-day operations of community radio stations and practices of
community radio practitioners.

Methodology: a jugaad approach to ethnography

Akka reclined in her chair, watching the pre-recorded programme tick away on the computer, just a
murmur coming from the headphones on the desk but a murmur being broadcast across the surrounding
villages. The rumbling of the bulldozer starting on the much-needed renovations drew closer, the workers
using the radio’s pre-recorded time to get the noisy jobs done. Talking over the noise was impossible, and
the afternoon heat made it hard to justify any extra vocal effort. The mood was languid, the only
movement was the hard-working ceiling fan and the occasional flip of a newspaper page. Until suddenly a
cord attached to the computer tightened and started to drag the whole console towards a hole at the top
of the wall, pulling the keyboard, mouse, microphone, and everything on the desk with it. Akka leapt into
action, grabbing at the cord and pulling, her bare foot braced against the desk, all the while hollering at
the bulldozer driver. Whether he heard her or had just finished digging, the engine dulled to an idle.
Reassured that the computer wasn’t about to be pulled through the wall, Akka raced outside to accost the
bulldozer. The murmur in the headphones was quiet. Thambi wrestled with the taut cord, struggling to
pull enough slack so that the computer could sit squarely back on the desk. Akka appeared in the
doorway, a sheen of sweat on her forehead, and motioned to the silver radio set on the shelf. Thambi
raced over to switch it on and turn up the volume. A hiss of static could just be heard over the sound of the
guilty retreating bulldozer. They had hit the cable that connected the station to the tower. We were off-
air.
***
Despite discussions on a postcolonial theoretical perspective, the interpretive framework of this research
has predominantly drawn on western interpretations of knowledge and reality. While this is reflective of
the researcher’s academic background, it does not necessarily align with the day-to-day realities of the
research sites. If, as the interpretive framework implies, knowledge and ways of thinking are constructed
based on culture and context, then it is problematic that most research methodologies employed in order
to understand how other people view the world are grounded in western thought (Honwad, Kern, &
Hoadley, n.d.). Cognitive justice advocates for recognising and respecting alternative knowledges.
Viewing western ways of knowledge through a critical lens does not mean that western and Indigenous

33
worldviews are incompatible or in conflict with one another (Evans, Miller, Hutchinson, & Dingwall,
2014). Drawing on the concept of cognitive justice, while considering the research location and focus on
community radio, an alternative methodology was developed. Qualitative in nature, this research draws
on ethnography to develop a methodology that is contingent, resourceful, and appropriate to community
radio in India.
Traditionally, jugaad was a Hindi word referring to a type of makeshift vehicle, cobbled together
from a mix of parts, that typically carried far more goods or passengers than one would reasonably
expect (Birtchnell, 2011; Singh, Gupta, & Mondal, 2012). As the term evolved, jugaad became slang for a
“quick fix” or “making do”, with the concept now broadly encompassing creative, low-cost ways of
navigating limited resources or overcoming obstacles to get just about anything done (Singh et al., 2012).
Jugaad, as described by Radjou et al., is a “unique way of thinking… practiced by almost all Indians in
their daily lives to make the most of what they have” (2012, p. 4). Indeed, the embodiment of jugaad, a
comically overladen and flamboyantly decorated Tata truck has become unofficially emblematic of India
(Botnick & Raja, 2011). The towering trucks are lovingly personalised and painstakingly repaired by their
drivers - held together with gaffer tape, salvaged parts of other vehicles, and prayers - yet they are the
blood vessels of India’s goods transport system, barrelling down potholed highways and teetering around
vertiginous hairpin bends laden with everything from fresh produce to heavy machinery. They are
improvised from what is available, and they get the job done. Jugaad has recently been embraced by
management and business scholars, who write of jugaad as “a work ethic reflecting the resilience and
creativity nascent in Indian culture” (Birtchnell, 2011, p. 359). In a more pragmatic sense, Rai suggests
that “the affect of jugaad is the capacity to move from a state of relative inaction or blockage to an
improvisational encounter” (2015, p. 986). In a more recent work, Rai observes that though jugaad is
often presented as an example of individual creativity, when considered as a collective practice, jugaad
represents a pragmatic way of “intervening effectively in a volatile and increasingly precarious field of
possibilities/probabilities” (Rai, 2019, p. 10). Jugaad presents a way of understanding the everyday
realities of community radio stations in India: their tenuous legislative status, financial insecurity,
technological problems, as well as the common broadcasting challenges associated with creating and
broadcasting content. Jugaad reflects community radio’s contingent, determined, occasionally haphazard
spirit, and therefore forms the basis of the methodology.
Ethnography was employed as an overarching approach, drawing upon other approaches and
methods developed as the research progressed, making adjustments based on the contextual
environment and on reflexive practice. What emerged from this grounded, contingent approach was a
qualitative study utilising a broadly ethnographic approach and combining a range of methods designed
to address the research questions, while adapting to the research sites and any unexpected challenges
that emerged. This research employs a bricolage-inspired approach to ethnography, but one that is
contingent and specifically grounded in the field sites. A jugaad approach, in this case, means an

34
ethnographically inspired qualitative study that takes an adaptive approach and utilises methods from
ethnography and other approaches as appropriate, to craft a qualitative methodology that aligns with the
research foci, the interpretive framework, and considers the pragmatic issues affecting the research.
Based on the discussions of previous relevant research practice and the inquiry paradigm, a
jugaad methodology presents a way of addressing the research questions. Though such an approach
draws from a range of methods and methodologies, ethnography is employed as an overarching
approach to indicate a commitment to understanding participants’ “lived lives and practices… through
their own unique complexity” (Slater, 2013, p. 11). Ethnography aligns with constructivism, recognising
that knowledge and reality are socially and experientially constructed (Guba & Lincoln, 1994;
Mefalopulos, 2005). Ethnography as a methodological influence encourages immersive research and
interactions in order to help the researcher to learn to interpret the world from the perspective of the
participants (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Ethnography presents significant potential for exploring
issues of voice and listening as these concepts are heavily dependent on context and cultural
environments, and require rich, multi-faceted data to be fully understood. Pink et al. (2015) state that
ethnography plays an important role in researching experiences like that of listening. They suggest
approaching “unseen elements of the experience by investigating how they are manifested in those
routines and activities of everyday life that can be seen and discussed” (Pink et al., 2015, p. 25).
Ethnography has been successfully employed to explore “unseen elements” in the past (see Burrell, 2011;
Ratan & Bailur, 2007; Tacchi et al., 2009). Tacchi (2015) explains that these concepts need to be engaged
with as they arise and are lived. She supports the use of ethnography as a way of exploring and
understanding voice in development, writing that “ethnography can help us to understand complexities,
different contexts and classifications, cultural localities and meaning structures” (Tacchi, 2015, p. 4).
Similarly, exploring community radio through ethnography may help to capture the uniqueness of each
station by observing and recording participants’ words and actions in their natural contexts (Hammersley
& Atkinson, 2007). Drawing from ethnography presents a way of researching complex “unseen” issues
such as voice and listening by exploring and recording the extensive contextual details necessary for
analysis of such complex phenomena.
While ethnography presents an overarching approach in terms of exploring “unseen” elements
and recognising the importance of situating research within its contextual environment, throughout the
research, there has been a clear focus on listening on the part of community radio broadcasters.
Traditionally, ethnographers, especially those working within anthropology, take an open-ended
approach whereby the research questions emerge and are clarified through fieldwork (Hammersley &
Atkinson, 2007). Similarly, such ethnographic research focusses on describing and understanding
phenomena or developing theories, rather than testing a hypothesis (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007).
This research draws on what Tavory and Timmermans term the “extended case method” approach in
which theory acts as a starting point (2009). This contrasts with a grounded theory approach, in which

35
theories and cases are constructed “from the field up” (Tavory & Timmermans, 2009, p. 251). This jugaad
methodology draws from both approaches: rather than entering the field with a fully-formed theory or
hypothesis, a loosely deductive approach was employed, with listening as an analytic lens (Jerolmack &
Khan, 2017). Grounded theory was then integrated, with the aim of developing and testing theories from
the emerging data. The approach to grounded theory is discussed further in the following chapter.

Tracing a phenomenon through multi-sited research

A key aspect of what I term a jugaad methodology is that it takes place across multiple sites. The aim is
not generalisation or broad representation of the community radio sector, but rather tracing a complex
social phenomenon. Marcus (1995, p. 99) makes the case for multi-sited ethnographies, explaining that
“ethnography of a cultural formation in the world system is also an ethnography of the system, and
therefore cannot be understood only in terms of the conventional single-site.” Ethnography is, at its core,
interpretive, and is shaped by the discipline through which it is engaged (Pink & Morgan, 2013), but still, a
similar argument is made by Algan, in the context of media studies. She argues that focussing on multiple
sites of consumption rather than on single texts contributes to “not only the study of everyday life but
also the social, political and ideological context of media use” (Algan, 2003, p. 25). The additional context
provided by exploring multiple sites of consumption is essential to understanding “practice” as the
phenomenon to be traced through multi-sited ethnography (Marcus, 1995). Couldry argues that the idea
of a researcher’s movements perfectly tracking that of the phenomenon to be studied, in this case, the
practice of community radio broadcasters, is somewhat unrealistic. He writes instead of partial
intersections and “passing ethnographies” that yield knowledge under certain circumstances (2003). One
successful example of the application of multi-sited ethnography to a community radio environment was
Guo’s exploration of audience engagement at two community radio stations in Texas (2015). This
research allowed for exploring various aspects of audience engagement in select programmes across two
very different stations. The diverse nature of community radio stations means that exploring the listening
practices of a single station would reveal little about the phenomena while expanding the scope of the
research would yield richer data.
While multi-sited ethnographies have great potential to trace a phenomenon through various
settings, there are pragmatic issues to be considered. Hammersley and Atkinson reinforce the
consideration of pragmatics, observing that the more settings are studied, the less time will be spent in
each, necessitating a trade-off between depth and breadth of inquiry (2007). To strike a balance between
depth and breadth of inquiry and given the practicalities of access to field sites and the time available,
two stations were selected for this research. Though Marcus notes that “a certain valorized conception of
fieldwork” may be threatened or displaced by multiple research sites, he argues that the key feature of
ethnography – “the function of translation” from one culture to another – is maintained in multi-sited
fieldwork (1998, p. 84). Mitchell agrees, suggesting that the only thing lost in multi-sited ethnography is

36
“the ambition of holism” (2007, p. 64). Holism, as interpreted in this research, refers not only to the
social, political, cultural, and historical aspects of the field site but also to the generalisability of the
research findings. The diverse nature of community radio stations means that it is difficult to generalise
across any two stations, even if they are in close physical proximity to one another, let alone on a
national or international scale. As such, the purpose of the multi-sited nature of this research is simply to
explore how different stations take different approaches, rather than making generalisations. This
attitude towards multi-sited research aligns with the constructivist interpretive framework of this
research, which questions any notions of understanding, let alone describing, the multitude of
constructed realities. Marcus suggests that a defining feature of multi-sited ethnographies is the notion
of “complicity” between the researcher and the informant. He argues that complicity as “the vision of a
collaborative relationship between anthropologist and informant as authors of ethnography in the field
has provided a strong reimagining of the regulative ideal of rapport in the ideology of anthropological
practice” (Marcus, 1997, p. 92). Complicity, rather than rapport, implies a relationship built on mutual
curiosity and the search for alternative knowledge, co-constructed between researchers and research
participants (Couldry, 2003). Rather than aiming to establish a holistic picture of multiple fieldwork
settings, the jugaad methodology draws on complicity to establish relationships with participants that are
built on mutual respect and curiosity. This approach recognises the limitations of multi-sited research,
regarding trade-offs between depth and breadth of inquiry, but still facilitates the co-construction of
knowledge between researchers and participants.

Reflexivity in ethnographic practice

Though this research takes a jugaad approach to ethnography, a commitment to one of ethnography’s
key principles is central. Reflexive practice, inherent to any ethnographic study (Hammersley & Atkinson,
2007; Pink et al., 2015), was incorporated into every aspect of the research process. Though reflexivity is
implied through the interpretive framework, it is worth discussing the two key aspects of reflexive
practice that were involved in the research process: self-reflexivity, and paradigmatic reflexivity.
First, employing self-reflexivity to critically reflect on research practices and potential sources of
bias is of vital importance. Cadiz suggests “a cycle of action and reflection… that first analyses practice,
then by reflection draws from such analysis theories and generalizations in the form of lessons learned”
(2005, p. 148). Self-reflexivity was particularly important considering the role of ethnography and the
subsequent ongoing theoretical dialogue taking place during fieldwork. In logistical terms, this meant
taking time to critically reflect on field notes each day to identify and try to correct any potential biases.
While prior knowledge of and experience in community radio contributed to the selection of
methodology, it also emerged as a point of potential bias in that what was being observed in the field
was subconsciously compared to prior experiences. This was identified in a critical reading of field notes;
awareness of this point of bias contributed to a more open-minded approach to future observations and

37
field notes. Self-reflexivity also involves considering the positionality of the researcher and the impact of
that on the research, particularly regarding interactions with others. Reflexivity was also incorporated
throughout the writing stage of this thesis. Ruby (1977, 1980) observes the difficulties that
anthropologists have faced in balancing reflexivity with scientific rigour: a work where the researcher is
centred becomes autobiographical or self-referential rather than reflexive, while removing the researcher
entirely, as in the scientific tradition, ignores the positionality and biases that the researcher may bring to
the work. This thesis attempts to strike this balance in several ways: firstly, by making an explicit
statement on the positionality of the research; secondly, through a clear exposition of the research
methodology and methods, as well as potential limitations; and finally, through the use of ethnographic
vignettes that include, without privileging, the experiences of the researcher. The use of vignettes in this
way aims to subvert the “view from nowhere” or “god’s-eye view” critique of some ethnographies and
instead attempt to weave analysis of my positionality into these textual representations (Schwartz-Shea
& Yanow, 2009).
Though maintaining an awareness of the positionality and inherent biases of the researcher is
key, it is equally important to maintain a commitment to moving “beyond self-reflexivity” and ensuring
that the voices of participants are truly heard and not merely spoken for (Ang, 1989; Bird, 1992). This
leads to the second aspect of reflexivity, which relates to the subjective, co-constructed nature of
knowledge. Not only does this align with the overarching interpretive framework, but it is also an ethical
practice in that it allows for the acknowledgement of the collaborative nature of knowledge construction
in ethnography while recognising the subjectivity of said knowledge (Pink et al., 2015). From a
postcolonial perspective, Shome and Hegde observe that, despite the interdisciplinarity and diverse
methodological perspectives within postcolonial scholarship, reflexivity is of utmost importance:
“postcolonial scholars remain acutely aware of the history, heritage, and legacies of such methods, and
the dilemma that consequently confronts the researcher” (2002, p. 259). Employing reflexivity and
cognitive justice to respect other knowledge systems and bearing in mind the hegemony of western
knowledge systems forms an important aspect of the methodology of this research.

38
3 Methods
In alignment with a jugaad methodology, research methods were drawn from methods traditionally
associated with ethnography as well as some emergent tools. The guiding methodological principle of
jugaad was carried throughout data collection, with the aim of making the most of any opportunity to
collect data regardless of whether it strictly aligned to a specific research method. Hammersley and
Atkinson suggest that ethnographers should aim to gather "whatever data are available to throw light on
the issues that are the emerging focus" (2007, p. 3). Such an approach echoes Gopinath’s “scavenger
methodology” (2005, p. 22), which she employs to trace a history of queer South Asian diasporas, an
archive that has been fractured and fragmented by dominant, hegemonic narratives and, as such,
requires a more contingent approach to research methodology. The resulting data was predominantly in
the form of field notes and interview transcriptions, however, there were also several photographs and
documents.
The initial data collection stage consisted of pilot visits aimed at gathering background
information, developing an understanding of the Indian community radio sector, and meeting with key
researchers and practitioners. Despite the researcher's experience as a community radio practitioner in
Australia, the Indian community radio sector is unique and required further exploration prior to
commencing fieldwork. These pilot visits proved invaluable in developing an understanding of the sector
and meeting with key figures, most notably members of the UNESCO Chair on Community Media,
activists who played important roles in the struggle for community radio in India, as well as a number of
practitioners currently working within the sector. The pilot visits were primarily spent at the UNESCO
Chair on Community Media, drawing on their extensive resources and expertise, as well as attending a
national conference on community radio, and visiting several stations. The relationships and networks
developed over the course of the pilot visits were valuable in terms of "insider" insights into the sector,
as well as providing guidance and facilitating introductions to potential sites. Furthermore, meeting with
those closely involved in the community radio sector in India contributed to developing a much more
nuanced understanding of the historical and legislative environment as well as the everyday issues
affecting stations than could ever be established through desk research. Though these pilot visits were
not intended for data collection, they contributed valuable background knowledge and familiarity, and
also helped to build relationships that proved crucial to the overall research.

Participant observation
Participant observation is a fundamental data collection technique of ethnography and thus was
extensively employed throughout this research. Participant observation took place throughout the
research and occurred in several stages. Initially, observation was centred on the stations themselves,
with a period of time spent at each station, observing and recording the activities of staff, as well as any

39
visitors to the station, and any other happenings. This period of observation was used to gain a general
understanding of the everyday workings of the stations, to unobtrusively build relationships with the
station staff, and to identify key informants. This phase of observation also contributed to understanding
the role of the community radio stations both as an organisation in themselves and as part of broader
organisations. While community radio stations take many forms, the ideal remains as a medium that is
radically participatory, owned and managed by local community members, and privileging process over
product and organisation (Atton, 2001; Downing, 2000). Regardless of opinions on the "correct" form of
community radio ownership and management, or contentious arguments over the definitions of the
name "community radio", viewing community radio stations as organisations is logical, given the context
of this research. Legislation in India does not allow for more maximalist participation models; community
radio stations in India are part of organisations, therefore it is useful to view them in such a way to
further understand their operational environment. This period of participant observation drew on
techniques from organisational ethnography in order to understand the role of community radio stations
in this capacity. Atkinson argues that it is the organisational scope that shapes media content in the form
of corporate strategies and economic concerns (2008). Though smaller in scale, community media are no
exception. As discussed, assessing the ways in which community radio stations operate as organisations is
a fundamental part of barefoot impact assessments (Jallov, 2005). The overarching organisations clearly
impact the stations’ work in terms of both content and daily operating procedures, therefore it is useful
to draw from organisational ethnography. Nicolini suggests: "zooming in and out", first focussing on the
details and impact of a specific practice in a specific place, before expanding the scope of observation to
situate the practice and its products within its broader context (2009, pp. 120–121). This initial period of
observation constitutes the "zooming in" by focussing on the details of the day-to-day operations of the
staff at the station. This included observing work practices such as audio editing, recording pre-recorded
programmes and broadcasting live, as well as handling enquiries from the public and managing
administrative tasks.
Situating the work practices of community radio broadcasters within their organisational context
provides valuable insight but, according to Nicolini (2009), work practices do not take place in a vacuum,
they should be situated in their broader organisational and environmental context. When discussing
media audience ethnographies, Couldry calls for "a decentred media studies", a form of media studies
not necessarily focussed on traditional sites of media production and consumption (2006, p. 4). In a
related, though more practice-driven article, Couldry advocates for asking "open questions about what
people are doing and how they categorise what they are doing, avoiding the disciplinary or other
preconceptions that would automatically read their actions" (2004, p. 125). This combination of
approaches - a "decentred" media studies alongside organisational ethnography - allows for research that
is focussed on the practices of community radio staff, and cognisant of the positioning of these practices
within the larger organisation, while not necessarily being tied to practices occurring within the

40
organisation or any other traditional sites of media production or consumption.
Taking a decentred approach to media studies informed the second stage of participant
observation, in which the research moved outside of the stations to incorporate the work that takes
place outside traditional sites of production. This stage of participant observation was highly dependent
on developing relationships with the key informants and involved work shadowing and what Kusenbach
refers to as "go-alongs" (2003). A cross between an interview and participant observation, go-alongs
involve accompanying informants on their everyday outings in order to understand their experiences of
their physical and social environments (Kusenbach, 2003). Asking questions, listening, and observing
while informants move through these environments represents a more active, focussed, and outcome-
oriented approach, rather than just "hanging out with key informants - an ethnographic practice that is
highly recommended in virtually all fieldwork manuals and textbooks" (Kusenbach, 2003, p. 463).
Accompanying key informants on their outings, both work-related and, on occasion, personal, also
assisted in building relationships, or at least a semblance of familiarity, with station listeners prior to
interviews. In addition to time spent at the station and on go-alongs, the jugaad methodology led the
researcher to capitalise on every opportunity to collect data, even when they were not necessarily
directly related to the activities of the station. This resulted in attending community events including self-
help group meetings, religious festivals, trade fairs, and social meetings with listeners and community
members. While not necessarily directly related to the station or the practices of broadcasters, attending
and observing at such events contributed to a more holistic understanding of the role of the station and
its broadcasters within the community. Observations from these events, as well as time spent at the
station and on go-alongs, were recorded in comprehensive field notes that included pure observations, as
well as emerging prospective theories or areas for further research and analysis. As Hammersley and
Atkinson (2007) suggest, periods of observation were selective and complemented by periods of
reflection and recording, rather than attempting to capture absolutely everything. Participant
observation formed a major part of the data collection and contributed to informing the topics to be
discussed during interviews.

Interviews
Interviews formed a key part of the data collection strategy of this research. Interviews were semi-
structured and in-depth with open-ended questions aimed at collecting descriptive qualitative data. So as
to understand the day-to-day operations and activities of the stations, interviews took place following a
period of participant observation, go-alongs, and work shadowing. Ratan and Bailur (2007) note that
ethnography, through immersion in everyday life, can help illustrate and clarify discrepancies between
what has been observed and data that has been collected directly from the participants through surveys
or interviews. In addition to collecting specific data, interviews were also used to clarify what had been
observed, and subsequent interviews were occasionally used to question any discrepancies between

41
what was done and what was said. Several approaches to interviewing were implemented in a specific
order. First, towards the end of the period of participant observation, focus group discussions were
conducted with groups of listeners. Following the completion of these, group interviews were conducted
with the staff at the radio stations, followed by one-on-one, in-depth interviews with the key informants
at the stations.
The first group of interviews conducted was the listener focus group discussions. Following a
period of participant observation and shadowing, broadcasters were asked to identify key listeners who
they felt they engaged with regularly, and that reflected their broader listenership. This approach draws
on a study of Australian community radio in which the researchers sought the assistance of broadcasters
in identifying and forming focus groups, which the broadcasters later also participated in (Forde et al.,
2007). Meadows et al. refer to community media practitioners as "important – and overlooked -
resources to enlist and to incorporate into research methodology" (2007, p. 18). After identifying and
seeking permission from these key listeners, rhizomatic sampling (Akindes, 2003), based on those with
connections to the station and other connections within the community, was used to create focus groups
consisting of participants who were also regular listeners and shared demographic traits, namely location,
gender, age, and occupation. This resulted in several focus groups in different locations within the
broadcast range of the stations, consisting of either women or men, who the broadcasters felt
represented their relationships with their listeners. In addition to listeners, who had only ever interacted
with the station by listening to programmes, the focus groups included listeners who had participated in
station activities in various capacities, volunteers with a semi-formal, paid or unpaid role with the station,
as well as some members of the stations' parent bodies. This rhizomatic approach to sampling meant that
discussions did not necessarily take place progressively along a linear sequence, as implied by snowball
sampling, but rather provide "glimpses of experience from a variety of situated points of view" (Akindes,
2003, pp. 156–157). A total of six listener focus groups took place, two involving the listeners of Malai
Vanoli and four involving listeners from Enkal Vanoli. All interviews, including both group and individual
interviews as well as the focus group discussions, collected basic demographic information from
participants before commencing with a series of open-ended questions (see Appendix 2) aimed at
generating general discussions around the role of the radio stations within the community and the levels
of audience engagement. Each of the six focus groups was held at times and places chosen by
participants, in an effort to minimise any inconvenience, and also to make the participants feel more
comfortable (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). For the most part, focus group discussions took place
either in participants' homes or in informal village meeting spaces. Based on a request from participants,
one discussion took place at the radio station itself. Verbal consent was sought and obtained from all
participants prior to commencing the discussions, which were recorded. Focus group discussions were
also used to recruit participants for storytelling interviews. Following the discussions, participants who
were more comfortable and talkative, or who hinted at potentially relevant stories during the interview,

42
were asked to participate in one-on-one, storytelling interviews. This proved an effective recruitment
method, with each focus group yielding at least two storytellers willing to participate, resulting in a total
of 14 listener storytelling interviews.
The second stage of interviews involved group interviews with staff at each station. At this point,
it is worth clearly demarcating between focus group discussions and group interviews, with the latter
representing a more formal, question-and-answer format, aimed at collecting a range of responses from
members of the groups, while the former is a more loosely-formatted and aimed at generating
discussions rather than pursuing answers to specific questions (Kitzinger, 1995). One group interview was
conducted at each station involving all staff who were regularly present at the station during the time of
observation. Most of those present were radio journalists, though there were several participants who
identified themselves as operating in ICT capacities. In both interviews, no members of the parent bodies
were present. This was not through deliberate design, though it undoubtedly contributed to more candid
discussions, rather it was reflective of day-to-day station attendance. During these group interviews,
general discussions were encouraged, though specific answers were sought for some questions and from
some individuals. Singling out individuals was particularly necessary in the case of junior staff members
who tended to remain quiet and defer to their, older and more professionally senior colleagues. The
group interviews (Appendix 2) covered topics directly relating to the research questions, as well as
clarifying or exploring what had previously been observed and discussed in the listener focus groups.
Group interviews took place at the stations during times of low activity, either when the stations were off
air or broadcasting pre-recorded content.
The final interviews were conducted one-on-one with the key informants, who, in both stations,
were the station managers. Though this may have been an attempt at a form of "gatekeeping"
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007), there was an element of luck in that both station managers were
women with demographic similarities to the researcher and translator. As such, over the course of the
research, a strong rapport was established with both station managers which allowed for open, candid
interviews despite the potential gatekeeping capacity of their roles. The size of the stations meant that,
far from being a purely managerial role, the station managers were intimately involved in every aspect of
production, including going out to the field to source content, the same as the other radio journalists.
Based on this, the two one-on-one interviews covered a range of topics, from those specifically relating
to the research questions, to those relating to everyday station activities, as well as more candid
questions about the challenges of their roles. A detailed summary of the interviews conducted can be
seen in Appendix 1.

Storytelling
The final method employed in this research was that of storytelling. Listener storytelling invited listeners

43
to share personal narratives regarding their relationship and interactions with the radio stations. The aim
of this method was not to guide or influence participants through directive or specific questioning but to
listen. Crook notes that participants already have the tools to tell their own stories in their own way, it is
the role of the facilitator to simply enable this process (2009). Storytelling democratises the data
collection process and promotes listening on the part of the researcher in order to provide the
participants with an authentic voice in the research. Cortazzi (in Whittaker et al., 2004) even goes so far
as to say that, because interviews are controlled, narratives are less natural and therefore less authentic.
Storytelling in development projects personifies those who might usually be an "anonymous beneficiary"
and assists in amplifying their voices which might otherwise be lost (Slim & Thompson, 1993). In terms of
community radio, King (2016) specifically advocates storytelling as a way of promoting self-
representation among community radio listeners. Storytelling as a method aligns with the research
objectives and questions in that it aims to capture the unique experience of listeners in their own words.
In contrast with researcher-led interviews, listener storytelling aims to elicit authentic narratives from
listeners with minimal interference from the researcher.
Though by no means a common method of data collection, there is significant literature that
supports the use of storytelling, particularly in relation to development and radio. Digital storytelling,
particularly, has been employed by researchers previously to explore a number of phenomena. Burgess
explains that the 'movement' towards digital storytelling is an attempt to re-balance the ethics of
democratic access: "for too long we have been interrupting the ordinary voice, speaking instead of
listening - repurposing 'found' everyday culture (by applying liberal doses of theory) in ways that
complement our own sub-cultural taste patterns" (2006, p. 209). An example of digital storytelling at
work in a media, communication, and development context is the “Finding a Voice” project. In this
project (Tacchi, 2009; Tacchi & Kiran, 2008), researchers aimed to facilitate voice for marginalised and
impoverished groups through digital storytelling. They found that these forms of "creative engagement"
can promote dialogue and understanding at a grassroots level as well as contributing to horizontal
development models (Tacchi & Kiran, 2008). While the focus on this project, in addition to sharing the
stories of marginalised groups, was on the democratising powers of new media technologies, there are
implications for more traditional forms of media also. Tacchi writes that audiences, in both developed
and developing countries, are usually positioned as recipients of media messages, with their capacities to
participate in self-representation in the media through content production completely overlooked
(Tacchi, 2006). King made extensive use of a similar storytelling method in her recent exploration of a
community radio station in Jordan. While her research focusses more on the community radio station's
influence on the political awareness and engagement of listeners, King found storytelling as a method to
be an accessible way of documenting this (2015). Personal narratives were sought "to facilitate a space
for listeners to share stories of the impact of community radio in their civic lives" (King, 2016, p. 88).
Listeners self-recorded their stories, excerpts of which were shared in listener groups and broadcast in an

44
on-air focus group discussion. Throughout both digital storytelling and King's use of the personal
narratives of listeners, there are strong themes of providing access to technology and spaces to share
everyday stories. While the technological aspects are outside the scope of this research, storytelling as a
way for listeners to share their experiences presents a method with great potential for addressing the
research questions.
Employing listener storytelling, in combination with the more traditional ethnographic methods
of participant observation and interviews, has a number of benefits. Foremost, utilising this method
allows for the collection of rich, detailed data, told in the participants' own words, which aligns with the
ethnographic methodology and overarching worldview of this research. Secondly, a key objective of this
research is to investigate listening; in this context, only making use of researcher-led data collection
methods would fail to capture the essence of what this research is trying to discover. Using storytelling in
this way provides a greater opportunity to "hear the listeners" (King, 2016, p. 88). Finally, on a more
logistical but no less important note, listener storytelling assists in circumventing some of the challenges
associated with translation. Language differences between the researcher and participants necessitated
the use of a translator. King, who encountered similar language barriers in her work with a community
radio station in Jordan, found that facilitating storytelling, as opposed to conducting interviews through
translators or with limited language proficiency, procured richer data (2015). Furthermore, less
interference from the researcher and, subsequently, the interpreter, may help to limit the potential for
mistranslation or confusion and allow for the participants' words to be understood in their natural voice
and context, without interruptions.
Storytelling took place following the focus group discussions with listeners. As discussed,
storytelling participants were recruited from the focus groups based on which participants seemed more
comfortable or talkative during the discussions. The response was quite positive, with at least two
members of each focus group agreeing to participate in storytelling. The resulting interviews, however,
yielded mixed results. Participants were asked to share an anecdote or story about their experiences
interacting or engaging with the local community radio stations, with particular reference to times when
they felt the station has, or has not, listened to them. While the storytelling method aims to minimise
researcher interference, a list of prompts was developed (Appendix 2), in the event that participants
needed more information or were having trouble thinking of stories. This proved useful because,
although participants were selected based on how comfortable they were in the focus group discussions,
there were several cases where participants were hesitant and seemed uneasy with the open-ended
format and, as such, relied heavily on the prompts. This resulted in a more traditional, question-and-
answer, interview format rather than the anticipated long-form narratives. Of the 14 listener storytelling
interviews that took place (see Appendix 1), just eight could be considered stories rather than interview
responses. Differentiation between these stories and interviews emerged from the narrative analysis, to
be discussed in more detail shortly. Nonetheless, eight stories were collected and those storytelling

45
interviews that did not result in stories still contributed to the broader data set, albeit in a different
capacity than planned.

Data analysis
Grounded theory
The primary method of data analysis was constructivist grounded theory. First discussed by Glaser and
Strauss in their seminal text The Discovery of Grounded Theory (2009), grounded theory is an approach to
analysis aimed at generating theories from the data, as opposed to extracting hypotheses from existing
theories (Charmaz, 2014). Grounded theory has evolved significantly since its inception, most notably
splitting into two schools broadly representing the scholarly backgrounds of the two founders: Glaser's
positivist Columbia University empiricism and Strauss's (and later Corbin’s, see Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
Chicago school pragmatism (Dey, 2004; Glaser & Strauss, 2009; Pidgeon & Henwood, 2004; Spencer et
al., 2014). While grounded theory traditionally aligned with positivist and post-positivist research (Clarke,
2007; Spencer et al., 2014), it was adapted to constructivist inquiries by Charmaz (2014). She writes that,
in contrast to Glaser and Strauss "discovering" grounded theory, neither data nor theories are
discovered, but constructed (Charmaz, 2014). Any resulting theories are interpretive portrayals, rather
than exact representations of the studied world: "We construct our grounded theories through our past
and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives, and research practices...
Participants' implicit meanings, experiential views - and researchers' finished grounded theories - are
constructions of reality" (Charmaz, 2014, p. 10). Given the research foci and interpretive framework,
Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory was employed to analyse the data in this research.
A key argument for the use of constructivist grounded theory relates to reflexive practice and
accounting for the myriad constructions of knowledge and reality. Charmaz argues that theory is
interpretive and "assumes emergent, multiple realities; indeterminacy; facts and values as inextricably
linked; truth as provisional; and social life as processual" (2014, pp. 126–127). Following this approach,
the idea that theory is "discovered" as it emerges from the data is problematic in that it silences the
constructive nature of knowledge and the role of the researcher in this process. Pidgeon and Henwood
argue that "theory cannot simply 'emerge' from data, because interpretation and analysis are always
conducted within some pre-existing conceptual framework brought to the task by the analyst" (2004, pp.
627–628). They instead refer to "generation of theory" rather than discovery. This argument supports the
use of more reflexive constructivist grounded theory that recognises the perspective that the researcher
brings to the interpretive generation of theory.
As discussed in the previous chapter, Tavory and Timmermans (2009) suggest two approaches to
ethnographic inquiry: the extended case method and grounded theory. The extended case method
informed data collection through the use of a loose deductive approach, with listening acting as an

46
analytic lens rather than a fully formed hypothesis. The analysis of that data, however, draws on
grounded theory. While Tavory and Timmermans position these two approaches as binary opposites and,
to a degree, mutually exclusive, this research takes the position offered by Jerolmack and Khan (2017)
who suggest moving recursively between theory and practice throughout the research process. Purists
within the grounded theory tradition argue that developing truly grounded theories requires starting
from a theoretical "blank slate". Glaser's interpretation of grounded theory calls for an initially "generalist
position" that avoids subjecting research activities to theoretical scrutiny, while the other school of
grounded theory advocates for being explicit about the research questions guiding the research (Pidgeon
& Henwood, 2004). In her work on constructivist grounded theory, Charmaz refers to these starting
points as "sensitizing concepts and disciplinary perspectives" and explains that while such concepts offer
tentative tools for developing ideas, they are quickly disregarded if proven to be irrelevant (2014, p. 17).
The use of sensitizing concepts and background or disciplinary knowledge in grounded theory helps to
refine the research questions, prevent the repetition of previous research, and allows projects the
opportunity to fully benefit from theoretical sensitivity (Pidgeon & Henwood, 2004). In terms of this
research, the sensitizing concepts initially employed related to markers of listening and participation.
In terms of logistics, a traditional approach was taken: conducting multiple layers of coding to
eventually generate theories from the data. Interviews were translated and transcribed, then uploaded
to nVivo qualitative data analysis software. Interviews, fieldnotes, and documents were initially coded
taking an open, line-by-line approach, before using axial coding to identify relationships between existing
codes and synthesize the data in new ways (Charmaz, 2014). Finally, the data was re-coded based on
thematic topics arising from the previous analysis of the initial coding phases.

Narrative analysis
The second method of data analysis is derived from narrative analysis. Narrative analysis has been
employed here as somewhat of a counterpoint to grounded theory. Rather than fragmenting data into
thematic categories, narrative analysis treats whole accounts as units of analysis (Riessman, 2008).
Combining such a detail-oriented approach with what Riessman terms "category-centred models of
research", like ethnography and grounded theory, can produce unique insights and different ways of
understanding (2008, p. 12). Narrative analysis has been employed primarily to explore the stories
resulting from listener storytelling. Riessman explains that narrative analysis is not appropriate for large
numbers of "nameless, faceless subjects" (2008, p. 18). This method of analysis is slow and focusses on
the minutiae of narrated accounts including language, audience, how the text is presented, the local
context, and the underlying factors impacting upon what can be narrated and how (Riessman, 2008). In
narrative analysis, it is not necessarily just the content of the interview that is important but also the
storytelling itself, which reveals much about how the participants view themselves and the world around
them (Bailur, 2012). Where a content analysis could potentially miss key contextual details, narrative

47
analysis adds coherence to experiences by locating them in terms of time and place (Cortazzi in Whittaker
et al., 2004). Furthermore, narrative analysis complements ethnographic research strategies and is useful
for exploring representations of voice, listening, and sharing experiences of particular groups (Whittaker
et al., 2004). For these reasons, narrative analysis was employed to explore the eight listener stories.
There is disagreement within the field of narrative studies of appropriate terminology and what
exactly makes an account or text a "story". Riessman suggests that it is "sequence and consequence" that
makes diverse texts "narrative" - "events are selected, organised, connected, and evaluated as
meaningful for a particular audience" (1993, p. 1). In contrast, Boje (2001) argues firmly against
manufacturing narratives by imposing order and coherence on fragmented experiences. He suggests the
term "antenarrative" which aims to capture contextual details and the messy, incoherent "pre-narrative
speculation" (Boje, 2001, p. 1). Furthermore, Czarniawska suggests somewhat of a typology, comparing
annals ("registering dates and times"), and chronicles ("causal connections... devoid of plot or meaningful
structure"), with "stories" (2004, p. 652). Citing White (1987), she argues that chronicles might be
narratives, but they are not stories due to a lack of "emplotment", a concept borrowed from Ricoeur
(1984), which Czarniawska interprets as the process of "introducing structure which allows sense to be
made of the events" (2004, p. 655). Sense-making is a retrospective act, she writes, hence, emplotment
could be considered part of the process of moving from chronicle or narrative to story (Czarniawska,
2004). Boje disagrees with this interpretation, referring to stories as "folksy" and arguing that
Czarniawska's definition of story is more suited to that of a narrative (2001). There is limited capacity for
productivity in such discussions. Based on the contention within the field, I employ "narrative" and
"story" interchangeably throughout this research.
Based on the vague and contested nature of the various terms within narrative analysis, the first
step undertaken in this process of narrative analysis is to determine which accounts could be considered
"narratives", and therefore appropriate for this kind of analysis. Despite the contentions in terms of
terminology and approaches to narrative analysis, many of the authors cited here (Boje, 2001;
Czarniawska, 1997; Lawler, 2002) ground their interpretations in the work of Ricoeur. Therefore, this
research draws on Ricoeur's (1984) notion of "emplotment" in order to distinguish stories from what
Czarniawska might term "annals" or "chronicles". Plainly stated: "it is emplotment which makes an
account a narrative" (Lawler, 2002, p. 245). Ricoeur refers to emplotment as "creative imitation" of lived
experiences; that is, "the imitation or representation of action proper to tragedy, comedy, and epic that
alone is taken into account" (1984, p. 33). Ricoeur argues that there are three stages of emplotment that
the terms "mimesis". The first mimesis refers to the pre-understandings necessary to be able to emplot.
Ricoeur (1984, p. 54) explains:
"... the composition of the plot is rounded in a pre-understanding of the world of action, its
meaningful structures, its symbolic resources, and its temporal characters... If it is true that plot
is an imitation of action, some preliminary competence is required: the capacity for identifying

48
 action in general by means of its structural features... a supplementary competence is required:
an aptitude for identifying what I call the symbolic mediations of action..."
The second mimesis involves linking seemingly disparate events or incidents into a totality: one
meaningful story (Ricoeur, 1984; Lawler, 2002). The final stage, mimesis 3, refers to "the intersection of
the world of the text and the world of the hearer or reader" (Ricoeur, 1984, p. 71). This temporal aspect
of narrative is extensively explored by Ricoeur who further explains that "time becomes human to the
extent that it is articulated through a narrative mode, and narrative attains its full meaning when it
becomes a condition of temporal existence" (1984, p. 52). This concept of emplotment is a form of plot
analysis, though when used in isolation, it is admittedly what Boje terms a "narrow and reductionist
analysis" (2001, p. 121). As such, emplotment or plot analysis is used as a general basis for differentiating
stories from question-and-answer-style interviews. The three stages of mimesis also offer prompts
towards various areas of analysis including the contextual environment and prerequisite knowledge
underpinning the story, which events or incidents have been selected and how they have been linked
together, as well as how these events relate back to present temporality.
Having conducted a high-level plot analysis using Ricoeur's emplotment to determine if texts are
appropriate for narrative analysis, this research then draws on the "hermeneutic triad" to guide further
analysis. Czarniawska employs Hernadi's (1987) "hermeneutic triad" to suggest three ways of reading a
text (2004). The first is referred to as explication, or what the text is actually saying. Traditionally, this
involves the researcher "standing under" the text in order to understand "what really happened" in their
own words (Czarniawska, 2014). Czarniawska warns of the "political act of totalizing" when it comes to
retelling others' stories (2004, p. 658). The second part of the "triad" is explanation, which involved
negotiations between the reader and the original intention of the text, or "standing over" the text and
questioning why it says what it does (Czarniawska, 2014). The final stage of the triad is exploration. This
involves "standing in" as the author in order to provide a "critique or an espousal of the ideas" in the text
(Czarniawska, 2014). The use of this hermeneutic triad and Czarniawska's contemporary interpretation
provides a useful guide for narrative analysis.
In addition to plot analysis and the hermeneutic triad, two tools from Boje's (2001) "alternative
narrative analysis" are also employed: deconstruction and "grand narrative" analysis. Firstly,
deconstruction offers a tool for analysis that questions the underlying points of view and ideologies of
the text. Drawing from the work of Derrida, who resisted attempts to define deconstruction, this
approach aims to problematise or decentre the authoritative Truth or centre presented by the text (Boje,
2001). Deconstruction is also critical to exploring antenarratives (Boje, 2001, p. 18):
“Deconstruction is antenarrative in action. Every story excludes. Every story legitimates a centred
point of view, a worldview or an ideology among alternatives. No story is ideologically neutral;
story floats around in the chaotic soup of bits and pieces of story fragments.”
Deconstruction can encourage consideration of the underlying ideologies and external influences of the

49
text because, as Derrida so famously asserted, "there is no outside-text" (1976, p. 158).
A further technique suggested by Boje is to explore the "grand narrative" of the text. This
involves considering the "metanarrative that subjugates and marginalizes other discourses" (Boje, 2001,
p. 35) and looking beyond this metanarrative to consider how micronarratives might resist or conform to
this narrative. Such "grand narratives" likely impact on each point of the hermeneutic triad: affecting
what is said, how it is said, and why. It is anticipated that any grand narratives that emerge may also
relate to mimesis 1: the prerequisite knowledges necessary for emplotting the story.
Related to both deconstruction and grand narrative analysis is what Fernandes terms "the
political economy of storytelling" (2017). Through this, she refers to two intertwined activities: the
"production, circulation, and consumption of stories that are mobilized toward certain utilitarian ends"
and "the deployment of stories in the process of subject-making" (Fernandes, 2017, pp. 10-11). Given the
relatively short amount of time spent at each site, an in-depth understanding of the political economy of
each story is unrealistic. Assuming to have developed a holistic understanding of the entire political
economy impacting upon listeners’ stories is simplistic and problematic. In this context, the political
economy of storytelling acts as more of a lens through which to view stories; a reminder to maintain a
critical gaze and to consider the importance of context in shaping the narratives presented. Furthermore,
it is necessary to consider the "curated" nature of the stories: these stories were told for a specific
purpose, whether it be purely in response to the researcher's request or other less immediately clear
reasons.
A final point to note in terms of narrative analysis is the role of reflexivity. Though reflexivity
should be inherent throughout this research, it is particularly important in terms of stories and narrative
analysis. At the risk of delving into reception studies, the factors influencing the researcher's reading
must also be considered. Ricoeur suggests that "it is the reader who completes the work" (1984, p. 77).
Similarly, Riessman argues that there is "dialogue" between the text and reader or researcher and
researched (2008, p. 137). Having considered the contextual environment, prerequisite knowledges, and
grand narratives, as well as having deconstructed and decentred the texts, it is only fair to apply the same
rigour to the reading of the text. After all, the results of this analysis, by way of emplotment, become a
story themselves (Riessman, 2008). By maintaining a reflexive approach and applying the same critical
view to the new "story", the researcher's perspective can at least be recognised and potentially
mitigated.
Having discussed the tools of analysis and now returning to the data, there were several
storytelling interviews that failed to meet the criteria for narrative analysis. Drawing on the narrative
markers of emplotment and antenarrative, five storytelling interviews were deemed inappropriate for
narrative analysis. In each of these interviews, the participants seemed shy and uncomfortable with the
format. These participants required a significant amount of encouragement and seemed to prefer a
traditional interview of questions and answers rather than prompts and narrative responses. As such,

50
these interviews were deemed inappropriate for narrative analysis and were instead examined using the
aforementioned grounded theory approach. Given this blurring of lines between methods - interviews
and listener storytelling - the focus group transcripts were re-examined with a view of identifying any
stories that may have been presented throughout the interviews rather than in the storytelling. Five
stories were identified as fulfilling criteria of emplotment and antenarrative and therefore were also
examined through narrative analysis.

Translation
At this point, it is worth discussing the role of the interpreter and language limitations within this
research. Translation is rarely problematised by researchers; though translated transcripts are often
presented, the politics of translation are rarely acknowledged (Riessman, 2008). In addition to the explicit
imperialism of the dominance of English in academic writing, Tanu and Dales suggest that silencing the
role of translators and interpreters stems from the colonial origins of ethnographic writing and the
pronounced divide between "native" and "non-native" researchers (2016, p. 355). As such this research
attempts to address this power imbalance and recognise that researchers depend on translators and
interpreters "not just for words, but to a certain extent for perspective" (Temple, 1997, p. 608). Based on
the interpretive framework, respecting cognitive justice and alternative knowledges, this section aims to
recognise the role of the interpreter and the perspective she brought to the research.
There were no questions regarding the need for an interpreter: the researcher's proficiency in
the local language was limited at best and, though there were varying levels of English within the primary
research participants, it was naturally preferable to conduct interviews in the language in which they
were most comfortable. Acknowledging that the researcher is "less than fluent" in the local language is
key to an open discussion on language and translation issues (Gibb & Danero Iglesias, 2016). While
fluency in the local language would have been ideal, the time available meant that it was more realistic to
work with an interpreter/translator and supplement this with "informal language learning" (Gibb &
Danero Iglesias, 2016). As such, a research assistant was engaged to interpret, translate, and assist in
facilitating the logistics of the research. For cultural reasons, employing a female interpreter was
preferred. Edwards suggests that, where possible, interpreters and interviewees should be of the same
sex, culture, religion, and age (1998, p. 200). As the same interpreter was engaged throughout the
research and the interviewees were not demographically homogeneous, this was not possible. In this
case, it was deemed more important for the interpreter to be from the general area of the research sites
and, as such, have first-hand experience in the local culture. Based on these guidelines, a research
assistant was employed to act as an interpreter and translator, as well as to provide logistical support.
The research assistant was a local Master’s student recruited through networks established during the
pilot visits to the UNESCO Chair on Community Media. In this case, it was desirable to engage an
interpreter with a strong knowledge of the local area but little familiarity with community radio, in order

51
to avoid any potential bias or conflicts of interest with their own research.
The role of the interpreter was understood as being vital from the outset of the research, not
only for overcoming language barriers but also for navigating local and cultural norms. As such, a way of
recognising and making visible the role and perspective of the interpreter was sought. Temple (1997, p.
608) argues that the concept of "intellectual biographies" provides a useful frame for understanding the
point of view of the interpreter:
“Researchers' intellectual autobiographies influence what they know, and what they know and
experience influences what they write, which in turn influences their intellectual
autobiographies. Extending this concept to include the 'intellectual biographies' of others
involved in research (for example, translators, interpreters, interviewers and transcribers) is a
useful way for the researcher to engage with the perspectives of those who may be involved in a
significant part of the research process.”
This approach aligns with the social constructivist and cognitive justice interpretive framework, which
recognises alternative knowledges and perspectives. Based on this, the researcher sought to understand
the "intellectual biography" of the interpreter. Edwards suggests an induction process to ensure that "the
interpreter is neither too active nor too passive" (1998, p. 200). While there was no formal induction,
extensive discussions took place around the focus of inquiry as well as the preferred approach to
interpreting. The structure of the research methods also allowed for somewhat of an acclimatisation
period for the interpreter. With the initial stage at each site simply involving participant observation at
the stations, the interpreter was able to build rapport with the key informants and also work reflexively
with the researcher to develop appropriate interpretation approaches. By the time the interviewing
phase commenced, the researcher and interpreter had built a strong working relationship and were very
clear on expectations and approaches to interpretation in more formal interview settings.
As the research ended, it was deemed necessary to conduct a more formal "exit" interview with
the interpreter. Though a clear picture of her intellectual biography had been established through social
and informal interactions, an interview was conducted to make this position more overt and formally
recorded. Edwards suggests applying reflexivity to the role of the interpreter through interviews and
treating interpreters overtly as "key informants", though without privileging their insight over that of
other interviewees (1998). Using this approach as a guide, the interpreter was questioned about certain
life experiences, cultural nuances, her academic background, and the issues she saw as relevant to the
research questions (see Appendix 3). Through this interview, the role of the interpreter as a key
informant was solidified and made visible.
The final issue to be discussed around interpreting and translating is more pragmatic: namely
that of the accuracy of the translations. Though multiple readings are possible in all qualitative research,
this problem becomes highly visible when language issues are introduced into the mix (Riessman, 2008).
To test the accuracy of the transcripts and account for contextual interpretations that may have been

52
included by the translator, a random selection of audio recordings of interviews free from any contextual
or identifying information were also translated by an external, independent translator. The resulting
translations were compared with the work of the research assistant to verify the accuracy of the
translations. The two sets of translations, for the most part, matched, except for several contextual
explanatory notes from the research assistant, which were clearly identified as separate to the
transcripts. Had the results been less aligned, additional verification through back-translations would
have taken place but, given the alignment between the work of the research assistant and that of the
independent translator, this was deemed unnecessary.

Limitations
"You better leave"
The station's phone rarely rang. When it did it was usually someone from the NGO calling to check in
about one thing or another, Akka usually fielded those calls. Thambi dutifully passed her the phone. She
listened intently for quite some time, before turning to look at me with a deepening frown. She replaced
the phone and motioned for us to follow her outside.
"There's some problem with your foreign registration, they want you to go to the police station. You
better leave."
Akka gave me a brief hug and told us to keep her updated. The translator and I exchanged a look. What
had just happened?
"We better go."
Indeed, there was a car waiting. Mercifully, not a police car.
The drive took an hour. Thambi who worked in the office came with us. He explained that the NGO
occupied a tenuous status here. The government, or at least one member of the police department, was
sceptical and dismissive of their work, and often caused problems for their foreign visitors. Despite being
an hour's drive away, they kept a close eye on the comings and goings of the NGO. There was nothing the
NGO could do, no-one to complain to that wouldn't make their lives even more complicated. So they
walked the tightrope. Usually, visitors came in groups – donors on tour, students of agriculture on
exchange – he tended not to bother them too much. But a lone researcher and one spending time at the
radio station? Thambi clicked his tongue and rolled his eyes.
We pulled up in front of a colonial-style bungalow, complete with a carefully tended rose garden at the
front.
"We can't go in with you, it's better that you go by yourself," he gestured to the door.
I walked through the open door and turned left towards the Foreigner Registration Office. I barely placed
one foot over the threshold when a man on the phone impatiently pointed back outside and told me to
wait. So I sat on a bench inside the police station, awaiting the bureaucrat holding my fieldwork to

53
ransom. Police officers in uniform strode past, some almost-comically double-taking at the sight of me. I
felt like a naughty child waiting outside the school principal's office.
***
All research has limitations: things that don't go to plan or don't work as well as expected. The reflexive
nature of this research recognises the fallibility of all research, as such, it is necessary to have a frank
discussion about the limitations of this research. The primary limitation of this research was the
discrepancy between the time spent at each station. It was anticipated that one month would be spent
collecting data at each site, with roughly two weeks for participant observation, one week for listener
interviews, and one week for staff interviews and any final matters arising. Though this model was
successfully employed at Enkal Vanoli, as indicated in the vignette, Malai Vanoli did not quite go
according to plan.
In addition to obtaining an appropriate visa, foreigners staying in India for more than 14 days are
required to register with the local police station. Though there are policies and procedures in place, in
practice it is largely at the discretion of local Foreign Registration Officers to issue and manage
registrations. Without delving into extraneous details, an alleged problem (or grudge, as it turned out to
be) meant that I had to leave the district immediately and, as such, was unable to complete the full
month at Malai Vanoli.
Community radio and NGOs occupy a somewhat tenuous status in this district. There is considerable ill-
will towards certain NGOs, particularly those that are religiously affiliated, thanks to the practice of
offering education scholarships to tribal people who convert to Christianity. Though the practice has been
banned, NGOs are still closely scrutinised by the local government. Malai Vanoli's NGO attracts additional
attention due to its regular foreign visitors. The NGO relies heavily on foreign donations and also
collaborates on environmental research with foreign universities, so it was vital for them to keep the
Foreign Registration Officer happy. Malai Vanoli itself has little brand recognition outside of its broadcast
area and, given the relatively low status of community radio, it was, retrospectively, unsurprising that
there was additional scrutiny and scepticism from local officials. In her book, Street Corner Secrets, Svati
Shah recalls an interaction with strangers on a train who enquired about her research, which was
focussed on migrant sex workers in Mumbai. She describes a detailed conversation that somehow
manages to dance around the topic, unspoken but understood by all discussants (S. P. Shah, 2014).
Similarly, Anjali Arondekar recounts the impatient inquiry of an archive official - “’Tumhi kai shodhta,
madam?’ (What are you looking for, madam?)” – and the realisation that her research was “an
unrepresentable search for an impossible object” (2009, p. ix). Listening in community radio represents a
less taboo, though similarly unspoken and unrepresentable topic, particularly from the perspective of
government authority figures.
Rather than returning and potentially placing the station and NGO at risk of further harassment,
it was decided to move on to the second site, Enkal Vanoli, as planned. As such, several months passed

54
between the initial visit to the first site and the return visit. The return visit was hampered by the same
uncooperative official and time was severely limited. It was extremely fortunate that the NGO and station
staff were willing to slightly bend the rules so the interviews could take place, though they needed to be
done quickly and could not take place at the station. Ethically speaking, the situation was difficult. Having
sought advice from other local researchers and the issuing body of the paperwork, everything was in
order, it was essentially, a man with a grudge. Nonetheless, he was an official who could potentially make
life very difficult for the NGO and the station. As such, the actions taken ensured that the researcher took
full responsibility and that no-one else would face any adverse consequences. The result was that only
nine interviews took place instead of the anticipated 14: two listener focus groups, five storytelling
interviews, one group interview with the station staff, and one individual interview with the key
informant (see Appendix 1 for a more detailed breakdown). Considering the circumstances, the amount
of data collected at Malai Vanoli was acceptable and still comparable with what was collected at the
other station. The total time spent at Malai Vanoli worked out to be roughly three weeks rather than the
intended four, though with a significant gap between weeks two and three.
The experience at the first research site reinforced the need for a flexible methodology,
responsive to the unique quirks of the research sites. This also demonstrated developing complicity with
research participants through shared experiences and understandings.

"That's it?" "That's it."

A cow groaned. A bell was ringing, coming from the direction of the temple. The sound of a car labouring
up a hill on a distant road. There was excited chattering and squeals from a group of school children who
had just been dropped off by a bus and were slowly making their way up the hill towards the village. The
village was alive with sound. The interview, however, was not.
These were the sounds that could be heard during the gaping silence following a question.
"How about you, Akka? What do you think?" the translator tried again, physically leaning closer so not to
miss even a whisper of an answer.
The cow again. The children got closer.
The woman gave a small smile and looked at the ground.
"That's it?" the translator was defeated. We had come all this way.
"That's it."
***
As the research progressed, a limitation surrounding the collection of interview data, particularly
storytelling, emerged. As discussed in the data analysis section, there were several storytelling interviews
that failed to meet the criteria to be considered a "story" and therefore were ineligible for narrative
analysis. This limitation occurred several times across both sites. Storytelling participants were asked to
self-nominate from the focus groups: it was usually the more talkative, confident participants of the focus

55
groups who volunteered. Despite this, there were several storytelling interviews that failed to yield
"stories". Some participants were perhaps unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the format and seemed to
prefer answering questions rather than sharing a longer narrative story. This could be due to a number of
reasons. Firstly, the format: though most focus group participants had been interviewed for the radio, the
format of these interviews compared with storytelling was quite different. Radio interviewees know in
advance what they will be talking about and are guided by a clear, logical set of questions. It was perhaps
the unstructured form, and lack of preparation time that made some participants uncomfortable. Though
participants were aware of the questions and aims of the interviews, they were not asked to prepare
anything in advance and may have been caught off-guard. A second reason for the reluctance to tell
stories could have been related to the presence of the researcher and the perceived "formality" of the
interview. The radio staff often observed people's reluctance to speak into microphones, and the
phenomena of falling silent as soon as a recording device emerged. Indeed, it was for this reason that
Malai Vanoli staff tended to use small, amateur recording devices or their mobile phones despite having
access to higher quality, more broadcast-appropriate field recorders. The sight of a microphone was
enough to intimidate potential interviewees, so they opted for less obtrusive recorders despite the lower
sound quality. The act of being singled out, even if voluntarily, also seemed to play a role in the "limited"
stories. Even some of the more garrulous focus group participants struggled in the storytelling interviews.
A related factor could also be the relationship between the present radio staff and the listeners. It was
observed that interview participants with a stronger relationship with the staff member present were
more comfortable with storytelling. Those with stronger relationships with the staff members seemed
less intimidated by the technology and less affected by the presence of the researcher.
In future research, these limitations may be overcome by giving participants the opportunity to
prepare for storytelling interviews in advance. Specifically outlining the purpose and desired outcomes of
storytelling interviews would allow participants time to think of a story that they are comfortable telling,
and hence avoid the sense of being caught off-guard or put on the spot. Though this approach has
implications for how the researchers might be influencing the results of the storytelling, it may result in
more "stories" resulting from listener storytelling interviews. A second way of overcoming the limitations
of listener storytelling could be to spend more time building relationships with the focus group and
storytelling participants. Many of the storytelling participants, though known to the radio staff, were
meeting the researcher for the first time. Meeting in advance and building confidence and trust prior to
the interviews could result in more comfortable, forthcoming storytelling experiences.
A final impacting factor on the storytelling interviews, and the one illustrated in the earlier
vignette, is that of culture. This is an excerpt from field notes detailing what was probably the most
difficult interview experience. The interview took place in a remote, tribal village. Though the participants
seemed eager to take part and seemed friendly and interested in the content, the focus group discussion
was more of a group interview and required significant prompting and encouragement. The listener

56
storytelling was even more difficult. There was one participant who seemed to have the strongest
relationship with the station staff. She was the wife of the head of the village and she was easily the most
vocal during the focus group but still was very reserved in the storytelling. It emerged that, while the staff
were in regular contact with some residents by phone, they rarely visited the village due to its isolated
location. In fact, the village rarely had any visitors. The tribe were protective of their culture and their
homes, only expressly invited visitors were permitted, and they had to be accompanied by a resident of
the village. The limitations discussed earlier (discomfort with the format, the presence of recording
equipment, the presence of the researcher, etc.) were compounded by the fact that participants were
uncomfortable and unaccustomed to the presence of outsiders in their village, let alone a foreign
outsider with a list of questions and a recording device. The headman's wife shared a jeep back to the
main town with us, so she could do some shopping. Throughout the journey she chatted with the radio
staff, there was clearly a strong, comfortable social relationship, therefore it could be assumed that the
presence of the researcher was a key factor in influencing the interviews. Overcoming this limitation
would be by no means an easy task. Omitting groups from research because they are culturally and/or
geographically isolated is problematic, to say the least. Building relationships in this context would also
have been quite difficult. Perhaps the best, and potentially only, way of improving the results of
interviews in such an environment would have been to liaise more closely with the radio staff in order to
ascertain how to make the participants more comfortable.
Given the mixed results of the storytelling despite the success of the focus groups, the transcripts
of the focus group discussions were examined to identify any potential stories that may have emerged.
Dart and Davies suggest that, aside from responses to open-ended questions, stories also emerge as
embedded in interview transcripts (2003). As briefly discussed in the data analysis section, any stories
identified within the focus group transcripts were also subjected to narrative analysis despite not
resulting directly from the listener storytelling interviews.

57
4 Background and context

Community radio
The woman behind the visa counter at the Indian High Commission did little to hide her disinterest as she
flipped through my paperwork. Her apparent boredom belied her thoroughness. She visibly straightened
when she reached the section outlining my research.
“Community radio. What is that?”
“Yes, it’s local broadcasting to specific surrounding communities.”
“Local radio? Where’s your letter from All India Radio? You only have one from the university. You need to get a
letter of permission then you can resubmit the form online.”
“No, wait!”
—
“Community radio?”
The immigration officer frowned and studied my research visa again.
“What is that?”
“Small radio stations that broadcast to specific communities – like farmers, or students.”
“Student radio? Are you researching what happened with the protests at the university?”
“No! No, no, definitely nothing like that!”
—
“Community radio?”
“Yes, they’re radio stations that aren’t run by the Government, or for-profit, they cater to very specific groups of
people.”
The Foreigner Registration Officer leaned forward and steepled his fingers.
“We have many different religions here in India. Community radio is for religious people who will listen to their
songs and prayers. How can you research them? What do you know about their religions?”
“Well, I mean... It’s not quite…”
—
“Community... radio... Do we have that here?”
“Yes, there are lots of stations doing very interesting and valuable work.”
“Oh... I think it’s not very popular.”
“Well...”
—
Each interaction with a Government official streamlined my definition of community radio. It had to be
short, simple, inoffensive, and to the point. I needed a sound bite.

58
 ***
Defining community radio in any definitive way is an impossible task. Regulations, funding sources, and
ownership models differ from country to country, and even the stations that are geographically close
together can vary significantly. It is no cliché to say that no two community radio stations are alike. An all-
encompassing definition is highly elusive (Carpentier, Lie, & Servaes, 2003). As a starting point, the World
Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) offers a rather clinical definition that is still rife
with terms and phrases in need of clarification. They suggest that community radio is "a two-way process,
which entails the exchange of views from various sources and is the adaptation of media for use by
communities" (Mtimde, Bonin, & Opoku-Mensah, 1998, p. 9). This definition is laden with unclear and
uncertain terms, much like the nature of community radio more broadly. As such, the aim of this chapter
is not necessarily to establish an explicit, incontrovertible definition of community radio but rather to
facilitate understanding of the complexities surrounding the medium, both at a theoretical level, and also
on the ground, or on the airwaves, as the case might be.
This chapter will first discuss two key theoretical constructs within community radio:
democratising media access and "community". These theoretical underpinnings appear throughout
community radio literature and are influenced by the work of Carpentier, Cammaerts, and Bailey on
theoretical approaches to community radio. They suggest four theoretical approaches: 1) community
media as serving a community, 2) community media as an alternative to the mainstream, 3) community
media as a part of civil society, and 4) community media as rhizome (Carpentier, Cammaerts, & Bailey,
2008). The first three approaches have influenced what this research considers to be the key theoretical
constructs. While Carpentier et al. do emphasize the importance of considering these approaches
together, they concede that the fourth approach, community media as rhizome, should be granted
special attention (Carpentier et al., 2003; Santana & Carpentier, 2010). Based on Deleuze and Guattari's
metaphor (1988), community radio as rhizome refers to the fluid, contingent nature of the medium and
the ways in which community radio connects various disparate elements of society to each other
(Carpentier et al., 2008). This theoretical approach to community radio will be further discussed in
Chapter 6.
Following an exploration of democratising media access and community as theoretical
approaches to community radio, this section concludes by briefly making a case for the use of
"community" rather than "alternative" media. This contributes to situating this work within the broader
field of media studies, specifically within alternative media studies, while defining a clear space for work
specific to community radio. The second half of this chapter moves away from the theoretical to explore
the diversity of community radio on the ground and provide relevant background information about the
research sites. This section first provides an overview of the community radio sector in India before
introducing the specific stations that acted as data collection sites for this research.

59
Democratising media access
The foremost underlying theoretical aspect of community radio is its role in democratising access to the
media. In her seminal text, Rodriguez (2001) argues that alternative and community media represent
“fissures in the mediascape”. These fissures are associated with “increased and more democratic access,
freedom of expression and operation, as well as creativity and innovation” (Tacchi, 2003, p. 2183). There
are three key aspects of the role of community radio in democratising access to the media: firstly,
community radio as an alternative public sphere; secondly, community radio as increasing access to and
participation in media production; and finally, as an outlet for voice.
The idea of community radio as democratising access to the media is a logical continuation of
Fraser’s alternative public spheres. In her much-cited critique of Habermas' public sphere, Fraser suggests
that "a plurality of competing publics better promote the ideal of participatory parity than does a single
comprehensive, overarching public" (1990, p. 66). Fraser’s work has often been employed to promote the
democratic relevance of alternative media (see Atton, 2001; Guo, 2015; among others). Vojvoda, in
conversation with Pavarala, (2015) suggests that marginalised groups find themselves without a voice in
the “monolithic public sphere” and that community radio offers a space to forge “subaltern
counterpublics” where alternative discourses can be created and circulated (N. Fraser, 1990).
Further, the notion of one single public sphere fails to account for the different circumstances (socio-
economic, for example) of various groups and individuals, and the implications that these circumstances
might have on their participation (Katiyar, 2017). Indeed, Atton argues that alternative public spheres
form “an appropriate conceptual foundation from which to understand the production and reception of
autonomously developed accounts of experience, critiques, information and knowledge” (2001, p. 156).
Community radio as an alternative public sphere helps to conceptualise the importance of a diversity of
voices and discourses within the broader public sphere.
Having established the importance of this diversity to community radio as an alternative public
sphere, the second aspect of understanding how community radio serves to democratise the media
relates to access and participation. The importance of community radio in increasing citizen access and
participation in the media is underscored by Atton who explains that a key aim of alternative media is “to
provide access to the media for these groups on those groups' terms” (2001, p. 11). Pavarala and Malik
(2007) go so far as to suggest that community radio is characterised by access and public participation in
production and decision-making. A further perspective on democratised access to the media emerged
from UNESCO debates in the 1970s around the New World Information and Communication Order
(NWICO) (Bailey, Cammaert, & Carpentier, 2007). This project aimed to redress the imbalance in
communication flows by "putting electronic media in the hands of citizens and communities who
traditionally had been denied access to the production and distribution of media messages" (Rodriguez,
2001, p. 2). Alternative media featured significantly in these discussions with access and participation
seen as key terms in improving public involvement in media production (Bailey et al., 2007). Indeed,

60
many discussions around the definition of community radio make specific reference to community access
and participation (Bessire & Fisher, 2012; Dagron, 2003; C. Fraser & Restrepo-Estrada, 2002; Pavarala &
Malik, 2007; Waisbord, 2005). The importance of access and participation are also discussed in greater
detail in Chapter 7, but they remain contributing factors to the broader aim of democratised media
access. Despite the failure of NWICO to subvert dominant media structures and information flows
(Rodriguez, 2001), the project demonstrated global recognition of the need for media diversity and
greater democratisation of the media. Such discussions relocated democratisation of the media from
“international organizations, national governments, and large media conglomerates, to citizen groups
and grassroots organizations, and their attempts to use the media in their own different way” (Rodriguez,
2001, p. 10). This relocation embodies what Atton refers to as “challenges to hegemony”, which may
refer to explicitly political goals and also indirect challenges through community media’s use of
experimentation and transformation of existing roles and processes (2001, p. 19). Returning briefly to
Fraser’s alternative public spheres, she suggests that “participatory parity is essential to a democratic
public sphere and that rough socio-economic equality is a precondition of participatory parity” (1990, p.
74). Though equal opportunities for access and participation within community radio seems idealistic, it
forms an essential conceptual basis for more democratic media access.
The final aspect of community radio and its role in democratising media access relates to voice.
Acting as a “voice for the voiceless” is a popular refrain in community radio rhetoric, and community
radio acting in this capacity is widely explored in the literature (see Downing, 2000; Harcup, 2015;
Kivikuru, 2005; Rennie, 2006; Rodriguez, 2001; Tacchi, 2003; among others). By having access to and
participating in community radio, ordinary people are able to engage in alternative public spheres by
exercising their voice. Bailey, Cammaerts, and Carpentier suggest that alternative media give people the
opportunity to have their voices heard and “take responsibility for distributing their own ideologies and
representations” (2007, p. 14). Giving a voice to marginalised groups is a starting point for notions of
alternative public spheres and access and participation because it is only through this process that the
struggles of democratic societies to reconcile civil rights with structural inequalities come to light
(Howley, 2002). As such, alternative public spheres, access and participation, and voice each play an
important role in conceptualising the role of community radio as contributing to democratic media
access.

"Community"
Crucial to understanding community radio is the concept of “community” itself. The "community" in
community radio often appears as part of discussions around definitions or scope. In some cases, it
appears repeatedly. Activist Louie Tabing offers a famed definition, stating that community radio is "in
the community, for the community, about the community and by the community" (Tabing, 2005, p. 9).
Despite the prevalence of the term, in an operational sense, it is rarely clearly defined. "Community" is

61
contested and contestable, and requires careful consideration and problematisation. Ever since
Ferdinand Tönnies (1957) employed the concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft as conceptual tools,
"community" has been of widespread interest. Gusfield refers to the dichotomy of community and
society as the single most influential framework for sociological inquiry (1975). For over 100 years, the
concept of community has been debated, dissected, debased, and deified. Indeed, there is little that this
research can add to the existing expanse of literature without sacrificing other more relevant discussions.
As such, this brief exploration of community aims to stay as close as possible to the guiding theme of
community radio. Even in this limited capacity, there are difficulties associated with establishing a precise
definition of community in the context of community radio. This task, while complex, is an important one;
defining their audience and the community served is considered to be a benchmark of an effective
community radio station (Siemering, 2000). Any definition must include, or at least allow space for, the
multiplicity of meanings attached to the term 'community', and while the location may contribute to the
concept of community, there are far more factors at play than just physical proximity (Lowrey, Brozana, &
Mackay, 2008). This section will briefly explore what community means in relation to community radio by
first examining several interpretations of the term before situating community radio in how "community"
is constructed and then casting a critical gaze over the discussion.

Types of communities
Despite the fundamental importance of the term “community” to community radio, there is little
consensus on how it is defined and applied. This task is further complicated by contemporary
reconceptualisations that take into account online communities, communities of practice, and
interpretive communities, among others (Carpentier, Lie, & Servaes, 2007). The complexity of the term is
further illustrated in the work of Price-Davies and Tacchi (2001). In their comparative report on
community radio across six countries, they revealed that not one peak body or legislature offered a firm
definition of what the “community” of a station might be. The Australian Broadcasting Authority states
that community radio should “represent a community of interest” (p. 10); the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) outlines that community radio should provide programming
“that reflects the needs and interests of the community served” (p. 21); French community radio must
focus on “specific local programming” (p. 27); and South Africa’s Broadcasting Act states that community
radio stations should “serve a particular community” (p. 44). A single report reveals huge discrepancies
across countries in terms of how guidelines and legislature interpret what “community” means in relation
to community radio. Definitions of community have also been expanded to include virtual or online
communities, which Carpentier (2011a) specifically identifies as an articulation of audience alongside
social and interpretive communities. There are, however, two simple interpretations that appear
regularly; according to AMARC, community radio should be representative of “local geographically
recognisable communities or of communities of common interest” (1994). This section will briefly explore
geographic communities and communities of interest, before exploring the concept of “imagined

62
communities”. Though more abstract in its usage than geographic communities and communities of
interest, imagined communities play a significant role in how “community” is broadly understood within
community radio.
The first interpretation of “community” to be explored here is that of a geographic community.
This interpretation is of particular relevance to this research seeing as it is the definition of community
employed within Indian community radio. According to the Bangalore Declaration on Radio, “a
community radio station serves a defined geographical area of a village or groups of villages” (A. Sen,
2003, p. 2199). This approach is common within the region: in the community radio sectors in India,
Bangladesh, and Nepal, “community” refers to geographic community rather than a community of
interest (Arora, Ramakrishnan, & Fernandez, 2015). A geographic community should be specific and well-
defined in order to ensure that “the primary accountability of the CR [community radio] stations should
be to their territorial or geographical community” (Malik, 2015, p. 6). Even the seemingly simple concept
of a geographically bounded community is fraught though. Bailey, Cammaerts, and Carpentier remind us
that geographic proximity is not “a necessary condition for, or quality of, community (2007, p. 9). The
very idea of a clearly defined and demarcated community is a result of the discursive domain of the
colonial period, prior to which communities were “fuzzy” and did not “claim to represent or exhaust all
the layers of selfhood of its members” but instead were “definable with precision for all practical
purposes of social interaction” (Chatterjee, 1993, p. 223). Sihlongonyane (2009) also warns that while the
notion of geographically bounded, grassroots communities can represent a people-centred, participatory
philosophy, it can also be romanticised and co-opted by colonial and modernist discourses in order to
make wide generalisations about the supposed homogeneity of said communities. Similarly, in their work
in Sri Lanka, Slater, Tacchi, and Lewis (2002) observed that the “community media” ideal of inclusion
failed to align with the dominant nationalist “community” or “village ideology” that served to
economically, culturally, and politically exclude the Tamil population. Indeed, Edward Said (1979)
comments on the arbitrary nature of geographic distinctions between a familiar space that is “ours” and
the unfamiliar spaces beyond as “theirs”. The importance of taking into account the nuanced nature of
geographic communities was a key recommendation that emerged from a National Consultation on
Strengthening Community Radio (UNESCO, 2010, p. 1) in India:
“The term ‘community’ is a contested concept and its manifestation on ground is very complex.
Efforts must be made by the CR stakeholders to develop a more nuanced understanding of
‘community’ as heterogeneous and dynamic. They must be sensitive to the internal power
structures of a community that make it difficult for everyone to participate equally and for all
perspectives to be represented.”
Despite the seemingly simple definition of a geographic community and its widespread employment
within community radio in South Asia, the term remains contentious and subject to both colonial
discourses as well as the existing power structures within the “community”.

63
 The second community that a community radio station might serve is that of a community of
interest. Particularly in light of modern technology, geographic closeness is no longer a necessary
condition nor quality indicator of “community” (Carpentier et al., 2007). Communities of interest are
defined by Tacchi as “having a specific, ascertainable common interest” which may be “institutional,
religious or cultural” that makes them an identifiable community (2003, p. 2185). Such communities may
bridge geographic borders and cultural barrier through commonalities associated with shared interests
(Gumucio-Dagron & Rodríguez, 2006). Communities of interests represent a reconceptualisation of the
traditional interpretation of community - based on geography or ethnicity - to include broader definitions
that may also include communities of practice or online communities (Bailey et al., 2007). While
community radio stations do appeal to such communities in other places - notably miners’ radio in Bolivia
(Gumucio-Dagron, 2005), and the 37% of Australian community radio stations that cater to “specialist
formats” including “religious, Radio for the Print Handicapped, Indigenous, ethnic, fine music and youth”
(Foxwell, Ewart, Forde, & Meadows, 2008, pp. 6–7) - as discussed, Indian community radio employs a
geographic definition, therefore this interpretation is the primary focus of this research.
No discussion of community, however, would be complete without mention of Benedict
Anderson’s seminal work on “imagined communities”. In his book, Imagined Communities (2006, p. 6),
Anderson explains that communities are merely constructions created by its members based on shared
attributes:
“It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their
fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of
their communion… In fact, all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact
(and perhaps even these) are imagined.”
Though Anderson is primarily referring to nations, he does mention the role of the mass media in
communication and forming these imagined communities, specifically in terms of shaping the language of
nationalism (B. Anderson, 2006). This perspective has been critiqued from a postcolonial perspective,
with Chatterjee arguing that such an interpretation of nations and communities fails to account for the
impacts of colonialism: “The result is that autonomous forms of imagination of the community were, and
continue to be, overwhelmed and swamped by the history of the postcolonial state” (1993, p. 11). Such
an interpretation divorces nationalism, communities, and politics more broadly from the complexities of
such environments and the “presence of a dense and heterogeneous time” (Chatterjee, 2011, p. 136).
Bearing this in mind, what is useful to draw from the concept of imagined communities is the
conceptualisation and maintenance of communities. This “imagined” solidarity, alongside an increased
capacity for empathy and affinity, is enacted and realised through social relations between community
members (Amit, 2002). Carpentier, Lie and Servaes refer to social contact as a “defining feature” of
community, with specific reference to the feelings of “belonging and sharing” (2007, p. 348). This builds
on the same authors’ earlier definition of community media audiences, explaining that “the audience is

64
not defined as an aggregate of individuals who share only socio-demographic or economic characteristics,
but instead as a collective of people holding a series of identifying group relations” (Carpentier et al.,
2003, p. 55). Imagined communities established and maintained through social contact provide a useful
foundation from which to explore further interactions between community radio and community.

Constructing “community”
Having discussed several different interpretations of community, it is worth further exploring the concept
of the constructed community. There are those that argue that community radio plays a vital role in the
ongoing process of construction and maintenance of communities (Howley, 2009; Slack, 1996). Though
this is an undeniable media-centric position, it is valuable to understand the ways in which community
radio might contribute to building some specific interpretations of community.
Articulation theory provides a useful framework for discussions about "community" within
community radio. Articulation was conceptualised by Stuart Hall, who employs the example of an
"articulated lorry" to illustrate a key aspect of the theory: the cab and trailer of an articulated lorry can be
connected, but are not necessarily so, through a specific, temporary linkage. As such, "an articulation is
thus the form of the connection that can make a unity of two different elements, under certain
conditions" (Hall in Grossberg, 1986, p. 53). Howley re-contextualised articulation for use within
community radio, suggesting that articulation theory acts as a useful descriptive and analytical tool for
both community radio theory and practice (2009). An important aspect of the use of articulation theory in
this context is Hall's work on "unity and difference", specifically considering "difference in complex unity"
without privileging difference (1985). The unifying qualities of community radio stations are discussed by
a number of authors (Bessire & Fisher, 2012; Forde, 2011; C. Fraser & Restrepo-Estrada, 2001; Lowrey et
al., 2008). Despite the number of arguments for the use of community radio in facilitating unity and
bringing together disparate groups, in order to understand how this occurs, it is useful to return to the
concept of imagined communities.
As discussed, Anderson suggests that all communities larger than the smallest of villages are
imagined. How then does community radio construct these imaginings? Amit and Rapport (2002) argue
that Anderson's "imagined communities" are only felt and claimed by their members through social
relations and familiarity with other members. They explain that "community arises out of an interaction
between the imagination of solidarity and its realization through social relations" (2002, p. 18). This
imagined solidarity is perhaps evidenced through Carpentier and Doudaki's work on community radio in
post-conflict states. They argue that by fostering agonism, as opposed to antagonism, community radio's
"capacity to foster diversity, intercultural dialogue, and tolerance" makes it a valuable tool in peace-
building, conflict resolution and reconciliation efforts (Carpentier & Doudaki, 2014, p. 419). This is a
compelling argument for community radio's role in constructing solidarity, and also introduces dialogue
into this discussion. Carpentier et al. describe this dialogue as the "catalysing role they (community

65
media) can play by functioning as the crossroads where people from different types of movements and
struggles meet and collaborate" (2003, p. 62). Fostering interactions between diverse individuals and
groups contributes to the process of building communities within and across these disparate groups,
therein listeners are given the sense of being part of something cohesive and larger than themselves
(Carpentier et al., 2003; Forde, 2011; Lowrey et al., 2008). Using the example of a fan club, Ahmed
suggests that investing in the same objects as other people leads us to be oriented or directed in the
same way. She describes this as an “affective” community: “We align ourselves with others by investing in
the same objects” (Ahmed, 2010, p. 38). In turn, it is said to be this sense of affective community
cohesion, or social connectedness, that contributes directly to the success of community radio (C. Fraser
& Restrepo-Estrada, 2002).
Returning to Hall's lorry, we are then presented with a conceptualisation of community that is
based on the "specific, temporary" linkages between groups and individuals of imagined solidarity and
communication facilitated through community radio. The "specific, temporary" aspects of these linkages
are important and relate back to Nancy Fraser's discussion of alternative public spheres. Alternative
public spheres suggest "a plurality of public arenas" and the subsequent "multiplicity of publics" involved
in those arenas (N. Fraser, 1990, p. 69). This implies that participation in multiple spheres is entirely
possible. The idea of community radio as constructing and maintaining communities is both appealing
and media-centric. Participation in one community may be facilitated by community radio through
experiences of shared solidarity and communication, but the linkages or articulations within these
communities are ephemeral and constantly renegotiated. Belonging to multiple communities may result
in conflict when the needs or goals of one community fail to align with or even directly clash with the
needs or goals of another; members are constantly, dynamically assessing which networks provide more
value and the subsequent worth of participation (Bailur, 2012). While community radio audiences may
actively engage in the construction of meaning and communities, these articulations operate within and
are influenced by shifting temporal, cultural, environmental, historical, and socio-political structures
(Gibson, 2000). Though community radio is often positioned as the binary opposite to an oppressive
government or the mainstream media, the processes that govern participation and belonging to the
"communities" constructed by community radio are "no different to any other participatory and
democratic processes, in illustrating the cleavages, power struggles and temporary alliances which come
together, but also disintegrate" (Bailur, 2012, p. 98). Though community radio may contribute to creating
links between disparate groups by fostering dialogue and therefore, in a way, constructing their own
communities, it is essential to remember that the nature of these linkages, and participation in these
constructed communities, is "specific" and "temporary". Though a media-centric view is appealing from
the perspective of exhorting the value of community radio, participation in communities constructed by
community radio stations represents just one aspect of broader social and communicative networks.

66
Community vs alternative
Despite having dissected the term "community", it is still necessary to explore the other terminology that
may be used to refer to "community radio". While the radio part is self-explanatory, what this research
refers to as "community" has variously been referred to as "alternative", "citizen", "radical", "grassroots",
among a wealth of other terms. This section will briefly clarify this term and make a case for its use in this
research as opposed to other common terminologies.
The most prolific of these terms is "alternative media". The term is widely used by many authors
(Couldry, 2015; Downing, 2003; Harcup, 2015; Min, 2004) and, though it refers to a wider range of media,
it is often used to encapsulate community radio. Similar criticisms arise from the use of "alternative
media" terminology because, as Downing puts it, "everything, at some point, is alternative to something
else" (2000, p. ix). Similarly, Rodriguez, when making a case for "citizens' media" as opposed to
"alternative", suggests that "alternative" invites binary thinking and therefore limits the oppositional
capacity of such media outlets to resist the mainstream (2001). Despite these critiques, Rauch's (2015)
study found that "alternative media" retains its meaning among audiences and that the mainstream-
alternative dialectic still produces useful tensions. Despite the prolific use of "alternative media" and its
support from audiences, there are some problematic aspects of the term that limits its use in the context
of this research.
Though the use of the term "alternative media" has support within the literature, this research
opts for "community radio". Aside from the specificity attached to the "radio" aspect, the term
"community" encapsulates much of what this research aims to investigate, namely the connections and
interactions surrounding the radio station. While, arguably, it is these interactions that make community
radio an "alternative" to the mainstream, it is the inclusion of the mainstream as a point of comparison
that lies outside of the scope of this research. In a strategy aimed at encouraging diversity rather than
quashing debate, Carpentier suggests moving beyond the various labels associated with community
media, or, in this case, community radio, and focussing on integrating the theoretical approaches
underlying these labels (2016b). The use of "community radio" also aligns with the conceptual framework
of this research and its focus on the connections formed by a certain type of radio station. The term
community implies a variety of close connections; how these connections are formed is what this
research aims to investigate.

Research context
Community radio stations around the world differ in nearly every aspect of their existence: from how
they are funded and managed, to the type of content they broadcast. There can even be significant
variations in approaches to community radio within regions and countries. This can easily be observed
within South Asia. Sri Lanka was one of the first countries in Asia to adopt a form of community radio
broadcasting through a collaboration between UNESCO and the Sri Lankan Broadcasting Corporation

67
(SLBC) which resulted in the Mahaveli Community Radio (MCR) project (David, 2001; Tilakawardana,
2007; UNESCO, 1983). Nepal, due to its liberal political environment combined with the exponential
growth of electronic media, was the first country in South Asia to grant a broadcasting license to the
nongovernmental sector (Banjade, 2007). In contrast, India and Bangladesh have lagged behind: a
comparative study, though small scale, considered Nepal to have the most "evolved" community radio
sector, as compared to India and Bangladesh, in that community radio are considered media
organisations rather than "development" organisations (Arora et al., 2015). Given the diversity of
approaches to community radio, within South Asia alone, it is essential to understand the social, political
and historical context of the community radio sector under investigation. The following section provides
an overview of the community radio sector in India and the contextual environment in which it now
operates.

Community radio in India

"Disturbance because of the cow that entered the compound." - Translator's note, interview transcript.
***
Community radio has a history of struggle in India. From the very beginning, the odds have been stacked
against the establishment of a community radio sector with opposition emerging in the form of the
established media, the regulatory environment, and disagreements within the movement itself. Pavarala
and Malik (2007, p. 243) describe the radio landscape in India as "dominated by hierarchical, paternalistic
public and profit-oriented commercial models of broadcasting." It is against this backdrop that India has
also developed its own approaches towards C4D with distinct methodological and theoretical differences
from western schools of thought (Manyozo, 2012). Manyozo (2012) considers the Indian School of
development to be associated with M4D and media development rather than participatory
communication; he notes that communities have few opportunities for control and ownership of media.
There have been successful grassroots movements in terms of C4D in India, such as the struggle for Right
to Information laws, a movement that "enabled local people to recognize the value of information as a
right... Voice and participation became the means for the affirmation of life" (Thomas, 2014b, p. 17). For
the most part, however, media in India favours the powerful and represents the interests of the wealthy
(Manyozo, 2012; Pavarala & Malik, 2007). This section provides an overview of the historical context of
the struggle for community radio in India.
The road to a community radio sector in India has been a long one, with still further to go.
Thomas suggests that, from a political economy of communication perspective, British rule "laid the
foundations for the media in post-colonial India" (2010, p. 36). Yet at the time of independence in 1947,
the national broadcaster, All India Radio (AIR), had just six stations in metropolitan areas and the country
had only 280 000 radio sets for a population of 350 million (Singhal, 2013). Shortly after, the Nehru
government placed significant emphasis on developing radio infrastructure, laying the foundations for

68
what is now a formidable sector. AIR operates a three-tiered service with national, regional and local
programmes broadcast on 195 stations across the country; "over 97 percent of India's population lives in
areas that have access to radio broadcasts" (Singhal, 2013, p. 68). As promising as the progression and
expansion of AIR seems, the Indian Government held a monopoly on radio and television broadcasting, at
times reducing AIR and the public television broadcaster, Doordarshan, to no more than propaganda
mouthpieces. As Kumar explains, both AIR and Doordarshan are enormous structures that are
continuously expanding but in terms of messages, there is minimal manoeuvrability and negligible scope
for innovative programming as "big people continue to address small people" (2003, p. 2179). Thanks
largely to the Indian Telegraph Act (1885) together with the India Wireless Telegraphy Act (1933), which
makes the possession of radio equipment without a license illegal, the exclusive rights to establishing,
maintaining and operating radio and television broadcasting remain with the Central Government (K.
Kumar, 2003; Pavarala & Malik, 2007). Despite the size and support provided to the public broadcasting
sector, the stifling regulations and lack of autonomy meant that creativity and community engagement
were lacking in both AIR and Doordarshan.
It was this regulatory environment that meant audience participation, even in the form of
feedback, was not sought until 1956, despite radio for development making up an important part of the
broadcasting policy (K. Kumar, 2003). The Pune Radio Farm Forum Project was a field experiment to
assess the value of radio for rural development. Villagers gathered together once a week to listen to a 30-
minute AIR programme and then discuss its contents. The goal was to disseminate information about
new agricultural practices but the project saw communities spurred into action following discussions on a
range of topics such as where to dig wells, establishing children's enrichment centres, planting different
crops and village clean-ups (Singhal, 2005). Despite the project's success, AIR failed to build on what was
discovered, particularly about the role of radio in prompting community discussions and actions (Singhal,
2013). This was but one in a list of examples of AIR failing to capitalise on innovative projects despite
providing the space for them, the earliest versions of community radio included (Thomas, 2011).
Many scholars have noted the extensive legislative obstacles which have been placed in the way
of Indian citizens obtaining their constitutional right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Gunaratne,
2000; Saeed, 2009; A. Sen, 2003; Thomas, 2011). A key breakthrough in the struggle for community radio,
and indeed the media environment generally, in India was the Supreme Court's historic 1995 ruling that
the "airwaves are public property" and should be used for public benefit (Pavarala & Malik, 2007; A. Sen,
2003; Singhal, 2013; UNESCO, 2011). It wasn't until after this ruling, in 1998, that AIR and Doordarshan
were granted relative autonomy from the government, despite the recommendations of two separate
committees: the Chanda Committee in 1966 and the Verghese Committee in 1978 (Singhal, 2013). This
landmark ruling proved to be of critical importance not only to the public broadcasters and
communication rights more generally, but also for the community radio movement.
The first major step towards community radio in India took place in September 1996. A group of

69
media professionals and policy experts gathered in Bangalore to explore the relevance of community
radio for India (SANCOM, 2015). The "Bangalore Declaration on Radio" made a strong case for
community radio, describing it as "public service broadcasting in its most decentralised and its most
democratic form” (A. Sen, 2003, p. 2199). Following this, the push for greater communicative and media
freedoms gained momentum across the country. Then in 2000, a group of activists, academics and radio
practitioners, supported by UNESCO, met and established the first systematic case for the creation of
community radio as a third-tier of broadcasting in India, separate to the government-run and commercial
sectors (Pavarala, 2013). The declaration resulting from the meeting was known as the "Pastapur
Initiative on Community Radio", named after the area in which the meeting occurred, and defined
community radio as having "three key aspects: non-profit making, community ownership and
management, and community participation" (A. Sen, 2003, p. 2199).
In late 2002, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting finally released "Community Radio
Guidelines". Far from being a victory for the community radio movement, the guidelines restricted
licenses to "well-established" educational institutions and banned advertisements and news and current
affairs programmes (SANCOM, 2015). Following this, India's first community radio station was established
at Anna University in Chennai. Anna FM began broadcasting in February 2004, to the area surrounding
the university (Ghosh, 2011; Nirmala, 2015; Prabakar, 2009). Stations affiliated with educational
institutions, often referred to as 'campus radio', have been subject to some scrutiny and criticism over
the years. Thomas bluntly states that campus radio has "very little potential for becoming a tool for
development" (2010, p. 221). Similarly, Prabhakar writes that activists are sceptical of the role of campus
radio stations, in that expecting them to serve communities outside of the universities confuses the
community radio mandate with that of public broadcasting (2009). Despite the disappointment of such
restrictive guidelines, the following years marked a renewed push for community radio with a number of
stations exploring alternative methods of distributions including narrowcasting and cablecasting
(SANCOM, 2015).
While community radio was treading water, another grassroots movement was taking root.
India's Right to Information (RTI) movement was another important milestone in the lead-up to
community radio. The movement was also of vital importance to the broader media environment.
Thomas, who has written extensively on the RTI movement in India, even suggests that the RTI
movement played a role in revitalising participatory democracy in India (2011). The RTI movement began
in central Rajasthan in the late 1980s with a small group of social activists and local people who took an
interest in livelihood issues including the failure of the government to enforce minimum wage
regulations, and the availability of subsidised foods (Jenkins & Goetz, 1999). The critical tool of this
movement was the jan sunwai, a type of public hearing in which local issues are discussed by members of
the community. Thomas suggests that the jan sunwai act as a local public sphere based on local idiom, in
contrast with Habermas' bourgeois and exclusive interpretation of the public sphere, and that its strength

70
lies within its deliberate inclusivity in which all local people have space to share full accounts of their
experience (2014a). The campaign for RTI laws incorporated the jan sunwai as well as other local
information dissemination techniques such as street theatre to gain critical mass. In June 2005, the Right
to Information passed and what started as agitation for basic livelihood-related entitlements became an
important precedent for communication rights in India. Thomas writes that the movement offers the
"best hopes for the rural poor to fulfil their right to development" (2008, p. 43). The success of the RTI
movement can be attributed to a number of factors: firstly, it was an indigenous social movement that
occurred in response to local needs; second, it employed familiar, colloquial tools, including the jan
sunwai and community theatre; and third, the movement gained significant momentum and was
supported by a large group of people who understood the need for RTI and were willing to mobilise
themselves and others in pursuit of this goal (Thomas, 2011). It is worth noting that, while the RTI
movement attracted significant attention in the mainstream media, the push for community radio was
largely ignored (Saeed, 2009).
Finally, in late 2006, the India Telegraph Act (1885) was amended to include a second phase of
guidelines for community radio stations (UNESCO, 2011). Alongside educational institutions, NGOs and
agricultural science centres or Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) were granted the right to apply for licenses.
News was still not permitted but limited advertising was allowed (SANCOM, 2015). In October 2008,
Sangham Radio in Pastapur village launched to become the first community radio station licensed to an
NGO, with their license held by DDS, the Deccan Development Society (Ghosh, 2011; Pavarala & Malik,
2007)
More than ten years after the updated guidelines were released, community radio in India now
finds itself at somewhat of a crossroads. There are 217 operational stations as of May 2018 (Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting, 2018), as opposed to the 3000 or 4000 stations that the country's size,
population, and diversity could accommodate (M. Kumar, 2018). Malik writes that the movement seems
to have plateaued: "It is neither growing nor prospering. While there is recognition and acceptance of its
potential in the upper echelons of administration, it looks as if there is a decline in buy-in from grassroots
practitioners and communities in India" (2016). The sector now faces a number of issues, the foremost of
which is "NGOisation". Stations find themselves forced to conform to the agenda of the NGO involved,
under pressure from donors to "scale up" operations and demonstrate impact (Malik & Bandelli, 2012;
Pavarala, 2015). Another issue facing the sector is its potentially outdated focus on development.
Pavarala argues that there is now a need for the sector to move past its developmentalist agenda, which
he sees as a legacy of postcolonial nation-building, and focus more on communication rights (Pavarala,
2015). Malik also expressed her concerns on this topic, explaining that, in India, a distinct development
discourse operates throughout the community radio sector. Despite claims of providing "a voice for the
voiceless" and supporting activism, the sector is primarily a development tool for soliciting participation
(Personal interview, November 24, 2016). In addition to the political and regulatory challenges facing the

71
sector, there are also more palpable issues. The cost of the radio equipment mandated by legislation is
prohibitively expensive and there is a noticeable lack of local manufacturers and suppliers (UNESCO,
2010).
In summary, establishing a community radio sector in India has been a long and arduous process,
one that is by no means over. The sector is facing a number of internal problems associated with
sustainability and independence. In addition, the contemporary regulatory environment in which
community radio stations must operate is rigid and tightly controlled. Compared to the free-for-all of
commercial broadcasting, community radio must adhere to the strictest rules around revenue-generating
advertisements (Thomas, 2010). Alongside this, the restrictions on news content remain, and licenses are
only granted to educational institutions, agricultural groups, and well-established NGOs.

Sites
The general sites for this research are within the state of Tamil Nadu in the south of India. Tamil Nadu as
the general location for this research was decided following discussions with respected scholars within
the UNESCO Chair for Community Media at the University of Hyderabad. The state is home to many
community radio stations but only a relatively small amount of literature about these stations exists
(Pavarala, personal communication, November 24, 2016). Tamil Nadu was a hub of activism throughout
the push to establish community radio in India and is home to the first community radio station, Anna
FM, in Chennai. Prominent community radio advocate Dr R Sreedher referred to Tamil Nadu as the “CCR
[campus community radio] capital of India” (in Prabakar, 2009). For these reasons, Tamil Nadu has
significant potential as a research site for explorations of community radio. This section provides some
brief background about the state and its community radio environment.
Tamil Nadu is a state in South India bordered by Kerala to the west, Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh to the north and the Indian Ocean to the east. Tamil Nadu is the seventh largest state in India by
population and the 11th largest by area (Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, 2011).
The population is split relatively equally between urban and rural areas with approximately 46 per cent of
the land area used for agricultural cultivation (Department of Economics and Statistics, 2017). The major
industries of the state are agriculture and textiles: Tamil Nadu is the second largest producer of rice in
India and the textile industry earned the city of Coimbatore the dubious nickname: “the Manchester of
the South” (Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, 2015; Nandakumar & Sridharraj, 2014). In
terms of religion, Tamil Nadu is predominantly Hindu – a group encompassing more than 87 per cent of
the population – with the next largest religious group, Muslims, representing just over 5 per cent (Office
of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, 2011). The literacy rate in Tamil Nadu sits around 80
per cent, above the national average of 74 per cent, but considerably below the state with the highest
literacy rate – Kerala with 94 per cent (Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, 2011).
Tamil Nadu represents a distinct linguistic and political environment as compared to other states in India

72
and has a history of resistance against the Hindi-speaking dominance of the north. A Dravidian language,
Tamil is spoken by some 80 million people, mainly in South India, and has a literary tradition spanning
more than 3000 years (Kamdar, 2018; Vāsanti, 2006).
Politics in Tamil Nadu has long been associated with the uniqueness of the Tamil culture in a
political landscape dominated by the Hindi-speaking North. In the late 1800s, linguistic chauvinism,
positing Tamil as a “pure” language, and anti-Brahminism gained political momentum. The British
encouraged this Dravidianism as a strategy to mitigate the growing strength of Indian freedom fighters
(Vāsanti, 2006). The South Indian Liberation Front, also known as the Justice Party, was established
around this time and took the stance that the only ones who would benefit from India’s self-rule would
be the Brahmins (Vāsanti, 2006). As India approached Independence, the anti-Brahmin movement under
the leadership of E V Ramaswamy Naicker, or Periyar (meaning Great Sage), called for the establishment
of a “sovereign Dravidistan” comprising of those with a shared Dravidian history including Madras
(modern-day Chennai), Kerala, and parts of what is now Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (Rudolph &
Rudolph, 2010). A major critique of the Dravidian movement was the disconnect between its ideology
and its actions. On paper, Dravidianism rejected religion and stood for the fundamental human rights of
all people, including Scheduled Castes and Tribes. In practice though, Dravidianism essentially worked
towards the upward mobility of the middle class (Vāsanti, 2006).
The scoping of the Official Language Act in 1963 that would make Hindi the sole official language
of India sparked anti-Hindi agitations and protests in Tamil Nadu (Annamalai, 2010). These protests led to
the amended Act of 1967 which included English as an official language and enhanced the status of
regional languages across the country (Annamalai, 2010). By 1967, the DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazagam)
had transformed from a secessionist movement to a powerful political party that, under the leadership of
scriptwriter and director M Karunanidhi, commissioned a report into centre-state relations that called for
a radical transformation of the powers that the central government held over the states (Annamalai,
2010). These efforts gained traction in other states including Karnataka, West Bengal and Punjab over the
course of the Emergency and Indira Gandhi’s rule (Annamalai, 2010). Though their efforts were
eventually fruitless, the influence of Tamil Nadu politics on the rest of the country is undeniable in terms
of the fight for recognising linguistic diversity on a national scale, and the political structures governing
the country.
Political observer and journalist Vāsanthi (2006) writes that Tamil politics has all the makings of a
blockbuster film, tracing the modern history of the state from the British Raj to the dramatic and, on
occasion, violent political rivalry between former director and scriptwriter, Karunanidhi, and former
actress, Jayalalithaa. Jayalalithaa proved just as popular with voters as she was on-screen, elected to her
sixth term as Chief Minister of the state in 2016, a term that ended abruptly with her death in December
the same year (Kamdar, 2018). Her long-term rival Karunanidhi, who was Chief Minister of the state five
times between 1969 and 2011, passed away in August 2018, at the age of 94 (BBC, 2018). Though the

73
Dravidian parties are likely to maintain their dominance, a pressing political issue in Tamil Nadu is filling
the void left by these two popular and outspoken personalities, particularly in the lead-up to the Lok
Sabha (general) election in April or May, 2019 (Kolappan, 2018; Thangavelu & Roche, 2018).
In relation to community radio, Tamil Nadu has a long history with local, participatory radio
projects and experiments in community broadcasting, and therefore represents a promising site for
explorations of community radio practice. One of the earliest examples of innovation in community
broadcasting in Tamil Nadu followed the experiments in farm radio (discussed in more detail in Chapter
6). Local AIR radio stations took a lead role in popularising the green revolution and linking agricultural
extension services and farmers (Page & Crawley, 2001). In 1966, the local Trichinopoly AIR station started
experimental broadcasts aimed at persuading farmers to adopt high-yield varieties of rice to great
success, which earned them the nickname of “Radio Paddy” (Page & Crawley, 2001). In the 1970s, Tamil
Nadu, specifically Nagercoil district, was also the site of experiments in encouraging greater participation
from listeners. The participatory model was radically different from the usual top-down AIR approach
and, at the time, was thought to represent a viable model for other stations (Page & Crawley, 2001). The
structure of AIR, however, proved resistant to change, as the participatory formula was difficult to
reproduce in stations staffed with broadcasters who had only temporary affiliations to the local area and
communities (Page & Crawley, 2001).
As discussed, Tamil Nadu was also the site of the very first iteration of community radio in India.
Anna FM, located in the state capital, Chennai. Perhaps because of this, campus radio has a strong
presence within the community radio landscape of Tamil Nadu with 24 out of the 31 stations, or more
than 75 per cent, associated with educational institutions (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
2018). This is higher than the national ratio which sees roughly 60 per cent of operational community
radio station affiliated with educational institutions.
In addition to pioneering campus radio, Tamil Nadu was the site of India’s first community radio
station for disaster management, established to support those in coastal areas affected by the 2004
Boxing Day tsunami. Tamil Nadu was significantly impacted by the tsunami, which killed 230,000 people
in 14 countries (ABC News, 2014). With funding from the UNDP Tsunami Recovery Support Programme,
Kalanjiam Samuga Vanoli began broadcasting in 2005 and aimed to build the capacities of local
communities in terms of disaster preparedness, management, and livelihood resilience (Krishnamurthi &
Naguveer Prakash, 2007). The station employs a mixed media model, with a mix of broadcasts on local
AIR stations, cablecasts, and loudspeaker narrowcasts, alongside video and web-based technologies
(Kuppuswamy & Rajarathnam, 2009).
As of May 2018, there are 31 operational stations in Tamil Nadu (Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, 2018). This is particularly noteworthy given that Tamil Nadu is the seventh largest state by
population, yet has the highest number of community radio stations (Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, 2018; Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, 2011). In comparison, the

74
most populous state - Uttar Pradesh – which has more than double the population of Tamil Nadu, has
just 24 stations (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 2018; Office of the Registrar General & Census
Commissioner, 2011).
Based on this summary, Tamil Nadu represents an appropriate location for research into
community radio. There is a large and innovative community radio sector and the political environment is
conducive to research. Though discussing development and female infanticide, Rajagopalan offers a
salient summary on Tamil Nadu as a research location. Firstly, the conditions for governance have been
very stable as the state has not been directly involved in any wars or partition in modern times, and
secondly, “the rationalist promise, especially in combination with the populist bent of the state's
leadership” (Rajagopalan, 2012, p. 189). For these reasons, alongside the recommendations of experts in
the field, Tamil Nadu was selected as the general location of the research.
In terms of the specific stations themselves, they were selected based on their ownership
models, their rural locations, and relative proximity to major centres for logistical reasons. Given the
critiques associated with campus radio stations, as well as the relative scarcity of KVK-owned stations,
two stations with NGO as parent bodies were selected. As discussed in Chapter 2, the aim of this multi-
sited research is not a comparison between sites but rather an exploration of different approaches under
different circumstances. The identities of the stations have been loosely disguised. Given the highly
unique nature of community radio stations and their embeddedness within their local communities,
some general contextual information is necessary in order to understand the environment and challenges
facing these two very different stations. A brief discussion of the social, political, and media environment
of Tamil Nadu is useful to situate the stations within their state, but the descriptions of the sites
themselves are general and aim to offer the bare minimum identifiable information while still providing
enough context. Though the names of the stations have been changed, those readers deeply familiar
with the community radio sector in Tamil Nadu and India, more broadly, will likely have a fair idea of the
identity of the stations. These loose disguises are more aimed at preserving the identities of the radio
station staff members and listeners. Interviewees and informants are referred to in this thesis with
minimal identifying information, usually only which station they are associated with and their general
relationship to that station – audience or staff. Jerolmack and Murphy (2017) offer a critical perspective
on “masking” identities in ethnographies, suggesting that although it is somewhat of a methodological
norm, there are benefits to disclosing identities if it is ethically justifiable to do so. Having said that, they
recognise that there are “all kinds of combinations of disclosure and masking that can be used in a single
study to balance legitimate ethical duties to one’s subjects with the scholarly benefits of data
transparency for one’s audience” (2017, p. 19). Based on this, taking the approach of lightly disguising the
research sites while masking the identities of the specific people involved was deemed to be most
ethically appropriate for this research.

75
Enkal Vanoli
Everything was coated in a fine layer of dust.
The bus barely slowed as it took the exit off the highway. It careened around the hairpin bends of
the turn-off, bends no doubt designed to discourage exiting the highway at such speed. They're called
"traffic-calming measures" back home, though the effect here was less than calming. The local road was a
narrow, single-lane, but there was a lot of traffic. Buses, tractors, bull carts, and scooters all vied for
space, unwilling to yield to the gravelly road shoulders. The yielding, when it did happen, was quickly at
the last minute, a high-stakes game of chicken which made things particularly exciting for pedestrians
walking along that road shoulder.
From the road, it looked like any number of farms the bus had roared past. Though instead of
orderly rows of crops or pens of disgruntled goats, the front of this block was overgrown with a thicket of
dry, dead shrubs.
The only differentiating feature was the orange and white tower that pierced its way up from the
dry and colourless field. On one side of the road leading towards the buildings at the back of the block
were the tired remains of a coconut grove and a sprawling mehndi bush. The other side held the tower
and a twisted thicket of dead twigs. Several concrete buildings in various stages of completion sat
towards the back of the block. The sounds of hammers on stone and the grumbling of a cement mixer
could be heard clearly through the still, baking air.
The construction workers initially stopped dead in their tracks to stare. As the days and weeks
passed, the stares turned to nods and smiles, and eventually brief exchanges of pleasantries, but at first, it
was stares. Picking through the construction debris right to the back of the block, along the fence line
furthest from the road, was the smallest concrete structure. It was weathered but meticulously kept.
Several pairs of shoes were scattered on the recently swept dirt floor in front of the doorway, which had
both a step and a steep, short ramp just wide enough for a motorbike tyre. The new concrete building
loomed over the station, providing some welcome relief from the morning sun. Inside, there were three
rooms of decreasing size. The first acted as the station's reception, dining room, editing suite, meeting
room and, on occasion, garage. The second housed the broadcasting equipment, the sound desk and
another computer for editing. Whoever was sitting at the desk could look through a small window into the
third room: the studio. Dusty curtains lined the walls and the only furniture was a single table with two
microphones and a slumping office chair missing a wheel.
***
Enkal Vanoli is a rural station located in a small village about one hour's drive from a large and
prosperous town. The area is largely agricultural with farmers growing a variety of crops depending on
the season and markets. In this semi-arid region of dusty plains and increasingly erratic monsoons, water
management is critical. Irrigation tanks have been central to socio-ecology and agriculture in many arid
parts of India for centuries (Amarnath & Raja, 2006). Recent years have seen the degradation of tanks

76
due to poor management and encroachments from those digging wells (Gurunathan & Shanmugam,
2006). By forming collectives, farmers develop a broader, more cohesive system of water management.
These collectives also hold greater bargaining power in terms of accessing government services. With
funding support from an NGO, a larger federation of farmers was established to form a networked chain
of collectives in order to promote water management and formalise the work of these local farmer
groups. Though primarily focussed on water conservation and management, the federation has
broadened its scope to other community development activities including the provision of technology
centres with computer and internet facilities, as well as various enrichment classes. The federation
applied for a broadcasting license after a survey of 1000 households revealed a preference for television
and radio over print media, with over half of respondents reporting that they listened to radio regularly.
Enkal Vanoli has a broadcasting range of 15km, which covers much of the surrounding villages. The
station broadcasts in Tamil, mainly around the themes of agriculture and health.

Malai Vanoli
The station in the clouds.
The local bus seemed to always be followed by a bright yellow school bus full of tiny children in
plaid and blazers. After a week or so, the children knew to crowd to the windows on one side as it stopped
at the junction to get a glimpse of the stranger. The bravest ones even waved.
The journey continued on foot along a road that wove between a tea field and an orderly
plantation of pines. There was a small temple whose earthly residents were a family of macaques. A neat
sign announced the campus with an arrow pointing the way as if to reassure visitors who might be
unnerved by the gradient of the driveway. It was viciously steep. Only jeeps and four-wheel drives
attempted the ascent. Autos, buses and small cars deposited their passengers at the gate, leaving them to
follow the sign and groan and wheeze their way up the hill.
The radio station was, of course, right at the top. Damp swirling clouds chilled sweaty brows as
the driveway climbed past neat clusters of small buildings all painted the same shade of dull orange. The
property seemed to narrow as you climbed, with tea plantations closing in on both sides. Eventually, the
driveway concluded in a carpark in the shadow of the radio tower. The building was the same shade of
orange with a cheerful mural painted on one wall. Half of the building housed offices and a hall that was
used for lectures and events. The other half was a radio station.
It was a large room with high ceilings that always seemed to be colder than it was outside. One
wall was lined with a row of mismatched computers. The opposite wall had a cabinet and a pile of
blankets, and a window through to the studio that was partially obscured by a stack of boxes in the other
room. The studio was narrow and seemed to be partially used for storage. There was a single computer, a
sound desk, and two microphones.
***

77
Malai Vanoli is located just outside of a small village in the hills. Popular with tourists escaping the
summer heat of the plains, the hills are characterised by cooler temperatures and higher altitudes.
Partially a nature reserve home to wildlife including elephants, leopards, and gaurs, the area tends to be
either densely forested or blanketed in tea plantations. Malai Vanoli is part of a well-established NGO
that has been working in the region for many years. The NGO focusses on environmental sustainability,
biodiversity, and supporting local indigenous tribal communities in preserving their traditional
knowledge. There are several culturally and linguistically different tribes in the area, with some
maintaining very isolated traditional lifestyles deep in the forest. For many years, the NGO has published
a community newspaper targeted at these groups. Though Tamil is widely spoken and understood
throughout the area, many tribes have no tradition of written language which has affected literacy rates.
As such, the NGO decided to apply for a broadcasting license in order to establish a station to continue
and expand on the work of the newspaper. Radio staff now work closely with newspaper staff to share
content aimed at the different tribal groups and villages in the area. Malai Vanoli broadcasts primarily in
Tamil with some programming in several local tribal languages as well. The station broadcasts to a 15km
area around the village, though their actual coverage is heavily affected by the landscape. The villages
closest to the station in valleys often struggle to get signal while competition is fierce in the hilltop
villages as listeners can tune in to popular FM stations in major cities hundreds of kilometres away.

78
5 Development: spectacles and spectres

"The spectacle of development"

"Have you ever spoken on the radio?"
"Yeah. I have. I spoke even last month. But I speak again and again about the same thing. That much
suffering I have undergone because of my daughter's health."
***
So far, this thesis has situated itself and its approaches in relation to a perspective on development that
values cognitive justice, complexity, and respect for individual agency. This view of development,
however, does not necessarily reflect the dominant development approach. Having introduced the
contextual environment in which this research took place, as well as some of the foundational concepts
related to community radio, this chapter turns to the influence of development. Development represents
one of the primary discussion threads running throughout this thesis. The influence of "the spectacle of
development" (Manyozo, 2017) permeates every part of the community radio sector in India, from the
legislative requirements through to the day-to-day activities of the stations themselves. This chapter
explores how "the spectacle of development" provides a useful frame for understanding the broader
influence of development and how it manifests within community radio in India. After introducing the
spectacle and examining how it takes shape within media, communication, and development thought,
namely through outdated "spectres" of development paradigms, this chapter then turns to the research
data and how the spectacle and spectres of development can be observed in practice.
Development is big business: it is a multibillion-dollar industry, involving every single country in
the world either as a donor or a recipient or, increasingly, both (Ramalingam, 2013). As Hobart reminds
us though, "the prevailing rhetoric is of altruistic concern for the less fortunate, it is wise to remember
that development is big business" (2002, p. 2). Powell and Seddon go so far as to refer to the
development industry as "a monstrous multinational alliance of global corporations, a kind of juggernaut"
(1997, p. 3). Much like other big businesses, not only does the development industry respond to global
demand, but it finds ways of shaping demand to suit its own interests (Powell & Seddon, 1997). These
interests are not explicit but are pervasively shaped by a framework of beliefs and assumptions about
systems, problems, human agency, social structures, and the nature of change itself; beliefs that guide
the way the development juggernaut learns, makes decisions, relates to external actors, and assesses
itself (Ramalingam, 2013, p. 125). Manyozo refers to this phenomenon as an "organized systemic
discourse", that sees oppression operate through these "structured, orderly and symbolic set of
structures and processes and systems" (2017, p. 35). Both symptomatic and supportive of these
structures are the institutions - local and international NGOs, donors, foreign governments, financial
lenders - institutional oppression is essential to holding this "regime of rules, regulations and arbitrary

79
considerations" together (Manyozo, 2017, p. 23). These institutions, supported by a systemic discourse,
serve to support the dominance of the development industry around the world.
The robustness of the development industry has stood the test of time and seems impervious to
critique. Despite the extensive and high-profile critiques levelled at the development and aid industries
on the basis of inefficacy and economics (Easterly, 2006; Moyo, 2009; Ramalingam, 2013, among many
others), the juggernaut rolls on. The reason for this could be attributed to the robust system of beliefs
underpinning the sectors that serve as self-reinforcement and act as somewhat of a shield against these
incisive criticisms. Manyozo terms this phenomenon "the spectacle of development" which involves the
"production, exchange and utilization" of imaginaries that are based on stereotypes, fail to acknowledge
difference, and silence the voices of subaltern groups (2017, p. 14). Considering development as a
performative spectacle provides a useful frame for understanding the insidious ways in which
development shapes the lives of so-called 'beneficiaries', from the highest level of government and
multilateral organisational policies, all the way to the grassroots, including the on-the-ground activities of
community radio stations.
How exactly does this take place though? The money and power invested in the development
industry inarguably contributes to its influence, but the systemic discourse underpinning the sector also
serves to gird against critique and ensure compliance at all levels of involvement. Escobar argues that
mainstream development thought and literature supports an "underdeveloped subjectivity" laden with
powerlessness, poverty, passivity, ignorance, a lack of agency, illiteracy, and oppression resulting from its
own stubbornness and traditions (2011, p. 8). Members of oppressed groups exist only as stereotypes in
dominant discourses and, as such, do not see their perspectives of the world expressed (Bickford, 1996).
Instead, they are positioned as powerless, colonial subjects, as Other (Spivak, 1988): "waiting for the
(white) Western hand to help" (Escobar, 2011, p. 8). Indeed, the spectacle has developed highly pervasive
and efficient methods of producing knowledge about, and exerting power over, the global South
(Escobar, 2011). The production of knowledge about oppressed people represents a particular type of
epistemic violence that serves to silence the voices of oppressed people and may insidiously affect the
way they view themselves. The result of this endemic 'Other-ing' is that subaltern groups may begin to
view reality through the lens of their oppressors and, as such, when given the tools to exercise power
they tend to reproduce the same imbalances, making them complicit in their own oppression (Manyozo,
2017). Aside from this, there are also instances were subaltern groups are forced to assume a subject
position that aligns with the dominant narratives of the oppressors. An example of this can be observed
in the work of Dutta and Roy, who offer a critique of the imposition of “transgender” as an umbrella term
by international NGOs and development agencies. Through this, South Asian discourses of gender/sexual
variance are subsumed as merely “local” expressions of transnational transgender identity in accordance
with the “hegemonic anglophone discourse of LGBTIQ identities recognized by the state and the
development sector” (2014, p. 321). The imposition of “transgender” has real implications for subaltern

80
communities forced to exist under this umbrella term: Dutta and Roy write of hijras and kothis with
multiple identity cards who experienced difficulties accessing healthcare services “due to the expectation
of a stable, singular identity” (2014, p. 333). Here we see the spectacle of development force complicity
and compliance upon subaltern groups in exchange for essential service provision.
Many authors have observed and written on the phenomena of voluntary or coerced complicity,
notably Gayatri Spivak, bell hooks, and Edward Said, though it was Freire who made this central to his
arguments about conscientization, explaining that raising the consciousness of both the oppressors and
the oppressed is necessary in order to affect transformative social change (Freire, 2000).
Conscientization, as Freire envisaged it, fails to align with the operationalisation of the spectacle of
development. More often the pedagogy of the spectacle of development is one of disempowerment
rather than a pedagogy of liberation (Freire, 2000; Manyozo, 2017). Indeed, if we consider development
as both a spectacle and an industry, it is more efficient to support these structures of disempowerment.
While dialogue, two-way flows of information, and co-creation of knowledge are regularly touted as
highly important aspects of development (Tacchi & Kiran, 2008), they are expensive, loosely defined and
difficult to market to donors. Co-creating knowledge requires listening, a strong commitment to
decolonization and creating spaces for recognition and representation for oppressed groups (M. J. Dutta,
2014). Direct, tangible benefits are far more of an incentive. Just one example of this can be observed in
Mosse's (2001) work on the valorisation of "people's knowledge”, particularly in participatory
development initiatives, as a way of address top-down, bureaucratic systems. While seeking out local
consultation and “people’s knowledge” is framed as participatory and cooperative, the reality is that this
knowledge is constructed within the broader planning systems and social contexts. This leads so-called
'beneficiaries' to shape their expressed needs to align with the development project's institutional
interests so as to ask for what they think they will get. The overall effect is that development agencies
project their own needs onto communities so that "people's knowledge" is subsequently articulated and
structured by the development agencies themselves (Mosse, 2001). As such, it is the broader political
economy of development that serves to reinforce itself through the exploitation of oppressed groups:
oppressed groups become complicit in their own oppression through supporting people and institutions
that work against their own interests (Manyozo, 2017). Committing to co-created knowledge and
conscientization of the oppressors and the oppressed is a complex, unclear, ill-defined approach, and
thus highly unappealing within the neoliberal spectacle of development.
Far more appealing than these “wicked problems” (Ramalingam, 2013), is a clear problem with a
logical solution. The development industry deliberately perpetuates the complicity of oppressed groups
through the construction of a politics of truth that posits poverty as the problem and development as the
solution (Escobar, 2011; Manyozo, 2017). More complex interpretations of development, as briefly
discussed in Chapter 2, and as posited by the likes of Sen among others, do not fit neatly into this
formulaic summation of what's 'wrong' in the Global South. Indeed, while scholars and practitioners alike

81
have embraced more nuanced approaches, Jacobson (2016) suggests that there are two key reasons why
the dominant development practices persist. Firstly, the development industry is premised upon donors
and funding bodies committing resources based on promises of pre-determined, tangible outcomes, not
on the basis that people might be empowered to make their own choices. Secondly, the practical
application of "expansion of freedom" (A. K. Sen, 1999), for example, as a development outcome is
difficult to imagine; operationalising the "conceptual richness" of such an approach into the mainstream
development cycle of "planning, execution and evaluation" is no simple undertaking (Jacobson, 2016, p.
119). The spectacle of development makes it almost impossible to operationalise alternative models of
development because it is predicated on linear, cause-effect solutions to the most "wicked", complex
problems facing the world (Ramalingam, 2013). Social change is non-linear, complex and often contested
(Tufte, 2017). Packaging problems as neat, simple, and linear with clear, tangible solutions capable of
scaling up make them far easier to sell to development donors than alternative approaches that consider
the complexity of poverty and oppression.
The spectacle of development is a critical perspective applied here in the sense of guiding inquiry
rather than dismissing development completely. Not all western interventions are necessarily colonial,
oppressive and, thus, worthless (Manyozo, 2017). The spectacle of development as a critical perspective
instead encourages the expansion of communicative spaces on the part of western organisations to listen
and learn about the experiences on the ground, and to consider the rights-based advocacies that have
yielded results away from the structures of the global development industry (Manyozo, 2017). In this
research, the spectacle of development is an observable phenomenon: one that influences even the day-
to-day activities of community radio stations in rural South India. As such, it is a valuable lens through
which to view these activities and apply a critical perspective to the way 'development' is understood and
operationalised on the ground.

'Spectres' of development
The spectacle of development is clearly deeply entwined within the work of the development sector and
presents ethical dilemmas for those looking to engage in more collaborative, meaningful initiatives to
contribute to the liberation of oppressed groups. Given the myriad critiques of the spectacle and its
overtly problematic nature, how has this framework been enacted on the ground? The answer to this lies
in the history of modern development thought. As much as development literature and research claim to
have moved on or past the previous models, earlier paradigms remain entrenched in the day-to-day
operations of development practice and practitioners. As briefly mentioned in Chapter 2, development
paradigms guiding development communication practice and thinking have changed over time. One of
the earliest paradigms, modernisation/diffusion represents an embodiment of the spectacle of
development and, despite being widely decried as outdated, continues to guide much development
practice, even through supposedly participatory initiatives. How these paradigms took shape and gained

82
traction in development thought and practice is reflective of the historical context. At the risk of engaging
in what Mansell (1982) calls "superficial revisionism" in tracing the history of development and
development communication, this section first provides a very brief modern history of development
thought in order to demonstrate how modernisation, one of the earliest paradigms, continues to inform
programs and initiatives on the ground, including the supposedly participatory medium of community
radio.
Development as we know it took shape in the late 1940s when President Truman advocated for
the Marshall Plan to improve the economies and societies of developing nations as part of the US Cold
War strategy to sway countries to their side of the conflict (McAnany, 2012). The initial development
paradigm, modernisation, was dominant until around 1965 and focussed on the transfer of technology
and culture from developed societies to 'traditional' societies (Servaes & Malikhao, 2008). Development
was understood as a linear progression, based on economic growth, through various stages to evolve to
'modern society' (Servaes & Malikhao, 2008). The problem was seen as the existence of 'traditional'
cultures that were lacking in information and technology; the solution, therefore, was the transfer of said
information through communication (Waisbord, 2001). One of the most influential theories of the
modernisation paradigm was Rogers' (1995) "diffusion of innovations" theory, which detailed the stages
that individuals work through in order to adopt innovations to facilitate development (Waisbord, 2001).
As “awareness” and “knowledge” were the two initial stages, the diffusion theory made use of mass
media to achieve these steps, engaging in a one-way transfer of information (McAnany, 2012; Scott,
2014). Both the diffusion theory and modernisation more broadly were reflective of communication
theory at the time, which assumed the communication process was linear and predictable (Tufte &
Mefalopulos, 2009b). This paradigm was characterised by top-down, centralised approaches towards
development with Schramm going so far as to imply that development activities should be entirely
government-run (1964).
Retrospectively, it is easy to see that such a paradigm is deeply problematic. The words of
Kothari are particularly appropriate when considering early development thought: "where colonialism
left off, development took over" (1988, p. 143). Modernisation has been critiqued on the basis that it is
imperialist and western-centric (Melkote & Steeves, 2001), relies on overly simplistic communication
models (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009b), and that simply disseminating information is not enough to affect
long-term behavioural changes (Dagron & Bleck, 2001; Scott, 2014; Servaes, 2008). The modernisation
paradigm, however, maintains particular relevance to this research. As Waisbord (2005) observes, while
the diffusion/modernisation paradigm is widely regarded as outdated, no single paradigm has replaced it.
Indeed, modernisation/diffusion continues to influence modern policy and practice (Tacchi, 2013).
Despite the harsh critiques, this particular "spectre" of development persists.
Aside from modernisation, there have been two other key approaches to development thought.
They can be broadly categorised into critical perspectives, such as the "underdevelopment" or

83
"dependency" model argued by Gunder Frank (1969), and liberation or monastic perspectives, including
the work of Freire (2000) among others (Melkote & Steeves, 2001). Of particular relevance to this
research is the work of Freire, who is considered to be a key participatory theorist (Cooke, 2004). Indeed,
the participatory development approach can trace its origins back to the work of Freire and the Latin
American school of thought on development communication (Manyozo, 2012). Emerging independently
from western development thinking, early participatory communication projects yielded success stories
like Radio Sutatenza in Colombia and the miners' radio stations in Bolivia (Gumucio-Dagron, 2005;
Manyozo, 2009, 2012). Freire played an instrumental role in the evolution of participatory
communication and its role in development. Though his work was developed for an education setting, it
has been widely applied to development communication (Scott, 2014). Freire advocated for active
participation through dialogue with a goal of emancipation or "conscientizacão" – action-oriented
awareness (Freire, 2000; Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009b). Participatory development represents a popular
and widespread approach: Slater observes that, for at least 15 years, knowledge in development has
been framed as "'participatory' research and development" (2013, p. 157). Modernisation and
participatory development represent the key competing paradigms with both dominating as the main
conceptual orientations in the practice of communication for development and social change (Tufte,
2017).
A final significant movement in development thought is post-development. Post-development
also emerged as a severe critique of the modernisation paradigm, notably through Sachs' "obituary" of
development (1997). Post-developmentalists argued that, rather than some linear, biological process,
development is something "being done" to people (Ratan & Bailur, 2007). Central to the post-
development critique is the unequal power relations between benefactors and beneficiaries that
characterise the dominant paradigm (Manyozo, 2017). Participatory development was not immune to
such critiques: participation was viewed as a "failed project of 'development'" with a tendency towards
"dominance and cultural homogeneity rather than empowerment" (Hickey & Mohan, 2004, pp. 60–61).
Post-developmentalists instead argued for alternatives to development, rather than "alternative
development" which, they argue, still perpetuates the idea that parts of the world are "underdeveloped"
and need help to become "like the West" (Ziai, 2017). The most significant failings of post-development
were that it offered little in terms of theory and praxis, downplayed the role of the state, glorified the
concept of 'community', and failed to account for the socio-political agency and institutional support
needed to enact "alternative development" (Hickey & Mohan, 2004). The trend, among post-
developmentalists, was to stop at critique which, in practice, served as "endorsement of the status quo
and, in effect, more of the same" (Pieterse, 2000, p. 184). As such, post-development was brought to
somewhat of an impasse and failed to gain further widespread traction in development thought.
Given the failings of critical movements to gain a foothold as development paradigms, what we
are left with, then, is diffusion and participation (Morris, 2003). Modernisation, however, despite its

84
widespread critiques and dismissal, has permeated even within its supposed alternative - participatory
development. This can be seen throughout the critiques of participation in development. Participation, as
it was intended by Freire, among others, should act as the basis of learning, innovation, and
emancipation from oppression. In practice, however, such radical ideas are co-opted and operationalised
in technical, instrumental terms, as simply another tool for development management and the circulation
or "deposit" of information (Cooke, 2004; Slater, 2013). There remain unequal power relations at even
the most fundamental levels: for example, the definition of problems and terms surrounding
interventions. Interrogating whose interpretations prevail and the processes through which this takes
place reveals much about the nature of the so-called "empowering", "participatory" development
projects which, in many cases, serve to reinforce the oppressive power structures they aim, or purport, to
subvert (Hildyard, Hedge, Wolvekamp, & Reddy, 2001). As Pavarala and Malik (2007, p. 172) explain:
"the interventionist who attempts to 'sell' solutions to 'target population' is accused of being
manipulative as s/he may bring along an alien set of cultural premises. A participatory social
communicator who enters a village hoping people will come to perceive their oppression the
way s/he sees it is equally manipulative".
True commitment to the empowerment of others is highly contradictory (White, 1996). Though
participatory initiatives may have the potential to support alternative development narratives, the reality
is that the spectacle and its subsequent discourses remain intact within such initiatives. A linear and
modernist presence is maintained, even within alternative interpretations of development (Manyozo,
2017). If post-development wrote the obituary of development, modernisation emerges as its spectre,
continuing to insidiously haunt and operate, unseen, through even the most supposedly participatory,
collaborative development projects. As Manyozo observes, even throughout the most well-intentioned,
participatory approaches, the "template of development" still serves to frame "encounters and the
outputs no matter how cooperative and consultative the process might be" (2017, p. 21). Morris writes of
this phenomenon in terms of "hybridity", arguing that the diffusion and participatory models are not
polar opposites: "the diffusion model has evolved in a participatory direction since its initial formulation,
and participatory projects necessarily involve some element of information transfer" (2003, p. 227). The
notion of hybridity is further encouraged by Quarry and Ramirez who suggest that little has been done to
encourage blurring the lines between the two approaches (2018). This research, however, takes the
opposite perspective. The lines are already blurry and the hybridity we see in participatory development
approach is symptomatic of the broader spectacle of development, and the spectre of modernisation,
influencing the ways in which development is practiced.
Given the obvious failings and problematic theoretical underpinnings of both the spectacle of
development and the spectre of modernisation, how have they been able to gain such a foothold within
contemporary development theory and practice? Particularly given the range of critiques and more
nuanced alternative interpretations of development, as suggested by the likes of Amartya Sen, among

85
others. The answer relates to the strength and pervasiveness of development discourse. Discourse plays
an important role in how both the spectacle and spectres of development operate within society. Indeed,
the word 'development' itself, like many words within development discourse, has a certain quality that
is taken for granted and thus seems to render much of what is done in the name of 'development'
beyond question or reproach (Cornwall, 2007). Taking a discourse approach to examining development
reveals the constructed nature of what is considered as "natural, universally applied historical and social
evolution” (Sosale, 2004, p. 87). Closely examining and questioning these taken-for-granted assumptions
reveals a lot about how these discourses are constructed and how they serve to shape the way we think
about development.
It is through these discourses of development and modernisation that the spectacle of
development reproduces and reinforces itself. Discourses of development serve to solidify colonial
mindsets and methodically reproduce a culture of imperialism that serves to support the dominance of
the west over the global south (Shrestha, 1995). In his work on alternative modernities, Gaonkar laments
that it is virtually impossible to escape western discourses of modernity (1999). Modernity influences
"cultural forms, social practices and institutional arrangements", but also acts as a "discourse that
interrogates the present" (Gaonkar, 1999, p. 13). The influence of modernity has greater implications for
how those on the receiving end of development come to see themselves. Sen (1999) argues that freedom
is mediated by values which are, in turn, influenced by public discussions and social interactions.
Communication here is utilised as a tool of the powerful elite classes who foreclose discursive
spaces to reproduce the specific types of inequalities that serve to benefit them (M. J. Dutta, 2014). The
role of communication in reinforcing discourses brings us to the potential role of community radio in such
a context. Rodriguez suggests that the "richness" of community media lies in their "potential as forces of
resistance" (2001, p. 158). She warns though that this richness is lost if community media is seen and
employed as a "one-dimensional static platform" aimed at a unified goal (Rodriguez, 2001). This hints at
the trap that community radio stations in India may find themselves falling into. As discussed in Chapter
4, recalling Bailur's words, community radio in India is focussed on "development, development,
development" (Bailur, 2008, 2015). Further, Malik lamented the development discourse that runs deeply
throughout the sector (Personal communication, November 24, 2016). The following section examines
how such discourses of development and modernisation manifested within the research sites and how
the spectacle of development served to influence the day-to-day activities of the community radio
stations.

The spectacle in action

Having established the ways in which the spectacle of development operates throughout the
development sector, we now turn to how the spectacle manifests on the ground. The spectacle,
operating through modernisation and development discourse, was observed in several different forms

86
throughout the data collection. The first instance where the spectacle of development can be clearly
observed is within the general, day-to-day operations of the community radio stations and their
interactions with listeners. The spectacle of development was observed and experienced quite differently
between the listeners and the broadcasters. This section will first discuss how the spectacle of
development through modernisation emerged within conversations with community radio listeners,
before moving on to the experiences of community radio broadcasters.
Firstly, community radio listeners often found themselves complicit in interpreting development
according to traditional, modernisation definitions. When asked overtly about the station's contribution
to development in their community, the listeners' responses were overwhelmingly positive. There were
several themes that emerged as emblematic of what development meant to these listeners. Health
represented a key area of what they considered to be development, particularly among female listeners
at both stations.
"Definitely it helps in development. How to say? If she is sick suddenly (points to the pregnant
woman in the group) and if it is raining, we cannot take her to the hospital immediately. In such
cases, it is very useful."
"Yes, they talk about cleanliness and that is necessary for us throughout our lifetime. There are
programmes that are very useful to pregnant women. So, I guess in that way they contribute to
the society" - Malai Vanoli listeners' focus group.
There were other interpretations of development that were less clear, but no less positive in their
support of the role of the station.
"Malai Vanoli is definitely beneficial starting from a child to an adult. It is useful for our
community." - Malai Vanoli listener.
"They told about diabetes and its symptoms and they have also spoken about tuberculosis. It was
useful to me. But if you ask if it was useful for the society. I'm unable to give a reply." - Malai
Vanoli listener.
"In this era of women's development, this program contributes for the same." - Enkal Vanoli
listener.
"They tell us information we don't know. They hold awareness campaign and create awareness.
Although we are aware of most of the information they tell in common." - Malai Vanoli listener.
While their listeners were generally very positive about the contribution of the community radio stations
to development, interrogating this further revealed unexpected results from the listeners of Enkal Vanoli.
"I very well knew about everything before. The information given on radio could be considered as
additional qualification."
"No, not like that. I hear a lot of informative news from the radio, but I cannot tell that I learnt
anything new. They tell information that I already knew."
"But in present situation agriculture is not in its full glory. There is no rain and there is no

87
 conditions favourable for doing agriculture. So, the information told in the community radio is not
useful at all. Even though the programs broadcasted in community radio reaches people, it is
neither useful nor impactful as there is no rain and no agriculture." - Enkal Vanoli listener focus
group.
The participants of this particular focus group were predominantly farmers, and some were members of
the farmers' federation. They represented the key target demographic for the station's programming, yet
they felt that much of the programming was irrelevant to them. Interestingly, this was not something
that the members of the farmers' federation objected to: they felt the station provided useful
information even if it was not useful to them specifically. The state of agriculture at the time represented
a disconnect between what the station was broadcasting and the realities of their listeners. The
modernisation paradigm can be clearly observed here through the emphasis on providing information
regardless of the local context and the existing knowledge of a key listener demographic. The broader
spectacle of development is perhaps seen within the attitudes of the listeners and farmers' federation
members. Despite Enkal Vanoli being 'their' station, it seems not to represent them or their information
needs, instead following an unseen directive of what they should be broadcasting, as opposed to
responding to the needs of the community.
Community radio broadcasters had quite a different experience of operating within and, at
times, perpetuating the spectacle of development through modernisation discourse. In relation to media,
communication, and development, the influence of modernisation can be clearly seen through
approaches like Media for Development (M4D), a form of intervention that uses the media to influence
the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of a public for development purposes. In this approach, the
perceived development problem is a lack of information, therefore the solution to that problem is to
simply provide that information (Scott, 2014). Beyond this approach to media, communication, and
development though, the influence of the modernisation paradigm can still be observed elsewhere. As
discussed, community radio is generally considered to fall within participatory communication
approaches to media, communication, and development. What was observed during the research
though, was that the influence of modernisation had permeated even this supposedly participatory,
grassroots medium. At its most fundamental level, this was observed in the language of the broadcasters
when discussing how they viewed their impact on the local community, as well as discussing their day-to-
day responsibilities.
"We impart knowledge to the needy. We give them information that they don't know. We act as
their mediator between the education and the people who can't afford it."
"We can also help them through the knowledge we provide. It is a chain process and that is how
it goes".
"We tell them what is good and what is bad while we go field visits". - Malai Vanoli staff group
interview.

88
These statements appear to echo the model of information transfer as seen in the "diffusion of
innovations" approach (E. M. Rogers, 1995). The language of the statements is highly reflective of a
modernisation discourse through words like "give", "impart", and "tell". It is also worth noting that these
statements emerged during more general discussions about the broadcasters' day-to-day activities and
what they enjoyed about their job. When questioned directly about the role of community radio,
broadcasters at both stations mentioned more traditional community radio and participatory
development roles including "helping the needy" and "providing a voice".
A further aspect of the broadcasters' experiences that relates to the spectacle of development is
the reporting and organisational requirements that the stations must adhere to as part of the broader
parent organisations. This is symptomatic of the "ascendance of accountancy" in evaluating aid and
development projects (Lennie & Tacchi, 2013, pp. 2–3). Evaluation is, of course, important, but there is
some misunderstanding among mainstream evaluators about the most appropriate evaluation
approaches for specific situations and interventions (Tacchi & Lennie, 2014). Indeed, the kinds of
administrative control and emphasis on quantitative evaluation observed in this research go against best
practice in community radio. Pavarala and Malik reviewed the community radio broadcast regulations
across five countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, and the USA), and found that regulators in
all five countries endorse a qualitative approach to audience research “for authoritatively evaluating the
relationship between a station and the audience” (2007, p. 77). In contrast, the limitations of narrow
approaches to evaluation were recognised by the Enkal Vanoli broadcasters:
"What I hate the most is submitting reports. I don't know if I'm not still skilled to make a report.
Our performance is calculated only to the report we submit. If suppose I perform well but not give
a proper report then it will be taken that I did not perform well. We have to spend at least two
days on making this report. Also, the impact cannot be calculated through listenership like
commercial radio. Only through survey we can understand the impact. But our report demands
an impact that is difficult to produce. What impact could be understood only gradually and not
suddenly. But we have no other choice as we are working for a funded agency"
"If there something I dislike it is the targets. I am working here from the beginning and there was
a lot of freedom while I started. We worked according to the schedule. we work as a team to
achieve targets, while get projects from outside there will be a compulsion to do a half an hour
slot every day. We manage to gather content to do the program but it's frustrating."
"It's been a month I have joined and I am due to submit my report. It's not report that is stressful
but it’s the target. While we work in the creative side alone there is no need for stress. But while
we undertake project from outside, although it makes us financially sustainable, it is difficult and
stressful to face the target." - Enkal Vanoli staff group interview.
The difficulties associated with managing the administration and content-related requirements of
community radio have also been observed by Mittal. She suggests that while community radio journalists

89
initially do a good job building community participation for content and operations, over time their
administrative workload increases which leaves less time for other tasks (2011). The senior broadcaster
at Enkal Vanoli spent a significant amount of time each week logging the daily progress sheets of the staff
members. The progress sheets detailed all the tasks they were working on and how long they spent on
each task per day. The station manager maintains a detailed tracking sheet that must be submitted to the
parent body each week alongside a plan for the next week. This is in addition to other administrative
work including managing invoices for advertisers, travel claims and staff salaries, event and station
budgets, emails, and so on.
Conversely, Malai Vanoli seemed to face less of these struggles, which the broadcasters
appreciated:
"They do not pressure as to complete our work. I like that." - Malai Vanoli broadcaster.
There was, however, a sense of impotence associated with being just one part of a larger NGO, as
opposed to a semi-autonomous station that reports to an external parent body.
“We cannot straight away do anything as Malai Vanoli is a part of the NGO. But there are several
other departments in the NGO through which we could do some help.” - Malai Vanoli
broadcaster.
Malai Vanoli's parent body is a large, well-established NGO. While this seemed to alleviate some of the
pressures associated with reporting requirements and balancing budgets, it also seemed to create a layer
of distance between the community radio station and their listeners. Malai Vanoli was under more
pressure to conform to the developmental priorities of their parent body rather than what their listeners
might want. While this gave the station scope to host and support a number of valuable community
events, such as an eye clinic that provided free eye tests, consultations with doctors, and follow-up
treatments, where necessary, it also served to create distance between broadcasters and listeners,
alongside a sense of powerlessness in the broadcasters. As indicated earlier, the broadcasters at Malai
Vanoli have a strong sense of what their role is and how they perceive their contribution to the
community, but actioning these roles appears to be more complex. This could be symptomatic of
"NGOisation" of community radio content, which involves "the broadcast agenda reflecting the
programmatic agenda of the NGO" (Pavarala, Malik, & Belavadi, 2010, p. 67). Community radio stations in
this position find themselves to take less participatory approaches as they are under pressure to
demonstrate "impact" and "scale up" (Pavarala, 2015). This is indicative of the spectacle of development
at work: community radio broadcasters are powerless to contribute in the ways they see fit and wind up
complicit in the NGOisation of the station.

Swachh Bharat
Aside from the day-to-day examples of the spectacle of development in action, a further, more large-
scale example is the Government of India's Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM). Launched by Prime Minister

90
Narendra Modi in 2014, SBM involves a suite of initiatives aimed at improving sustainable sanitation,
most notably with the ambitious goal of making India open defecation free (ODF) by 2019, ostensibly as a
tribute to the 150th birthday of Mahatma Gandhi (Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2018).
Spearheaded by the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation and the Ministry of Urban Development,
the program began with a focus on anti-littering campaigns and volunteer clean-ups, the program has
expanded to include inter-ministry collaborations on other projects such as a special focus on improving
the sanitation practices of villages along the banks of the River Ganga, improving water, sanitation, and
hygiene (WASH) and ODF activities in the areas surrounding hospitals and health centres, and the Swachh
Iconic Places project which focusses on cleaning 100 sites of cultural and historical significance (Luthra,
2018; Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2018). The five-year program was approved for INR 620
billion in funding, of which 15% was allocated to information, education, and communication (IEC) in
order to:
"undertake massive public awareness campaigns on sanitation and establishing its link to public
health, hygiene and the environment through various means including - radio, social media,
documentaries, plays, workshops, etc." (Ministry of Urban Development, 2014, p. 13).
C4D represents a significant part of SBM with community radio also acting as a key tool for promoting the
program and its aims.
SBM represents part of a global commitment from the UN to improved sanitation, one that was
expressed in both the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the Sustainable Development Goals
(SGD). Goal 7 of the MDG ("Ensure environmental sustainability") made specific mention of improving the
conditions of the "2.4 billion" people who were using "unimproved sanitation facilities including 946
million people ... still practicing open defecation" (UN, 2016). The subsequent SDG Goal 6 ("Ensure access
to water and sanitation for all") aims to "achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and
hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and
those in vulnerable situations" by 2030 (UN, 2018). Even at the most basic level, the SDGs place a clear
emphasis on sanitation with a specific goal of ending open defecation. Why though has this particular
goal gained such widespread traction within India? Drawing on the results of a survey, Da Costa observes
that communicating the SDGs has been far more successful than that of the MDGs. He posits three
potential reasons for the fact that the SDGs appear to have reached a far greater segment of the global
public far quicker than the MDGs:
"Is this really because the SDGs have been better communicated in two years than the MDGs
were in seven? Because the process of consultation for the SDGs was more far- reaching than
that for the MDGs? Because the challenges facing the world in 2015 were of a higher order than
the preoccupations of 2000, forcing citizens to be more aware? There may be an element of
truth in each of these three reasons" (da Costa, 2018, p. 160).
Why though is it this particular goal that has resulted in such a widespread, well-funded campaign in

91
India? Though improved sanitation is inarguably important, one could also argue for the importance of
any of the 17 SDGs. How, then, can the dramatic uptake of SBM be explained?
A critical view on the proliferation of Goal 6 and SBM returns us to neoliberalism. Ending open
defecation requires establishing alternatives - a technical 'solution' to the 'problem' of open defecation -
therein lies the economic potential of such a movement. Indeed, economic opportunities represent one
part of the broader marketing plan of SBM. Prime Minister Modi has spoken of the money to be made by
"swacchata (cleanliness) entrepreneurs", referring not to those formally and informally employed as
sanitation workers and rag pickers, but to private firms ready to displace such workers in the name of
generating profit from cleaning up India (Luthra, 2018). Really, for the vast majority of people in India
who have been excluded from the benefits of a capitalist economy, this is not a profitable deal (Doron &
Raja, 2015).
The economic and technocentric perspective of SBM is framed by a simplistic problem-solving
model eerily reminiscent of the spectre of modernisation. This is discussed by Doron and Raja (2015, p.
189), who make the following observation about the theoretical foundations of SBM:
"If we can make enough toilets for everyone to go around, the sanitation problem would be
solved, Modi suggests, displaying no self-reflexivity about a mode of problem solving that is
wearily reminiscent of the long-discredited focus of the development studies going back to the
1960s."
Indeed, the spectacle of development, operating through modernisation could easily be observed
through the discourse of broadcasters, and even listeners, surrounding SBM.
"We have done a programme regarding sanitation. We formed groups and did a campaign to
stress the importance of building toilets." - Enkal Vanoli broadcaster.
"Peoples very basic need is toilet. Most of the people who live in these surroundings, build their
own house. We help them in to build toilet. First of all, we go and ask them what is their problem
in building their own toilets. Secondly, they go to the panchayat level and help them get the
subsidy from the government to build toilets." - Malai Vanoli broadcaster.
"The radio created awareness to promote Swachh Bharat and build toilets. We went individually
to every house and insisted them to build toilets. We also helped them to get the subsidy from the
government for building the toilets. Few people built from their own pocket and few built after
getting the subsidy. In this way, our community was benefitted". - Enkal Vanoli volunteer
"Radio insists people about hygiene. The radio tells the people to build toilets in their houses. The
villages associated with the radio station are in top position in hygiene. We give them training
personally and it is also insisted through the radio. When little people give some example about
hygiene, they understand it much better and implement it properly..." - Enkal Vanoli listener.

SBM seemed to be a recurring theme throughout interviews with listeners, volunteers and

92
station staff. There appeared to be a widespread understanding of the dominant definitions of
development among the community radio listeners. Listener focus groups were asked about
development in a general way, without imposing any definitions or examples on what might be
considered "development" or a development outcome. Listeners were also asked separately if the radio
stations had benefitted them personally. Some listeners directly associated SBM, and its promotion via
radio, with development:
"They do tell some information like we should build toilets and use it, which is very useful. So, it is
important for development." - Malai Vanoli listener.
"I recently took part in a programme that gave awareness to build and use toilets for defecation.
Recently they have announced a mission to make our district devoid of open defecation recently.
So, I felt very proud to have contributed to spreading awareness." - Malai Vanoli volunteer.
Other listeners observed the proliferation of the campaign through other means, such as local self-help
groups.
"We came to know about the subsidy for building the toilets. We ourselves helped few people to
get the subsidy from the government. Many of us have built toilet getting the subsidy from the
government. We were given training from our self-help groups to educate the people to built the
toilets and to help them get subsidy from the government. In one village alone, about 90 people
have got subsidy. Few people get the subsidy and built the toilets on their own and for a few
people the government itself builts the toilet. They ask us to spread awareness for building toilets
in our self-help groups, in our 100 days workplace." - Enkal Vanoli listener.
It is clear that SBM is not only widespread within the community radio programming, but, from the
perspective of listeners, there are clear links between the campaign and what they consider to be
development. From the perspective of the stations though, how can this be explained? An essential
contributing factor to the proliferation of SBM rhetoric on community radio can be attributed to funding.
Government advertising represents a significant revenue stream for community radio stations with Enkal
Vanoli earning 7000INR (~72 GBP, almost equivalent to a station staff member’s monthly salary) per
month for two advertising spots per day. There is clearly a significant financial incentive for community
radio stations to take part in promoting government initiatives, but some research suggests there might
be other forces at work. Bose writes of the growing politicization of community radio in India, particularly
referencing the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's "recommendation" that stations should air
the Prime Minister's "Maan ki Baat" pronouncements (2016). “Maan ki Baat” (roughly translated as “the
heart’s voice”) is a monthly radio broadcast by Prime Minister Modi in which he shares his thoughts on
various topics suggested by listeners. The programme has emerged as a significant revenue generator for
AIR, with advertising slots costing as much as 200,000 INR (~2200 GBP), as compared to high profile
cricket matches which only attract around 10,000-15,000 INR (~100-160 GBP) for a similar slot (Rathore,
2015). Similarly, April 2015 saw an "informal directive" that "advised" community radio stations to derive

93
their content from government schemes such as SBM (Bose, 2016). The scope of the stations to ignore
such "informal directives" is unclear, particularly given the tenuous legislative status that community
radio stations in India occupy. The impact of such directives was also observed by a listener:
"We have only heard our Prime Minister insisting as to build toilets in our home. We have seen
many such advertisements." - Enkal Vanoli listener.
SBM clearly represents a highly pervasive and, therefore, potentially successful C4D program aimed at
reducing open defecation and, as a result, improving hygiene standards across the country. An appraisal
of the effectiveness of this intervention lies outside the scope of this research, though it is worth noting
that a recent WHO report found that “while messaging and awareness raising approaches may result in
short term improvements in handwashing with soap, the changes are unlikely to be sustained over time.
Further, these approaches seemed to have no effect on open defecation” (World Health Organization,
2018, p. 136). What is more relevant to this research though, is how the insidious spectacle of
development works within and through SBM through discourses of modernity and technocentrism. Once
open defecation was identified and labelled as a 'problem', the spectacle of development was quick to
offer 'solutions' that were ready-made, technocentric, and laden with values relating to progress,
surveillance, and "proper", "bourgeois", civil conduct (Doron & Raja, 2015). This further represents the
spectacle of development through a discourse of modernity and the subsequent glorification of the west.
Filth in India is compared to a lack of filth in the west, with order and cleanliness of urban spaces
presented as the kind of modernity possessed by western cities that Indian cities should be striving
towards (Luthra, 2018).
Further, the technocentrism and problematic cause-and-effect assumptions associated with SBM
do little to address the underlying cultural attitudes to open defecation. Somewhat of a sub-theme of this
thesis, the role of class, caste, religion, and gender cannot be discounted in any discussions of Indian
society. First and foremost, even a high-level reading of SBM reveal closely linked religious and political
discourses. Indeed, the entire SBM campaign is inherently political: Prime Minister Modi is a member of
the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as well as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu
extremist group. He is described as a “hard-line Hindutva ideologue” who gained infamy as the Chief
Minister who presided over the 2002 pogrom in Gujarat where over 1000 Muslims were killed in targeted
violence (Ramachandra Guha, 2017, p. 681). It is against this backdrop that notions of swachh (clean or
cleanliness) take on new connotations. Further, while SBM as a tribute to Gandhi is admirable on some
levels, there have been similar critiques of the Mahatma’s politics in that, while he personally may have
considered all religions equal, politically “one religion was, inevitably, more equal than the other” (P.
Anderson, 2013, p. 23). Related to this was Gandhi’s approach towards the caste system, particularly
emphasized by his run-ins with the former-Untouchable leader B R Ambedkar who claimed that Gandhi’s
Congress party served to only represent upper-caste Hindus (Ramachandra Guha, 2017). Though he may
have decried Untouchability and the “sin” of jāti divisions, Gandhi believed in an idealized division of

94
society based on the varṇa (Chatterjee, 1984, p. 190). He argued that such a system had “saved Hinduism
from disintegration” (P. Anderson, 2013, p. 37). Considering these socio-political factors, a focus on
technological solutions to OD fails to account for structural and cultural inequalities that shape social
practices, particularly within the public domain (Doron & Raja, 2015). The daily, mundane tasks
associated with waste removal are performed by those who are marginalised and oppressed due to their
caste and class (Luthra, 2018). Dalits have been relegated to this work for thousands of years, while those
of higher castes retain their status through avoiding association with such "degrading" work (Royte,
2017). As Doron and Raja explain, like activities such as eating and dressing, "in India defecating also
serves to reproduce the social order" (2015, p. 193). Further, Coffey and Spears suggest that it is these
"casteist" ideas that have led to the ingrained nature of open defecation in India (2017). It is these ideas
and cultural norms that make latrine pits, normal in many other parts of the world, symbolic of
generations of oppression and humiliation (Coffey & Spears, 2017). Times are slowly changing though.
Dalits are increasingly shunning the work historically used to justify their oppression, which has resulted
in rising costs of waste removal due to a lack of willing workers (Royte, 2017). It is this social and
economic landscape that acts as a disincentive to building the small latrine that most households can
afford, one that would require regular emptying, and sees people choosing to defecate in the open
instead (Royte, 2017). This does little to question or subvert the caste system:
"So long as the removal of human excreta is assigned to the impure castes, the practice of
defecating in public does nothing to undermine upper-caste purity. If anything, upper-caste
'purity' is seen to be reinforced by having the 'untouchables' perform the unclean task for them."
(Doron & Raja, 2015, p. 193).
The class and caste politics associated with waste disposal are infinitely complex and embedded within a
system of oppression that has been in place for thousands of years. Such complexity is simply not
accounted for in SBM.
Aside from class, caste, and issues surrounding 'untouchability', there are other cultural factors
at play that serve to complicate how best to address open defecation, namely gender. A key marketing
strategy of SBM is that men should be building private toilets for their wives and daughters to prevent
danger and indignity associated with open defecation (Doron & Raja, 2015). Royte, however, observed
that, for women, defecating in the open can represent a valued opportunity for socialising away from the
domestic confines of in-laws and husbands (2017). Similarly, while building toilets for women is
encouraged, it is seen as "manly" for men to eschew their facilities and go in the open (Royte, 2017).
There are clearly complex gender dynamics at play here, in addition to the ingrained systems of class and
caste. The spectacle of development serves to mute these nuances and complexity so as to present
solutions that are simple, technocentric, and appeal to a neoliberal agenda. Such solutions are easy to
package and sell from a marketing perspective - C4D that "looks good" dominating over C4D required for
"doing good" (Noske-Turner, Tacchi, & Pavarala, 2018) - and work to appease international donors by

95
appearing to demonstrate quantifiable impact as opposed to meaningful social change.
A final point to note is the practical constraints of SBM. The construction of private and
community toilets represents a key component of SBM. Subsidies of roughly 12,000INR (~ 123GBP) are
available for building toilets in private homes. Community radio listeners and broadcasters spoke of
promoting access to these subsidies either through the stations or their local government. There was
fervour and pride at the thought of living in an ODF district. Outside of the interviews, however, listeners
lamented the extra costs associated with building private toilets. The subsidy is barely enough for a small,
single-tank, latrine. In order to build a practical facility, people still need to invest money from their own
pockets. Then there are the ongoing maintenance costs associated with private facilities, for which there
are no subsidies.
Despite the support given to SBM in terms of broadcast content and dissemination of public
service information, there is irony surrounding the situations of the stations themselves. One station was
less than 100m from a communal toilet block that remained padlocked throughout the research. At no
point, during the time spent at the station was the toilet observed unlocked or in use. Similarly, the other
station was undergoing renovations at the time of the research visit and had no operational toilet
facilities. Staff had to use the surrounding fields for their eliminatory requirements.
This example is highly indicative of the problems with SBM. According to official reports, as of
October 2018, with just under one year to go in the program, SBM has achieved household toilet
coverage across 95.13% of India and has seen more than 87,000,000 toilets constructed (Ministry of
Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2018). How many are actually in good condition, in regular use and are
accessible to those who need them is less clear and, arguably, a more important statistic. It is this narrow
cause and effect view - approaching open defecation as an infrastructural and behavioural problem – that
sees SBM as symptomatic of the broader spectacle of development in its approaches and the ways in
which it engages with community radio stations and audiences. The top-down dictum pays little attention
to local context or what those at the grassroots might want or prioritize, instead it has employed a well-
funded campaign to persuade, cajole, and, in some cases, violently discourage. This is the spectacle of
development in action. Even grassroots, 'participatory' media, like community radio, have been swept up
in the spectacle that operates through a modernisation approach to development that sees information
proclaimed from the top-down.

A story of the spectacle

“My girl is a little sick. She has gone through a surgery in her brain. I have learnt many things through
radio. While I was pregnant there were no such facilities. My mom used to be very casual and I used to go
for work and I never stayed home. But out of all, I had no problem in my delivery. My second child was
born at home. My mother was there, and she took care of the delivery. I did not have any complication. I
thought it would be the same for my daughter.

96
 I got her to my home in her seventh month of her pregnancy and only after that, I took her to a
doctor. The doctor told that her blood pressure levels are high and asked us why we did not contact a
doctor before. I asked her In-laws and they told that they took her to regular check-ups. After that, I took
her to three different doctors including both private and government practitioners. All of them told that
her blood pressure level is low and the growth of the baby is also not up to the mark. They asked us if we
left out the dates and calculated wrongly. But there was nothing wrong with the calculation. We got
afraid and admitted her to hospital. They took a scan and later told me that the condition of my daughter
is critical and the baby is not grown enough. They told me that both their lives are in threat and asked me
to sign a form immediately for them to continue the treatment. I'm already afraid of hospitals and I felt
very helpless in that situation.
We stayed there for 15 days and her health was improving. Then they took a final scan and told
me that the baby had no movement and told me to take her to the hospital that is down the mountains.
After admitting her there, the doctor told me that the baby could not be saved and asked me to be strong.
I was informed not to tell anything to my daughter and they also told me inform people at home. I called
people at home to inform. They consoled me to be happy for at least saving my daughter. Even then I did
not realise that the baby had died. Though the scan was done, I still believed that I will have the baby in
my hands and it wouldn't die. The doctor told me to buy a medicine from pharmacy and place it under my
daughter's tongue. They told that the baby would come out in three days or a week or even three
minutes. But they asked me to sign a form that I wouldn't create any trouble for future complications. I
agreed but did not let my daughter know this. The doctor told that Caesarean could be done to take the
baby out, but she is young and this is her first baby. "Only if you co-operate we could make it normal
delivery. She would have her second child in future, only if it is done properly. You shouldn't be frustrated
as the first baby died and you should be in no hurry to leave the hospital. Only if you listen to us, she will
have a second baby without any problem." Only then I realised the first baby is no more.
My daughter immediately had her labour pain after the medicine was given. She suffered all
through the night in her labour and she managed a normal delivery as she obeyed the doctor's
instructions. But only after the delivery, she became aware that her baby died. Doctors told that she
should stay in hospital for 40 days as her blood pressure level was the reason for her baby's death and it
should be attended. But without our knowledge, my girl went and told the doctor that she is alright and
wishes to leave home as the newborn kids around her in delivery ward are making her sad and lost. I
wasn't aware of this as I had gone home with the dead baby to bury it. Before I arrived, she had spoken to
the nurses and cried that she needs to go home. They kept her in observation for one week and sent us
home.
After coming home, she complained that she is developing headache. While I asked the elderly
people around my home, they told it is normal post-delivery. But then her headache started to get severe.
She told that there was pain all along her face and head. I was casually following the home medications

97
till then and took her to a doctor for check-up. The doctor told that her pulse rate was very low and asked
us to admit her immediately in the hospital where her delivery happened. I got to understand about pulse
only after listening to radio and after my daughter fell sick. But at that point, I did not know what exactly
"pulse" meant.
We decided not to give it any more time and immediately admitted her to the nearby hospital.
My daughter was active and was talking to me casually when she was admitted. I gave her food then
when I went to eat, I heard a loud scream from her calling out "Amma! Amma!". It just lasted for a second
and then she immediately collapsed and had fits. Her body became stiff and chill and she immediately
went to coma stage. Doctors told me that it is bound to happen to a person with high blood pressure and
asked me to wait for a day.
From Saturday afternoon till Sunday afternoon, there was no improvement in her. The hospital
administration did not allow us to get discharged. But somehow, we managed to get her discharged to
get her admitted to a hospital in the city. She developed fits en route to the hospital. They admitted her at
the first hospital in sight. They told that a CT scan should be done immediately rather than trying out
medications. Before that, all other tests such as ECG were done and at last the CT scan was done to find
the exact problem. After the CT scan was taken, they told us that there is a brain haemorrhage because of
high blood pressure. They also told us that only an immediate surgery could save my daughter. They
asked as to pay one-and-half lakhs (150,000INR, ~1600GBP) to take her inside the operation theatre. They
also told that she had already lost 90% of chances and left with 10% chance to be alive and asked us to
think about the operation.
We decided to give it a try as we were desperate to save my daughter. Even after the doctor's
warning that it is risky, we stood stubborn to continue the surgery. After they performed the surgery, she
got back her life and recovered. Even after recovery, she was like a child who had to be taken much care.
She was not very much conscious and she was behaving the same way she behaved in her childhood. She
forgot that she Is a woman and she is educated. Sometimes she wouldn't remember us too. We were
there at the hospital for 6 months. There was another surgery for complete recovery. She almost forgot
everything and now we are reminding her things one by one.
So, I would say our home medicine won't work in all cases. I kept her at home for 3 days even
after knowing she is sick. I feel she wouldn't have gone to coma stage if I had taken her to the hospital
earlier. Only after admitting her to the hospital, the doctor told we should have stayed in the previous
hospital for 10 more days, as they did not discharge us and we came out of our own risk. He blamed us for
this. Only after that, I realised. I just signed the form without reading it as I don't know to read English. I
just thought it was a procedure to sign before getting discharged. I just thought I am signing to take my
daughter home. Only the doctor who carried the operation later told us we have signed to discharge on
our own risk. Then it is not a mistake of me, right? It is their mistake too? My daughter requested them to
discharge her while I went home, as she was uncomfortable seeing the other babies in the ward. She was

98
longing for a baby and was heartbroken. She was physically looking normal. If I had made my daughter
stay there, listening to the doctor's words, it wouldn't have got this serious. I have spent more than 8 lacs
(800,000INR, ~8400GBP) and even mortgaged this house. I managed all the expenses as I had money to
do so but if I had no money, my daughter's life would have gone.
Only because I left my daughter's blood pressure unattended, it led to so many complications.
Then afterwards, we listened to what doctors said and my daughter recovered completely. Now she
teaches us things that we don't know. Now she comes to me and tells that she had learnt many things
and she feels bad for her ignorance that killed her own baby.”
- K, Malai Vanoli listener
Note: This story has been edited for length and clarity, though care was taken to ensure the original
meaning and, where possible, the wording was preserved. K's daughter volunteers at the radio station
and, at the time of the interview, was happy, healthy and heavily pregnant.
***
K spoke confidently and at length about the harrowing ordeal her family faced, while her daughter looked
on, seemingly unperturbed by the retelling of what was surely a traumatic time in her life. Deconstructing
this story, it is clear that the spectacle of development can be seen operating through a modernisation
discourse. Examples of this include the emphasis placed on modern medicine, as opposed to traditional
medicine, as well as the recurring importance of education and being "informed", and the radio's implied
role in this process. Indeed, alongside the dramatic and tragic nature of the story, there is a strong sense
of it being a cautionary tale of the consequences of not being 'informed'.
This story also serves to hint at broader power relations, most notably within the medical system
and the dynamics between doctors and patients. The unwillingness of doctors and hospital staff to clearly
explain the procedures and risks, as well as the expectations of uncritical acquiescence to their
instructions, speaks to the power structures in place. Such power relations were also observed at a
medical camp hosted by Malai Vanoli. The visiting doctors were first introduced to the waiting crowd of
prospective patients by one of the radio station staff members, who then asked the doctors to briefly
explain the tests that they would be conducting. The doctors blanched. "Why?", asked one. It took a
lengthy, hushed conversation to convince the doctors of the necessity of explaining the tests to patients.
Returning to K's story, it is also possible to see how she positions herself in terms of power. She initially
introduced herself as a tea plantation worker without much formal education, but we can see from the
story that she has, or at least has the ability to find, the means to pay for her daughter's medical
expenses. This status seemed to give her little power in her interactions with the medical professionals,
instead, the complicity associated with the spectacle of development shapes these interactions and
renders her relatively powerless to understand and make decisions about what was happening to her
daughter.
Without an in-depth understanding of K's life and the context of this experience, extensive

99
deconstruction would be irresponsible. Fernandes argues for considering the "political economy of
storytelling", which refers to two intertwined activities: first, the production, circulation, and
consumption of stories that aim to achieve certain ends; the second is the deployment of these stories in
the process of subject-making (2017, p. 11). She explains that stories disembedded from their contexts -
as K's story is here in this thesis, and as it would be broadcasted on Malai Vanoli - serve to individualize
collective struggles and promote emotional responses and "feeling over thinking" (Fernandes, 2017, pp.
26–27). This form of storytelling does little to improve the conditions of communities, instead, the
relaying of personal experiences devoid of their broader context serves to reinforce the status quo and
see storytellers complicit in their own oppression.
The fact that the broadcasters ask K again and again to tell her story could also be considered
problematic, and borderline exploitative. This represents a powerful example of the co-option of
storytelling to serve the narratives of others. Fernandes observes that storytelling is touted by
grantmakers as an effective tool for evaluation, albeit one that reduces social issues to technical
problems that can be "resolved" through the sharing of personal narratives (2017). In a particularly
salient comment, she critiques western therapeutic discourses that operate through storytelling
“whereby individuals come to blame themselves for their problems and seek solutions by adapting to
rather than challenging the structures that create those problems” (Fernandes, 2017, p. 21). This could be
clearly observed throughout K’s story and is representative of the broader neoliberalism underlying the
spectacle of development. From the perspective of the community radio broadcasters though, the appeal
is clear: she is an articulate speaker who is active in her community and has ties to the station, making
her highly accessible for interviews. Further, the story itself is gripping and emotive, it could have
happened to anyone. The central tenets of the story are also appealing - she gained knowledge as a result
of listening to the station, it is implied that there were dire consequences for her perceived ignorance. In
their recent book, Enghel and Noske-Turner ask if communication in international development is about
doing good or looking good (2018). Given the prosaicism of stories that are divorced from their true,
detailed contexts, this is clearly a case of community radio yielding to, or perpetuating, a development
discourse that serves to make themselves look good rather than actually affecting any meaningful
change.

100
6 Amplify

Context of the spectacle

“I know every minute detail related to agriculture. I know everything about cows and goats. There are 60
types of disorders in a cow and I can identify everything. More than technology, I believe in the experience
I got from my grandfather. Right from my eight years, he kept teaching me. He took me to the
panchayat* and explained to me how to deal with different situations giving an example. He has told me
all the important life philosophy, with simple examples and local sayings. Those days we used to have rice
only on Saturdays while we are in fasting for the god. Other days we will have only millet porridge. We
had four workers to work in our farm. My grandfather will tell me to find out if they will stay for work,
while they join our farm for the first day. If they have seven glasses of porridge, they will stay and work. If
they have just two or three, they will certainly run away unable to do farm work. So, my grandfather will
put his shirt in such way that the farm worker has access to his pocket while he runs away from the work.
As per my grandfather's judgement, the one who had just two glasses of porridge would run away with 20
or 30 rupees from my grandfather's pocket. The one who drinks eight glasses of porridge will stay for
work and take his salary home. He also taught me to identify talents. He has told me that I shouldn't spoil
the soil or a woman's heart. I should water the soil appropriately and not let it dry. In the same way, I
should keep my wife happy and should not make her cry.” - Enkal Vanoli listener.
*The local governance system in a village.
***
Having established the role of development as both an overt spectacle and an insidious force, this
chapter returns to the alternative roots of community radio in order to discuss how the spectacle and
spectres of development can be subverted to support the grassroots needs of the communities. This
chapter begins by briefly discussing and contextualising how the spectacle of development came to be so
ingrained within the community radio sector, before highlighting the similarities between several 'success
stories' within the sector. The key argument here is that, when working within such a pervasive
development discourse, the most effective efforts of community radio stem from amplifying indigenous
knowledge communication systems (IKCS) to share cultural and technical information and knowledge.
IKCS also play an important role in the construction and maintenance of community relations and
rhizomatic linkages across various groups and organisations within the community. This chapter explores
these concepts and examines how they can be observed through the research data.
The spectacle of development seems to influence everything about community radio in India,
from the legislature to the everyday operations. It could be argued that the prevalence of the
development discourse within community radio in India, as well as its lingering, insidious commitment to
a modernisation paradigm, falls far from the participatory, voice-affirming goals of community radio. How

101
did community radio develop in this way? The spectacle of development did not emerge overnight but is
the legacy of colonialism as enacted through broadcasting systems. It is this history that led Page and
Crawley to suggest that, in South Asia, community radio "is a term which is generally used to describe
radio for the benefit of the community rather than radio which the community runs itself" (2001, p. 327).
This is clearly quite different from the "voice for the voiceless", "maximalist participation" interpretations
of community radio that seem to dominate global literature (see Carpentier, 2015; Downing, 2000;
Harcup, 2015; Kivikuru, 2005; Rennie, 2006; Rodriguez, 2001; Tacchi, 2003; among others). Rather, radio
"for the benefit of the community" seems to be the very embodiment of the paternalistic spectacle of
development. It is worth understanding how Page and Crawley came to this conclusion if only to develop
a richer understanding of how the spectacle of development came to be so embedded within community
radio in India. To do this, this chapter delves further into the history of broadcasting in India.
The history of broadcasting in India is deeply rooted in development discourse and colonialism.
Though the history of community radio in India has been discussed in Chapter 4, the historical context of
broadcasting in India more generally offers important insight into the current state of community radio
and its role within a development agenda. A commercial venture, the first radio broadcasting in India
took place under the Indian Broadcasting Company (IBC) which began broadcasting from its first station
in Bombay (Mumbai) in 1927, just seven months after the creation of the BBC (K. Kumar, 2003). The IBC
lasted just over two years before going into liquidation, with the high costs of radio sets, difficulties
associated with collecting license fees, and "Indian conditions and traditions" blamed for its failure (K.
Kumar, 2003). The Government of India took control after this and introduced the Indian Wireless
Telegraphy Act of 1933 to deal with the evasion of license fee payment while also effectively making the
possession of radio receivers and equipment without a license illegal (Pavarala & Malik, 2007).
While broadcasting in India more broadly was struggling to find its feet, there were some early
experiments that could be considered precursors to community radio. Several public servants working in
rural areas made cases for local broadcasting in local dialects with content that was relevant to the
everyday lives of the listeners (Page & Crawley, 2001). Experiments were conducted in Lahore, Poona
(Pune), Delhi, and Peshawar, though none survived very long with even the successful projects absorbed
into the national broadcaster and subsequently losing much of the local focus (Page & Crawley, 2001).
The British investment and interest in Indian broadcasting increased around the second World
War with Sir John Reith, founder and first director general of the BBC, making the case that if India's
needs were not met by its own broadcasting system, there was a risk of listeners tuning into short wave
broadcasts from other countries such as Russia and Germany (Page & Crawley, 2001). Reith argued that
central control was essential for efficiency: this structure and Reith's paternalistic legacy - "to 'improve'
the masses by giving them not what they sought to hear, but what they ought to hear" - influenced AIR
for many years to come (K. Kumar, 2003, p. 2174). Indeed, using AIR for development purposes was a
logical extension for the central government, for which development was a primary goal with AIR its

102
natural, media partner (Page & Crawley, 2001).
Following India's independence, from the 1950s through to the 1970s, the dominant paradigm of
development saw the mass media deployed to change the mindset of the people in order to enable rapid
modernisation through the expansion of communication infrastructure, centralised economic planning
and widespread industrialisation (K. Kumar, 2003). Under Indira Gandhi's Government, the first formal
review of the official media took place in 1964. Known as the Chanda Report, after the former auditor-
general and chairman of the review committee Asok K Chanda, the review was scathing in its critique of
AIR which, in their opinion, had not been adequately harnessed to educate, inform or encourage
participation (Pavarala & Malik, 2007). They found that AIR's programmes were dull with little variety or
engagement with topical political or civic matters; further, there was no audience research taking place,
which could explain AIR's lack of popularity among listeners (K. Kumar, 2003). The Committee’s
recommendations led to the establishment of a competitor to AIR. In 1957, a new channel, Vividh
Bharati, began broadcasting film songs and other light entertainment (K. Kumar, 2003). Ten years later,
Vividh Bharati would, also on the recommendations of the Chanda Report, become India’s first
commercial radio station with advertising ruled unlikely to infringe upon the station’s light entertainment
fare (Baruah, 2017). The Chanda Committee and a subsequent inquiry - conducted by the Verghese
Committee in 1978 - both recommended granting autonomy to AIR and the public television broadcaster,
Doordarshan, a recommendation that wasn't implemented until the late 1990s, after the 1995 Supreme
Court ruling that "the airwaves belong to the public" (Singhal, 2013).
Despite the critiques, AIR has enjoyed some notable successes; the Pune Radio Farm Forum in
the 1950s was one of the earliest. Following a successful Canadian model, the Pune Project established a
network of farm radio forums in five districts of Maharashtra with the aim of broadcasting agricultural
information through a 30-minute programme on AIR and facilitating listener discussions about the
content (Page & Crawley, 2001; Singhal, 2013). The forums were, however, short-lived, with AIR failing to
capitalise on the lessons of the Pune experiment (Singhal, 2013). AIR's local broadcasting also played an
important role in popularising the "Green Revolution" - the industrialisation of farming - and linking
farmers to agricultural extension (Page & Crawley, 2001). AIR's broadcasting to rural areas though, much
like its broader goals, was aimed at furthering development goals through disseminating information. The
broadcasts were in local languages and were intended for community, rather than individual listening (K.
Kumar, 2003). This soon proved to work against local broadcasting, as radio sets quickly became cheaper
and thus more ubiquitous, leading to a decline in group listening (Singhal, 2013). The structure of AIR
itself also worked against local broadcasting: while stations were broadcasting in many local languages,
the programming objectives were set in Delhi and were often politically motivated (Page & Crawley,
2001). Despite its issues, however, AIR's local broadcasting, particularly broadcasts aimed at farmers, are
still very popular. Echoing, or perhaps explaining, the success of farm radio programs on AIR, Ilboudo and
del Castello (2003, p. 39) argue that radio holds particular importance for farmers:

103
 "farmers must be able to communicate with peers, local authorities and institutions and have
access to relevant knowledge and information, including technical, scientific, economic, social
and cultural information. However, to be useful, information must be available to the users in
appropriate languages and formats. At the same time, it must also be up-to-date and
communicated through appropriate channels".
Indeed, quoting an AIR official, Page and Crawley explain that AIR's programmes for farmers are "perhaps
the only service which is fully utilised by listeners because it closely relates to their life" (2001, p. 328).
Given the history of broadcasting in India, it is easy to see how the spectacle of development has
become so ingrained and pervasive. Despite its involvement in early experiments in local and community
radio, Thomas observes that the AIR archives reveal a "fixation with an essentialist, dominant cultural
tradition at the expense of the diversity of Indian cultural traditions" (2011, p. 122). Even the earliest
experiments with community radio, that were subsequently absorbed and dismantled by the national
broadcaster, have colonial, development-driven underpinnings. What does this mean for the
contemporary community radio environment in India? The nature of AIR's successful experiments
provides a clue as to the role of community radio outside of this overwhelming development discourse.
We can extend on this theory by briefly discussing a success story within the community radio sector
before moving on to the data from this research. Despite the plethora of good work undertaken at any
number of community radio stations in India, this section is limited to what could be considered the most
noteworthy, or perhaps best-known, example.
No discussion of community radio in India could take place without mention of Sangham Radio. A
landmark project in India's community radio landscape, Sangham Radio was the first community-based
station that was licensed to an NGO, as opposed to an educational institution (Ghosh, 2011). Located in a
drought-prone and impoverished area in Telangana, the station is managed and run by local Dalit women
(Pavarala & Malik, 2007). Supported by the Deccan Development Society (DDS), a grassroots NGO that
has been working with women, the impoverished and Dalits since 1983, Sangham Radio started
narrowcasting in 1998 and broadcasting in 2008 (Pavarala & Malik, 2007; Shukla, 2014). Sangham Radio
employs a unique community shareholder model in which each one of the approximately 5000 members
contributes roughly 60INR (~0.65GBP) per year towards the maintenance of the station (Pavarala et al.,
2010). In terms of content, the broadcasters cover a range of issues in their local dialect from agriculture
to public health, to education, to gender justice, as well as the promotion of local folk songs and
traditions. Their use of radio and video led to Sangham Radio and DDS taking part in a study of innovative
uses of technology in low infrastructure regions (Tacchi, 2012). Tacchi found that the traditional speaker-
listener relationship here was effectively and deliberately inverted, explaining that the women use
"media for both outward 'speaking' and sharing of knowledge, and inward 'listening'" (Tacchi, 2012, p.
663). Indeed, in their analysis of programming, Pavarala, Malik and Belavadi (2010) observed that less
than one percent of those featured on programmes are professional, external experts such as doctors,

104
scientists or bureaucrats, and that more than 80 percent of programme participants are women and
Dalits. The philosophy of DDS is that the community is a repository of tremendous local knowledge on
agriculture, health, and any number of other topics. As such, their approach represents a reversal of the
top-down communication employed by the mainstream media (Pavarala et al., 2010). This commitment
to communication rights within an integrated approach to development that places rural Dalit women at
the centre has made the work of DDS and Sangham Radio "legendary" (Thomas, 2011, p. 129).
Crucial to the success of Sangham Radio, and the previous AIR experiments, was the involvement
of local people and the sharing of local knowledge. The argument here is that community radio stations
in India are able to do their best work when they are amplifying existing community knowledge
communication systems. This section now discusses the concept of indigenous knowledge
communication systems in more detail before examining how it applies to the research data.

IKCS
Drawing on AIR's early experiments in community and farm radio, as well as the success of Radio
Sangham, it would seem that sharing local knowledge is a critical factor in establishing the value of
community radio. This was echoed in the data of this research, with the best work of community radio, as
recognised by both listeners and broadcasters, occurring when the station was acting as a way of
amplifying existing knowledge communication systems. Manyozo (2012, p. 95) defines indigenous
knowledge communication systems (IKCS) as:
"media and communications that are rooted in local and indigenous epistemology, prior to being
co-opted by external organisations and institutions. Such indigenous knowledge has always had
educational elements that catalyse communities to adopt knowledge and practice that could
strengthen communities".
In addition to sharing local knowledge, there is an important cultural dimension to IKCS as it represents a
repository of a community's history, culture, and identity (Shukla, 2014). IKCS are particularly relevant in
the context of community radio in India because they have the potential to offer horizontal forms of
listening and dissemination of ideas, despite and sometimes within the pervasive influence of
development and modernisation discourse (Manyozo, 2017).
It is, of course, necessary to problematise the term "indigenous". Adjaye interprets the term
'indigenous' as "something that originates from or is rooted in a specific cultural milieu", in contrast with
the 'endogenous' which derives from the external world which, in this context, is usually the west (2008,
p. 237). Indigenous knowledge can thus be conceptualised as "the way of knowing that a social group
generates and accumulates over generations of living in an environment, allowing them to make sense of
their world" (Manyozo, 2018, p. 395). As such, indigenous knowledge tends to be dialogical, interactive,
and deeply embedded within its local context (Adjaye, 2008; Manyozo, 2018). The spectacle of
development is often present within interpretations of indigenous knowledge, positioning it as

105
unscientific, irrational, and the antithesis of modernity: what Mohan calls a "primitivist discourse" (2001,
p. 159). Modernity is hegemonic in how it constructs "the primitive": their knowledge is considered
"irrational or condemned as ethno-knowledge" (Visvanathan, 2006, p. 166). Indeed, there is a tendency
to compare 'indigenous' with 'modernity' as though the terms are mutually exclusive: however,
indigenous does not refer to primitivity but rather to the organisation of social structures and, as such,
can coexist with notions of modernity (Manyozo, 2018; Servaes & Verschooten, 2008). Aside from
positioning indigenous knowledge as 'primitive' and in opposition to modernity, the spectacle of
development also serves to present indigenous knowledge in a way that serves to "exoticize the Other"
(Murphy, 2011, p. 381; Said, 1979). Such a view romanticizes indigenous knowledge which serves to
privilege the cultural over the material and its subsequent appropriation by the west (Mohan, 2001).
Discounting material, westernised consumption as evidence of exploitation fails to acknowledge agency
and complex, hybrid identities, as well as the nuance of indigenous materiality (Iqani, 2016). This
privileging also fails to take a critical view of the role of power within such indigenous knowledge systems
because, naturally, local knowledge reflects local power structures (Mosse, 2001). 'Indigenous' as a key
term is, therefore, at risk of both vilification and deification, neither of which is productive. Shresta (1995,
p. 276) provides an apt summary and warns of the dangers of a lack of nuance in discussions of IKCS:
"I am not trying to suggest that whatever was old was good and desirable and that every aspect
of our lost heritage should be reclaimed. Nor am I implying that the old social structure should
be revived in its entirety and that we should adopt an exclusionary position and advocate
'nativism.' Such a fundamentalist position is neither possible nor acceptable."
As such, this research interprets indigenous knowledge as: behavioural, social, and political; intrinsically
linked to local context; compatible with, rather than in opposition to, modernity; and subject to the
hegemonic structures of the society.
Having established a working definition of indigenous and, therefore, IKCS, it is useful to now
explore different types of IKCS. IKCS does not take just one form: it is, of course, unique to its community
and context. Manyozo (2012, 2018) proposes a useful theory of three forms of IKCS: common knowledge,
technical and non-specialised knowledge, and privileged and specialised knowledge. He defines common
knowledge as daily lived experiences within "open public forums... such knowledge is aimed at giving
community members a sense of identity and citizenship, by increasing their levels of social capital as well
as and their social and knowledge infrastructure" (Manyozo, 2018, pp. 401–402). Technical and non-
specialised knowledge refers to the governance of the "legislative, political, economic and social" aspects
of a community and its resources (Manyozo, 2018, p. 103). Finally, privileged and specialised knowledge
"mediates the relationship between the community and its gods or spirit deities" (Manyozo, 2018, p.
405). In highly spiritual communities, this represents the highest form of IKCS as it can influence the other
two. While Manyozo's theory offers a useful guide to understanding different types of IKCS, this thesis
restricts itself to discussions of the first two categorisations of IKCS, common knowledge and

106
technical/non-specialised knowledge. Though the third category undoubtedly plays a role at both
research sites, given the time spent in the field, any conclusions or discussions of privileged/specialised
knowledge would be speculative and irresponsible. The importance of privileged/specialised knowledge
at Malai Vanoli, in particular, with the highly traditional tribal villages within its broadcasting range, could
be observed even from the perspective of an "outsider". Nonetheless, an in-depth discussion of the role
of privileged/specialised knowledge in community radio lies outside of the scope of this thesis but
represents a valuable area for future research.
As briefly discussed, it is important to recognise that IKCS are not immune to the spectacle of
development. They too have been co-opted and approached through a frame of modernisation, where
the assumption is that, unless they are repackaged to fit western modernity, indigenous systems are
"unitary, unbounded, static, consensual, non-reflective, unscientific and traditional" (Manyozo, 2018, p.
396). Indeed, this assumption underpins much mainstream development thinking: those who value
indigenous knowledge are faced with the full weight of the spectacle of development with its highly
qualified "experts" and technological solutions (Cross, 1993). Dominant theories of development see
knowledge transfer from the centres to the peripheries, disregarding the value of existing local
knowledge. Viswanathan (2009) employs the example of a botanical fragment that is appropriated into a
mass-produced drug without any acknowledgment of the indigenous epistemologies that made it
possible. There is silencing and then there is also the re-appropriation of IKCS. Adjaye observes three
different attitudes towards IKCS within the literature: the first is that of those who advocate for the
retention of IKCS and argue for their adoption alongside modern mass communication technologies; the
second involves hybridization/synchronization of the two; and the third group is that of
"supplantationists" who argue for the elimination of IKCS in favour of ICT (Adjaye, 2008, p. 238). Manyozo
suggests that these groupings themselves are "problematically orientalist" as they represent the
commodification and positioning of IKCS outside of modernity (Manyozo, 2018, p. 397).
Community radio has been directly linked to media development initiatives involving IKCS. Media
development refers to building the capacity of the media in order to achieve and support a free, plural,
professional and sustainable press (Deane, 2014). Building media capacity may refer to physical
infrastructure and advocacy work to improve government policies, media ownership and training
opportunities (Manyozo, 2012). The dominant approaches to media development can take a somewhat
supplantationist view, with Scott suggesting that media development, when "transplanted uncritically in
the global South", can completely disregard the importance of IKCS (2014, p. 131). Manyozo goes so far
as to refer to media development as "an instrument of modernisation" (2012, p. 151). He does admit
though, that there are media development initiatives that focus on developing small-scale, local
communication processes and working within, rather than opposed to IKCS (Manyozo, 2012). An
interventionist double-standard remains though, with Berger observing that media development
discourse generally is narrow in its definitions: media development is considered as "externally

107
originating proactive steps to 'develop' the media ... between North-South developers and 'developees'"
while more organic, local growth is not perceived as a form of media development (2010, p. 550). The
formation of news network Al Jazeera is a high-profile example of this double standard: significant for the
perceived "development" of Qatar's media landscape, yet rarely considered an example of media
development (Berger, 2010). Scott (2014, p. 96) provides a succinct summary of this critique:
"Focussing on media development as an external intervention is problematic because it obscures
the central role of internal or indigenous developments within the media. This is important
because the most successful examples of media development are widely agreed to be those
driven by local governments and people, rather than donors."
Such an example of this is the advocacy efforts around India's Right to Information (RTI) laws. Started in
response to a perceived need, the grassroots social movement placed emphasis on voice and
participation, and rejected institutional financial support in favour of local contributions (Scott, 2014;
Thomas, 2008). Support was garnered through the use of local pedagogical tools and eventually gained
enough momentum to successfully lobby for a more enabling media environment (Malik, 2015; Thomas,
2014a).
Community media has run the gamut of experiences in terms of IKCS and media development.
The experiments with rural telecentres in India, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7,
represent a technocentric, supplantationist view of IKCS, while Sri Lanka's Kothmale Community Radio
and its internet radio programming offer a form of hybridization. It could be argued that the
establishment of community radio stations by NGOs, as opposed to organically from the community
(extremely difficult in India's legislative environment, see Chapter 4), represents an interventionist
approach to local media development. What was observed in practice, however, was a balanced
relationship where IKCS were applied to support the work of community radio and vice versa - where
community radio amplified existing IKCS.

Technical
“They asked me to speak about agriculture in the radio. For the past six or seven years, I am doing organic
farming without the use of pesticides and insecticides. My father learnt this technique from Burma. We
usually need 30kg of seed per hectare but through this method 3kg is enough for a hectare and we could
save 27kg. Instead of planting five or six paddy saplings together, in this method we can plant just one
sapling. I attended a meeting where 55-year-old man told that we can avoid use of insecticides if we plant
the saplings in a row such that sunlight directly falls on them. Sunlight prevents the saplings from the
attack of insects and other pests. After learning this technique, I have been doing agriculture without the
use of insecticides. Initially, people in my community discouraged me that this technique won't work out
and scolded me for spoiling the agricultural land. This method won't look good for the initial 15 to 20 days
but later, only after the crop’s development, they believed in me. This method is very fruitful as it gives

108
good yield, chemical-free food crop to the people, and less expenditure. It is problem-free yield as it never
gets affected even if the cows graze. It is not that every people knew everything. Only through radio, I
came to know about organic farming. I also learnt about various diseases that would attack the cattle and
also learnt the cure for them through radio. I also came to know about Ayurveda medicines through radio.
I came to know about ayurvedic cure instead of English medicines. I had ulcer trouble for many years and I
used to take Digene tablets as a temporary cure. Only through radio I came to know it is harmful to take
Digene tablets so I stopped those tablets. They tell many useful information. They tell about the need to
eradicate seemai karuvaeli (an invasive species of cactus), encourage renovating local water bodies, they
tell about fish farming in the local water bodies and what kind of fish will be suitable to grow in lakes.
They also tell about poultry farming with country chickens at home, techniques to maintain them and to
prevent them from the local diseases. I've gained a lot of profit through the information told in the radio.”
- Enkal Vanoli listener.
***
For ease of analysis, this thesis separates the types of IKCS observed into two categories: technical and
cultural. While Manyozo's theoretical types offer a solid foundation from which to launch inquiry, given
the diversity of the community radio stations and the villages and groups within their broadcasting range,
a broader categorisation was necessary in order to capture the range of IKCS. Technical IKCS represent a
key area of knowledge production and sharing at both stations. This area of IKCS draws from Manyozo's
(2012, 2018) conceptualisation of technical and non-specialised knowledge and its focus on the
management of the community's resources including land and water. Technical IKCS may also refer to
other forms of technical knowledge that are not so easily categorised using Manyozo's theory. The
technical knowledge of women, particularly surrounding local medicine, health, and nutrition, was
observed as a key area of knowledge sharing across both stations. This section discusses the iterations of
technical IKCS as observed and discussed in the research.
Technical IKCS was most noticeably observable at Enkal Vanoli, given its agricultural focus and
the composition of their parent body (a farmers' federation). Recalling the earlier discussions of AIR, farm
radio has a strong tradition in Indian media, which was clearly articulated by listeners and broadcasters at
Enkal Vanoli.
"Farmers have habit of copying other farmers. They copy the same crop that the farmers are
planting. If a farmer plants Basmati paddy and gets 20 sacks per hectare, the other farmers also
do that. If any other farmer plants IR20 and faces loss, the other farmers desist from doing that.
We learn from experiences and caution ourselves. We know all this as we are doing agriculture
from very young age. Many other farmers listen to me in the radio and do cultivation. If I plant
lady's finger, the other farmers tell my speech was good and they are also planting the same and
ask me to pay a visit. I will feel very happy. Some call me and ask me remedy for white patch
disease in lady's finger. I will tell them remove the plant and suggest organic and inorganic

109
 medicine to be sprayed... If I am always in my farm without contact with the outer world. I won't
know all this. And even if I come to know, I should tell it to other farmers also. If I attend a
meeting, I should come and tell what was told in the meeting. Out of hundred things told in the
meeting, one particular thing will be very important. It will be a fact that we didn't know before
and will be told by a youngster. In China, a young boy can tell how much amount of water is
needed to cultivate 1kg of rice and for 1kg of meat, by referring to the net. I cannot refer to the
net and tell the same. Let it be a youngster or let it be an elderly person, we should take whatever
is productive. We should also take scientists words and even thief's words. Even they'll have some
stuff to tell us." - Enkal Vanoli listener.
Such a testimony says a lot about the knowledge sharing tradition of local farmers and the relatively
progressive attitudes in terms of new approaches to agriculture. Such an attitude was also observed by
Ilboudo and del Castello (2003) who noted that, when introduced by familiar, trusted sources of
information, rural populations are receptive to innovation and creative application of technology. Critical
within this statement though is the importance placed on communication and knowledge sharing
between farmers, as opposed to external parties. This was recognised in Enkal Vanoli's approach to
agricultural broadcasting and their use of "resource" people from the community as opposed to external
"experts"
"We do not have many resource person from our side in the community radio. People are our
resource persons. Only their experience helps us. In regard to agriculture, it is traditional and
inherited through generations. They will like to go according to what experienced farmers do.
Even if we bring agricultural officials to guide them, they wouldn't listen. They will follow only
what successful farmers have done. If a farmer has took high yield in brinjal or paddy, they wish
to follow the same. Agriculture is a thing that is inherited through generations and hence
experienced farmers are our resource persons. In our radio, people are our contributors."- Enkal
Vanoli broadcaster.
Technical IKCS were not restricted to just agricultural information. Health and medicine represented key
areas of technical IKCS, particularly among the female listeners.
"I have spoken about pregnancy. I have given suggestions about the diet of pregnant women.
What all they can eat and what should be avoided. Also, I have suggested about food habits for
each trimester and how we should take care of ourselves in the time of delivery. The radio people
and I were mutually happy for this programme. And importantly, I told from what I know very
well and that made me content." - Malai Vanoli listener.
The value of such knowledge sharing is intrinsically related to the local contexts. Many listeners were
unwilling to seek professional medical help unless it was absolutely necessary due to the prohibitive costs
and travel distances to health services. As such, IKCS focussing on local remedies to common problems
were popular among the listeners.

110
 "They conducted a debate show emphasizing the importance of taking fruits. They set the debate
as a conversation between a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. It was easily understandable.
The doctor has advised me to take fruits such as apple, pomegranate, and mozambi as it is good
for my health. But through this programme, we can get such advice without visiting a doctor so it
is helpful. The other thing is, we got to know more about homely medicine through our mothers.
Now, as my daughter volunteers in the radio, she collects facts from the old grannies about this
medicine, records it and tell it in the radio. In such times, it is helpful for us to know some
unknown facts. It tells about the simple medication for the children. Last week, my friend
complained that she has a burning sensation in her throat. I remember hearing a granny telling in
the radio that vallarai keerai (a kind of local spinach) soup will heal it. I tried once for me and I
got cured. So, I considered doing it for her. But I was little hesitant but somehow, I took spinach
from my garden and gave her the boiled spinach soup around 3 in the afternoon. By 8 in the
night, she told she got completely healed of that burning sensation. She did not even consult with
the doctor as it was completely healed. It is useful for such small health issues. And we got to
know about it only through the radio." - Malai Vanoli listener.
"Earlier, my son used to fall sick every now and then and develop fever. I usually had take
him to doctor at least once a week as he was malnourished. But after I participated in this
programme, I came to know about local medicines that would help anaemia. I started giving
moringa leaves soup and several other pulses which are rich in iron. I'm not telling it for the sake
of telling, but it really worked better on my son, he is ok now. I have reduced the frequency of
taking him to the doctor and he is sufficiently nourished now. I am happy that he is playing
normally as any other child, which was not the case earlier. It is surely a benefit I reaped through
the radio." - Enkal Vanoli listener.

The programming area of health represents an interesting intersection in terms of IKCS and the
development imperatives of the stations. While both listeners and broadcasters discussed the value of
sharing traditional, local medicines, there also remains a significant emphasis on 'modern' or, as one
participant put it, "English" medicine. Building on Adjaye's categorisations of IKCS literature, Manyozo
defines "knowledge integrationism" as a form of IKCS which refers to "the co-existence and duality of
modern and traditional governance systems in the global South" (2018, p. 399). The approach to health
coverage at both stations could be considered a form of knowledge integration: community radio
facilitates dialogue between "exogenous and indigenous knowledge" (Manyozo, 2018) and provides
listeners with the information that enables them to make decisions that best suit their circumstances.

Cultural
"The self-help group I am in went to the city to get a loan. After the loan got sanctioned, the tribal people

111
became happy and told that they want to dance in front of the collector immediately. I shied away
thinking that the women are also going to dance. But the tribal people did not take it as a great deal.
Seeing me enthusiastically watching their performance, one girl from the group called out to me and
asked me join the group and she will teach me the steps. While I was still shy, she told me stand in the
centre so that they would dance around. So, I performed with them that day. And that is why I started
listening to the tribal programme in the radio every day." - Malai Vanoli listener.
***
This section focusses on how cultural IKCS could be observed in my field data, which may involve
recording and sharing of local cultural traditions and practices of the various groups within the broadcast
range, as well as sharing the cultural talents of listeners. Supporting cultural IKCS represents an important
role of community media. Gumucio-Dagron rather poetically writes that "culture does not exist in a
vacuum of silence and confinement; culture lives because it is communicated" (2014, p. 110). He sees
community media as playing a critical role in this communication of culture, particularly in terms of its
ability to facilitate "balanced negotiations" and "dialogue in equal conditions" among cultures, as
opposed to mass media information flows where one culture dominates (Gumucio-Dagron, 2014). This
could be more readily observed at Malai Vanoli given the unique cultures of the different tribal groups
within their broadcasting range. Tribal listeners were often given the opportunity to share their cultural
knowledge:
"They will ask us to sing devotional songs and I have sung such songs."
"I have also sung, I have told about my culture, I have told about agriculture if they asked about
it." - Malai Vanoli listener focus group.
IKCS in this context also involves the preservation of local traditions and customs. Community radio can
play a role in reducing the distance between the conditions of cultural production and the everyday
experience from which such cultural productions emerge (Atton, 2001). Community radio working in this
capacity was discussed by listeners and volunteers at both sites who recounted their experiences in how
their cultural practices had been shared and supported by their community radio stations.
"We went to the field where they collect seedlings. That was a raining season when seedlings
were transferred. We went there asked to sing the folk songs and record them. They sang for all
of us so that it gets broadcasted in radio. By singing leisurely, they work and enjoy at the same
time. In the old days they used to sing, even now they are singing. I added kulavai (ululation) in
that. It is customary and auspicious to raise kulavai and start the transplantation of seedling.
What they shared on that day was really impressive. Through our radio, our villagers' talents
came to limelight." - Enkal Vanoli volunteer.
"Recently the radio hosted a baby shower ceremony. I'm conceived for the second time
and hence baby shower ceremony was not done at home. But radio people hosted it and many
other women who are not privileged to celebrate this ceremony at home participated in this

112
 ceremony. It was happy for us and it is a useful thought too." - Malai Vanoli listener.

Several community radio stations have also developed formats specifically aimed at preserving
and sharing the culture of the local community. In one of many noteworthy cases, Shukla (2014) points to
Rudi No Radio in Gujarat and its programme that preserves the history of the community through
recording and broadcasting the memories of village elders. Malai Vanoli placed particular emphasis on
this aspect of IKCS, perhaps due to the prominence that its parent body gives to preserving and recording
the local traditions and customs. The broadcasters spoke passionately of their role in preserving and
sharing the unique cultures and traditions of the different tribal groups within their broadcast range.
They also noted that their listeners expressed appreciation for such work and how they had applied such
cultural learnings to their everyday life.
"We do work with diverse communities because the knowledge that one community withholds
will not be present in other community. Through their knowledge, we could help other
community."
"We do programs on English health and medication. Although it is useful, the listeners
request us to do programs on traditional medicine. So, we travel to the villages and get
knowledge about traditional medicines from the elderly people. In olden days, one tribe used to
have a priest who prescribes traditional medicine. There was a religious reason for the people to
go and visit the temple while they are sick. But apart from this, the priest knew certain traditional
herbs that would cure certain ailments. They will advise people to take certain herbs that would
be best for petty health problems." - Malai Vanoli staff group interview.
Community radio operating in such a role is particularly important given the increasingly globalized media
environment. Howley argues that community media support and encourage local cultural production and
autonomy in the face of "the homogenizing influence of national media industries and the encroachment
of cultural forms produced and distributed by transnational corporations" (2002, p. 11). Encouraging
cultural production and showcasing the talents within their local communities were seen as key roles by
staff at both stations.
"Also, we encourage them to display their talents through radio. For example, in our countryside
they sing a lot of folk songs while they work in the field... But in spite of all the shortcomings, we
have recorded over 200 folk songs." - Enkal Vanoli broadcaster.
"Even recently one of the listeners wrote a poetry for us and recited in the radio." - Malai
Vanoli broadcaster.
Broadcasters at Enkal Vanoli also discussed the difficulties that they encountered in pursuit of this aim.
When working with their female listeners, they had developed several strategies to make them feel more
comfortable about engaging in cultural IKCS.
"Women have many talents and in the way of bringing out their talents in the radio we engage

113
 with them."
"It's very difficult to make women talk. They hesitate at first point because they think
they lack knowledge in certain topics. So, I take some books handy while I go for interviews. If
they can't suddenly remember any. I will ask them read from the book and tell some points. After
a few points gradually they will remember some more points on their own. Some women need
motivation to talk. I simply talk to some women to motivate them for speaking in the radio. Few
women will like to talk on their own. But few others will prefer answering for questions. For such
people, I will ask questions such that they answer. Sometimes we'll ask them to refer to the book
we take. Sometimes we ask them to consult with their elders if what they speak is correct." -
Enkal Vanoli staff group interview.

Community radio clearly plays a key role in amplifying the cultural aspects of IKCS. Community
radio serves to amplify existing cultural IKCS by recording and sharing the various cultural acts and
traditions of groups within their broadcasting range. Not only does this contribute to greater
understanding and communication between different segments of the listening community, but it also
serves to act as a cultural repository. Aside from this, community radio offers space for listeners to
engage in their own forms of cultural production by allowing them to showcase their talents, be it
singing, poetry, storytelling, and so on. In these ways, community radio represents a valuable tool of IKCS
regarding culture.

IKCS and the rhizome

Related to the role of community radio in amplifying IKCS is the conceptualisation of community radio as
rhizome. Briefly discussed in Chapter 4, the rhizome is one of four theoretical approaches to community
radio as posited by Bailey, Cammaerts, and Carpentier in their seminal work, Understanding Alternative
Media (2007). Though the authors suggest that the four approaches should be considered together, they
concede that special attention must be given to community media as rhizome (Bailey et al., 2007;
Santana & Carpentier, 2010). Community radio as rhizome draws on the work of Deleuze and Guattari
(1988) and refers to the fluid, contingent nature of the medium and the ways in which community radio
connects various disparate elements of society to each other (Bailey et al., 2007). Deleuze and Guattari
suggest a number of characteristics of a rhizome: connection, multiplicity, heterogeneity, no beginning or
end, it is always between things, an intermediary (1988). Deleuze and Guattari (1988) suggest that the
philosophy of the state is arbolic: linear, hierarchical and static. In contrast, the rhizomatic is "non-linear,
anarchic and nomadic" (Carpentier et al., 2007). The rhizome has also been used in postcolonial theory to
conceptalise power flows and dispute the centre/margin view of reality. Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin
suggest that the “repressive structures of imperial power themselves operate rhizomatically rather than
monolithically” (2013, p. 207). The connection and heterogeneity of a rhizome imply that any point of the

114
network can connect to any other point and multiplicity suggests that rhizomes operate outside of fixed
sets of rules (Santana & Carpentier, 2010). Therein lies the importance of community media: through the
"catalysing role they can play by functioning as the crossroads where people from different types of
movements and struggles meet and collaborate" (Carpentier et al., 2003, p. 62). This mediated
interaction need not take place at the individual level and can involve groups, organisations, and even
interpretive communities (Carpentier, 2015). Indeed, community media as rhizome also accounts for the
linkages and interconnections between community media and civil society, as well as with the market
and state (Carpentier & Doudaki, 2014). Community media as rhizome also contribute to the
amplification of IKCS by establishing themselves as what Jallov refers to as "efficient local knowledge
centres" through the creation of "independent, sustainable, and indigenized" networks (2005, p. 33). The
next section explores the relationship between community radio as rhizome and IKCS, specifically
through social linkages and links with other organisations and groups within and outside of the
community.

Social
"As most of our listeners are farming communities, it builds a sense of oneness among them. They
appreciate the programs that were good. Women especially bond well through radio. Some women
formed a motherly bond which one of the regular speakers. They were requesting me many times for
meeting her in person. I arranged their meeting in one of the events, and they exchanged their numbers
and grow affectionate since then. Even people who haven't met face-to-face appreciate if some content in
radio is good. Also, they are very affectionate towards the radio staff and develop friendship with us. So, I
hope in this way we built a sense of community." - Enkal Vanoli broadcaster.
"Yes, one Amma came to our village for cooking competition. But she later become our soul
mother. She shared her preparations with us and treated us like her daughter. She was a stranger and we
didn't even know her before. But she instantly bonded with us sharing her sorrows. Now we are in regular
contact with her." - Enkal Vanoli listener.
***
A critical aspect of both community radio as rhizome and as amplification for IKCS is the social
interactions and relationships that are built and maintained through the station. The role of the social is a
basic assumption of IKCS, which sees individuals, not as socially isolated, but as members of social groups.
These social relationships affect how media messages are received, with information often shared with
friends and family before the individuals themselves react to it (Adjaye, 2008). Indeed, for Manyozo, a
key purpose of common knowledge in IKCS is increasing levels of social capital and "giving community
members a sense of identity and citizenship" (2018, pp. 401–402). The social relationships facilitated by
the community radio stations were a major recurring theme throughout the research, with listeners and
broadcasters at both stations discussing the importance of interpersonal relationships for the stations

115
broadcasting and other activities.
Establishing and maintaining social relationships emerged as a critical factor in enabling the radio
station staff to do their jobs. The importance placed on local knowledge at both stations meant that
strong social networks within the community are essential.
"It's not easy if we don't connect with them personally. They won't immediately talk to us if we
give them the mic. First, we try to make them understand that we are no strangers and we come
from radio that is within their geographical region that is broadcasted one and only for them.
Next, we explain them that if they knew something and if they share it in the radio then 10 other
people will benefit from that. Also we should encourage them that the display of the talents
through radio will fetch them some other better chance from outside. For example, in our
countryside, they sing a lot of folk songs while they work in the field. But if you ask them to
personally sing and record, they might not be comfortable. Only by talking to them continuously,
we could overcome all these crisis. But in spite of all the shortcomings, we have recorded over
200 folk songs. Especially when it comes to the kids it is very difficult. They will have talent and
they will have experience talking before but they will hesitate while we record. We should make
them comfortable and we should make them feel that we are one among them and only then
they will talk. We should also convince the people to make use of opportunity to talk in a radio
which is otherwise quite impossible for the people to go to other radio stations and talk." - Enkal
Vanoli broadcaster.
"Listeners will not interact with us properly when we go for the first time. Only when they
get to know what's better they'll start sharing their personal stuff. Even to share useful
information on the radio we should be well known to them. While we go for the first time they
get all nervous as they have to speak in the radio and they won't open up properly. But weeks
after weeks they get accustomed and they make themselves ready to speak in the radio in
between the gap of each visit. So, following up goes a long way." - Malai Vanoli broadcaster.
"The listeners who know us or who have participated in radio program, invite us to
record any of their temple fair or any events that happens in their village. They feel proud that
their village event is broadcasted in the radio." - Enkal Vanoli broadcaster.

One of the broadcasters at Enkal Vanoli had only been working at the station for about one month at the
time of fieldwork. He observed that the social relationships between the station staff and their listeners
represented a key difference between community radio and other media.
"I did not have a community radio in my home place. I used to listen to All India Radio. But I feel it
did not create the impact that community radio could create. There it is a wide range and there
are a lot of audience but there is a disorientation in interaction. But here it's all the small
geographical area and we could interact very well. That's what I like about community radio." -

116
 Enkal Vanoli broadcaster.
The social nature of interactions between broadcasters and their listeners often led to unexpected
discussions and interview topics:
"People do share their personal experiences. We actually go for some other interview, but they
start interacting with us about their personal experiences."
"Whenever we go for interview we become one among them. Even today we went for an
interview for snake awareness. But they invited us to their home and served tea and got us some
fresh merakkaai (vegetable pear). All this happens when we go for field work. We become their
friends while we go for any recording." - Malai Vanoli broadcaster group interview.

It is clear that the broadcasters' investments in building relationships with their listeners is
worthwhile. A number of listeners discussed their relationships with the broadcasters as individuals as
key motivators for their engagement and participation in the radio.
"The workers in radio are in regular contact and they became my friends. I participate in all the
events organised by the radio. I also follow the programmes in the radio. We spend time for radio
out of our busy schedule as it is useful for us in many ways." - Enkal Vanoli listener.
"They are one among us. We consider them as a friend or sibling." - Malai Vanoli
listener.

A further aspect of the role of community radio as rhizome, and as amplifying IKCS, is the way in
which the stations facilitated social linkages between disparate groups of listeners. This was observed
and discussed most frequently at Enkal Vanoli, possibly given the larger body of volunteers that the
station engaged.
"We haven't socialised much before. But now we go to the radio and do programmes. We
ourselves are surprised listening to our voices in the radio. We cannot believe it is our work.
Likewise, we got many friends outside our village. We meet them once or twice in any events but
later become thick friends. We even invite them over to our houses while they come here. We
have got many friends."
"Apart from this radio workers, we also maintain a good friendship with the volunteers
from other villages. We all are in volunteering team and hence we know each other. We are in
regular contact and maintain a good friendship with them."
"As I have done my diploma in nursing, I basically knew a few things. But if I had to tell
something that I learnt after listening to the radio, it is connecting with people." - Enkal Vanoli
listener/volunteer focus group.
Relevant to this aspect of community radio as rhizome and IKCS is the role of community radio in
the construction and maintenance of communities. As discussed in Chapter 4, community radio

117
audiences may actively engage in the construction of meaning and communities, but these articulations
operate within and are partially influenced by shifting temporal, cultural, environmental, historical, and
socio-political structures, including IKCS (Gibson, 2000). Viewing community radio as a process of
articulating community through the linking of separate entities, as implied by the rhizome metaphor,
enables one to consider the complex role that stations play within their communities, particularly in a
development context, and the role that listeners play in contributing to this process. Manyozo writes that
IKCS have "always had educational elements that catalyse communities to adopt knowledge and practice
that could strengthen communities" (2012, p. 95). Employing the rhizome metaphor alongside IKCS
provides a useful framework for understanding how community radio facilitates what Howley describes
as "an ongoing process of community building and maintenance" (2009, p. 64). Bessire and Fisher (2012)
suggest that, in this context, it may be more productive to view the concept of 'community' as created, to
some extent, by the media forms that audiences engage with, rather than as a paradigmatic way of
understanding community radio. While this seems a media-centric approach to constructing community,
such a definition of community allows space for multiple communities to be served by a single
community radio station, as was observed at both stations.

Other organisations
"If there is any new scheme implemented by the government, the radio makes people aware of it and tells
the details of the scheme and which government official should be approached for getting the scheme
done. Similarly, if there is an agricultural scheme or subsidy, the radio tells them the process of obtaining
the subsidy, the agricultural officials to be met etc. Even if the farmer is ignorant, the radio will make
them aware of it and acts as their guide. If not for the radio. we need to go and tell people individually
about the scheme but now radio does the job." - Enkal Vanoli listener and parent body member.
***
Community radio as rhizome also involves linkages with other organisations and groups within and
outside of the community. These linkages develop in two ways: firstly, through the broadcast of
information, such as in the previous interview excerpt; secondly, through the other activities of the
station, unrelated to broadcast content. In this context, sharing information about schemes and subsidies
relevant to their listeners represents an important aspect of community radio as rhizome. Sharing such
information is a relatively common phenomenon across community radio stations in India, especially
given the number of schemes and subsidies available but the relative dearth of information on how to
access them (Shukla, 2014). Broadcasters noted that this represented a recurring theme of the feedback
from their listeners: they want information about the schemes relevant to them.
"Some people ask us about the subsidies from the government and request us to broadcast that
information in the radio." - Enkal Vanoli broadcaster.
The role of community radio in this regard is also recognised by the local government, with Malai Vanoli

118
fielding requests from their local representatives to share information about their various schemes.
"There are few local schemes sponsored by the panchayat. Not every people will be aware of this.
So, they requested to give information and do programs regarding the schemes. We spoke to the
panchayat and do programs that creates awareness among the people." - Malai Vanoli
broadcaster.
The station manager of Malai Vanoli however, expressed frustration at having to negotiate with
government officials to gain information about the various scholarships available. It appears this linkage
was more arbolic than rhizomatic, given that the government officials seem to be offering one-way
communication, strictly on their terms.
"People of these tribal communities are not very rich. There is middle-class people or low-class
people. They sought our help for education. They ask us if we could help them getting
scholarships from the government. But most of the time we cannot help them as it is difficult to
correspond with officials regarding scholarship. There is another problem too. The officials do not
allow us to broadcast these matters in radio as they fear any complication in future. They will
avoid meeting us even if we ask for appointments. Because of this information flow is cut down. I
consider this as a huge problem." - Malai Vanoli station manager.
Information sharing via community radio stations also create rhizomatic linkages through phone-
in programmes. Such programmes, particularly those linking health professionals and agricultural experts
with listeners, were widely used and appreciated, particularly at Enkal Vanoli.
"We do many medicinal programs, where doctors participate as expert speakers. Programs will
be useful for the people who cannot go and meet the doctor by getting an appointment. They can
directly call and talk to the doctor about their ailments. They get benefited by this way."
"The doctors they are talking about are high profile doctors and it is nearly impossible to
meet them in person if not through the radio. So it is very useful for listeners and creates a
connectivity. The gynaecologist charges Rs. 300 for an appointment. But she does it for free for
the radio. Even though we cannot meet her in person, we could talk to her through the radio. She
also gives preference if we tell her that we come from the radio. One of our members took her
mother for a check-up as she developed symptoms of diabetes. The doctor is a famous
diabetician and charges thousand rupees for an appointment. But he did the tests for free and
charged minimal amount for the treatment." - Enkal Vanoli staff group interview.
"We maintain a good link with the radio staff. We visit them frequently. We talk to the
doctors through them. We ask various health-related doubts and doubts about agriculture. We
share whatever problem we face and ask for remedy. We also share about our neighbours'
doubts. Sometimes while we cannot talk to the doctor directly we tell to the radio staff and they
convey it to the doctor. Most of the time we contact doctor through the radio only." - Enkal Vanoli
listener.

119
 Both stations also had several initiatives in place to engage with various other organisations in
the community. Building and maintaining these organisational linkages represented a significant part of
staff responsibilities. At the time of site visits, Malai Vanoli was in the process of engaging with local
schools on developing a waste management program as an extra-curricular activity for students. The idea
for such a program emerged from a staff meeting and aligned closely with the aims of the parent body, as
well as a local government initiative on recycling and reducing plastic use. Enkal Vanoli also placed
emphasis on engaging with local schools and colleges, with groups of agricultural extension students
from a nearby college visiting the station twice a year. Students were asked to prepare a radio drama skit
on a topic of their choosing that the radio staff recorded for broadcasting later. Two boys performed a
conversation between farmers discussing drip irrigation, two very nervous girls who had been taking
extensive notes recorded a discussion between a mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law, and finally, the
students' professor was interviewed. The recordings were then played for the students who were waiting
outside to much laughter and applause. Such linkages formed valuable relationships with the
communities, which served to support the stations in terms of broadcasting content and other activities.
The influence of the parent bodies was particularly noticeable through the other activities of the
stations. While school visits and hosting medical camps were observed at both stations, more targeted
activities that closely aligned with the parent bodies' objectives were also common. Staff at Enkal Vanoli
invested significant amounts of time in building relationships with agricultural banks in order to build
support for the activities of the parent body. The farmers’ federation facilitates seller’s collectives to
develop value-added products for market. Millet, for example, does not yield profit when sold in its raw
form due to the cuts extracted by middlemen but when farmers are able to produce cookies, flour, or
other products out of the raw materials and sell them as a cooperative, they are able to significantly
increase their earnings. These cooperatives are supported by a local agricultural bank that then works
closely with Enkal Vanoli to publicise such schemes. Malai Vanoli is able to leverage its position within a
larger NGO to inform diverse radio content; a strategy that, according to a broadcaster, is appreciated by
the listeners.
"They like the chunk of informations we provide in the radio. As we are associated with many
departments inside our organisation itself we give a collective knowledge on all these
informations through our radio. They appreciate our move and encourage doing more." - Malai
Vanoli broadcaster.
While community media clearly can act as rhizome in linking disparate parts of civil society, it is
worth noting the power structures and limitations at play. While the linkage activities outside of
broadcasting content are, ostensibly, for the benefit of listeners, there is evidence to suggest that such
activities are shaped by forces external to the radio stations. This was blatantly obvious in the
interactions between government officials and the stations, which seemed to take place strictly on the
terms of the officials. The parent bodies also clearly influenced the rhizomatic linkages that the stations

120
make, as observed through the relationships with agricultural banks at Enkal Vanoli, and the cross-
promotion of other divisions within the parent NGO at Malai Vanoli. This is not to say that the listeners
do not benefit from such linkages, but the role of power relations cannot be discounted, even within the
structural fluidity associated with the rhizome.

121
7 Meaningful participation

Defining participation
Participation is crucial to community radio acting as an amplification system for traditional knowledge
sharing practices. Far from embodying the idealised "maximalist" models of participation as espoused in
traditional definitions of community radio (see Chapter 4), in the stations studied community
participation may best be described as "limited". The discussions that took place in Chapter 5 are
particularly relevant here, alongside several other factors that serve to impact on who can participate
and to what extent. Despite these restrictions, there were many examples of how value or meaning was
derived from these participatory experiences. This chapter makes an argument for widening the lens to
take into account the local contexts and individual experiences of participation. To do this, this chapter
first attempts to establish a broad interpretation of participation in terms of how it applies to community
radio working within a development agenda. The concepts of access and interaction are introduced as
distinct from, yet at times prerequisite for, participation, and the dichotomy of minimalist and maximalist
models of participation are explored. This section concludes with a brief discussion on participation as a
political act laden with power relations. Drawing on the research data, this chapter goes on to outline the
various factors that serve to limit or restrict full or maximalist participation in community radio stations
more broadly, as well as those factors that apply more specifically to community radio stations in India.
Finally, this chapter turns to a discussion of meaningful participation. Meaningful participation is
introduced as a way of understanding participatory experiences that may not redress power imbalances
or even traditionally be defined as participation, but that hold meaning and value for those involved.
Participation remains a subject of intense debate. Its conceptual vagueness and malleable
applications across a range of disciplines have meant that participation has come to mean 'everything
and nothing' (Carpentier, 2011b, p. 14). Given the complex and indistinct nature of the term, rather than
attempting to prescribe a specific definition, this section instead explores how participation has been
classified in the literature, the role of power, and several related but distinct terms that are not
participation. Though this roundabout method may not arrive at a specific, lexical definition of
participation, such an approach aims to generate a broad understanding of what participation might look
like in a community radio for development environment and the various factors that contribute to what
constitutes participation.
Given the complex and malleable nature of participation as a concept, as well as its myriad uses
across numerous fields, several prominent authors have found it valuable to develop various ways of
classifying participation in order to establish a definition. This section will explore several key works
across several fields so as to explore the different degrees, motivations, and influences on participatory
environments. Firstly, we turn to the work of Farrington and Bebbington (2005). Writing from the

122
perspective of agricultural development, they proposed a simple tool for evaluating participation based
on depth and breadth, where "deep" participation sees participants involved throughout all stages of the
process or initiative. The other axis refers to breadth, where "narrow" participation may only involve a
handful of people; as such, participation can be "deep" and "narrow" in the same way it can be "wide"
and "shallow" if many people are involved but their participation is limited to consultation. This tool may
be useful for cursory or rapid assessments of participatory initiatives, but it lacks the nuance to truly
contribute to evaluating or classifying participation in a meaningful way.
One of the most prominent works on participation is Arnstein's (1969) seminal ladder of
participation which retains contemporary relevance. Arnstein suggests that citizen participation is like
eating spinach in that no-one is opposed to it in principle because it is good for you (1969, p. 216). More
academically, she equates citizen participation with citizen power and, from an urban planning
perspective, develops a ladder outlining different levels of redistribution of power from manipulation at
the bottom through to citizen control at the top (Arnstein, 1969). Arnstein's ladder makes specific
reference to the role of power throughout participatory processes, and differentiates between "non-
participation", "tokenism", and "citizen control".
While Arnstein focussed more on those on the receiving end of participatory interventions,
Pretty (1995) developed his model by looking at the users or facilitators of said interventions. In a
typology ranging from "manipulative participation" up to "self-mobilization", Pretty explores the
motivations underpinning participation in the context of sustainable agricultural development. He
suggests that what is implied by his typology is that "the term 'participation' should not be accepted
without appropriate clarification" (Pretty, 1995, p. 1253). There are a number of similarities between the
work of Arnstein and Pretty, though the ‘top’ of Pretty's typology is "self-mobilization", which "may or
may not challenge existing distributions of wealth and power" (1995, p. 1252). In contrast, Arnstein's
"citizen control" sees "have-not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial
power" (1969, p. 217). Despite the more limited nature of Pretty's approach, Cornwall (2008) suggests
that what Pretty demonstrates through this typology is the importance of the motivations underpinning
participation, while Arnstein reminds us that participation is essentially about power and control.
An alternative model, one that focusses more on participation and development, was developed
by White (1996) who explores the various motivations for participation from the perspective of recipients
and those implementing the initiative. She offers four forms of participation from nominal, in which the
participation is mostly for display from the side of the implementer and inclusion or access to benefits
from the side of the participation, through to transformative, in which participation is seen as both a
means and an ends (White, 1996, p. 7). White's model is particularly useful in this context, as it explores
both sides of the participatory exchange, specifically the motivations of potential participants versus the
motivations of an implementing body. Considering competing motivations is a valuable lens through
which to view participatory exchanges, as it begins to shed light on the environmental conditions in which

123
the participation is taking place, as well as the power relations at play.
Turning now to the field of media studies, amidst these ladders and typologies, Carpentier offers
a simplified tool for assessing "participatory intensities" which classes participation as "minimalist" or
"maximalist" (2015, 2016a). Minimalist forms of participation see media professionals maintain control of
the processes and final outcomes, and participation is strictly limited and somewhat superficial.
Carpentier argues that such a model articulates "non-political" media participation and places the
participatory activities of audiences in a vacuum - disconnected from other societal fields and discussions
(2015, p. 18). In contrast, maximalist forms actively work to balance the power structures by encouraging
participation of non-privileged groups and recognising the heterogeneity of audiences. Such an approach,
according to Carpentier, acknowledges the "political nature of media participation" (2015, p. 19).
These models represent just a tiny fraction of the broader literature on participation. Even this
limited segment reveals the complexity of what can be considered participation, and how motivations
and perspectives of those involved in participatory processes can differ greatly. Viewing various accounts
of what constitutes "participatory" through the lens of these models encourages the exploration of both
the motivations and power relations at play and the specific characteristics of the supposed participation.
Despite the number of models and literature surrounding participation, there appears to be little
consensus as to what might actually be considered participation. Is "functional participation" (Pretty,
1995) true participation despite the materialistic motivations? Can "delegated power" (Arnstein, 1969)
really be considered participation when the decision-making power can be bestowed and removed by
higher powers? Is participation in name only, "nominal participation" (White, 1996), real participation or
does it just look good on annual reports? Despite best intentions, in practice, the lines in these ladders
and typologies are complex and unclear. However, this is precisely what should be drawn from such
models and classifications: that participation is, in practice, complex and unclear. There are myriad
factors that may influence participatory processes, hence the difficulty of evaluating participation, let
alone placing it in a two-dimensional model.
A final point to note on these models of participation is that although these typologies offer
simplified, visual ways of thinking about participation and its conditions, what is implied within each is
that more participation is better. To use Carpentier's dichotomy, in each of these cases, maximalist
participation is presented as the peak or the aspirational. More participation implies more power-sharing,
therefore more political power for those "recipients" of participation, with the caveat that the
motivations for this participation should be altruistic and not tainted by thoughts of improving access to
resources or perceived benefits.
What is missing from these discussions is agency. Inherent to the aforementioned models of
participation is the assumption that potential "participants" actually want to participate, given the
chance. The thought that some people could make the active choice not to participate fails to register in
these models (Cornwall, 2008). This could be attributed to a wilful naivety on the part of implementing

124
agencies about the authenticity and motivations for participation (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). Or perhaps it
could be down to an inadequate model of individual action in relation to changing motivations, social
structures and livelihoods (Cleaver, 2001). For whatever reason, the theory that the motivation to
participate is inherent serves to limit the agency of those on the receiving end of the participatory
endeavour. Community media is not immune to such assumptions. Semujju observes that community
media "came with an assumption that merely starting to operate would develop whatever community
they were put into, after all, the media were participatory" (2014, p. 198). Katiyar made a similar
observation, writing that "the participation of the community seems to imply that the motivation for
participation by a community is inherent" (2017, p. 326). In fact, community radio, and other forms of
media and technology, can only facilitate participation if the community is willing and has the capacity to
participate (Katiyar, 2017). The concept of agency is a valuable one to bear in mind throughout
discussions of participation in community radio. To return to Arnstein's simile, despite the theoretical
value, few adults are forced to eat their greens.

Access
Given the complexity of establishing a firm interpretation of participation and how it applies to
community radio, it may be useful to employ a kind of diagnosis of exclusion. Access and interaction are
different but related concepts that are generally not considered to constitute participation in themselves,
but nonetheless, represent important aspects of the broader phenomenon. This section will discuss these
concepts in turn and explore how they relate to participation and community radio. This section also aims
to demonstrate the importance of what some models may term "non-participation".
Firstly, the concept of access represents a key aspect of participation. At its most fundamental
level, in this context, access refers to "the establishment of presence" (Carpentier, 2011b, 2016a). This
"presence" may refer to access to technology and media content, as well as to feedback mechanisms and
presence within the media organisation itself (Carpentier, 2016a). Carpentier has written extensively on
both access and interaction as necessary preconditions of participation, without necessarily constituting
participation in themselves (2015). Nonetheless, access represents a key concept within both media,
communication, and development, and community radio literature. This section explores how access is
conceptualised and operationalised in both fields, before examining how access is interpreted and
enacted in the research data. These discussions serve to illustrate the distinctions between access and
participation while preserving the importance of access as a necessary pre-condition for deeper
participatory experience.
Access represents a key tenet of community radio, as alluded to in Chapter 4. Community radio is
characterised by providing media access to communities on their own terms (Atton, 2001; Pavarala &
Malik, 2007). Indeed, Carpentier, Lie, and Servaes argue that "access by the community and participation
of the community" represent defining features of community radio (2003, pp. 54–55). As discussed in

125
Chapter 4, community radio should act as an alternative public sphere that is accessible to anyone in the
respective community (Guo, 2014, p. 126). Access represents an essential part of Habermas's original
conceptualisation of the public sphere: when defining his seminal concept, he specifically wrote, "Access
is guaranteed to all citizens" (1991, p. 49). Community radio as an alternative public sphere (N. Fraser,
1990) relates issues of access to broader discussions of communication rights. From a communication
rights perspective, access may refer to physical access to media texts and technologies, social access to
public spheres and political debates, and more fundamental personal access to media knowledge and
critical literacy (Fornäs & Xinaris, 2013). Indeed, Thomas suggests that "the right to communication was
built around notions of 'access', 'participation', people's voices and the right of communities to
contribute to the making of communication environments of their choice" (2011, p. 13). The relationship
between community radio and communication rights is particularly explicit in the context of India.
Community radio is said to represent a key part of the broader struggle for communication rights
(Pavarala & Malik, 2007). In India, equitable access to communication media is seriously threatened, not
so much by excessive state power as in the past, but by uninhibited growth of media entities into large-
scale, globalised conglomerates (Pavarala & Malik, 2007). The importance of access to community radio
has been recognised by the governing body of the community radio sector. "Equal opportunity and
access" were underscored as one of nine "non-negotiable principles" of community radio in a
government-funded evaluation of the sector in 2014 (Vemraju, 2014a, 2014b). Investing in access has
paid off for many community radio stations, with Patro and Singh (2017) observing that community
access to stations was a key reason for superior performance in a listenership study. Based on this, it is
evident that access is a crucial aspect of community radio, not just in itself, but also in relation to broader
communication rights.
From a media, communication, and development perspective, access represents an appealing
policy goal and is central to each of the three key approaches discussed in Chapter 2 (Media for
Development, Media Development, and Participatory Communication). Scott argues that "a free press is
not free if the public cannot access it, understand it and contribute to the creation of it" (2014, p. 87).
Similarly, Waisbord refers to the "lack of access to communication and information" as "one of the most
tangible problems in the developing world" (2005, p. 87). Indeed, one of the seminal UNESCO
publications in terms of media, communication, and development, Many Voices One World, colloquially
termed the MacBride report, explicitly advocated for more equal access to communication systems so as
to facilitate "communication between men [sic]" to support development from below (MacBride, 1980,
p. 205). In this context, access implied "the ability of the public to come closer to communication
systems, and in concrete terms, it can be related to two levels: of choice and of feedback" (Berrigan,
1979, p. 18). It was this report that proved influential in establishing the New World Information and
Communication Order (NWICO). This UNESCO project aimed to address the power imbalance between
media corporations and audiences traditionally denied access to media production by providing

126
electronic media directly to citizens and communities (Rodriguez, 2001). Despite its lofty aspirations, the
ill-fated NWICO project had limited success and was critiqued on the grounds of the technologically
determinist assumption that "access equals participation and social change" (Lie & Servaes, 2015, p. 248).
Nonetheless, this example demonstrates the emphasis placed on access within the field of media,
communication, and development.
A more recent example of the operationalisation of access within media, communication and
development initiatives is the short-lived proliferation of telecentres as a part of ICTD interventions. The
centres offered community access to computers and the internet, alongside other "offline" technologies
such as photocopying and digital photography. The assumption was that access to technology, and
therefore information, would result in individuals acting on said information and somehow empowering
themselves (Ratan & Bailur, 2007). The premise is good on paper, but in practice, it takes more than
computers with internet access to realise such lofty goals as increased empowerment, education, and
economic opportunities (Gómez & Ospina, 2001). Despite such lofty goals, citing the work of Kuriyan et
al. in Kerala and Kumar and Best in Tamil Nadu, Ratan and Bailur note that, respectively, 35 out of 60 and
39 out of 35 telecentres were closed or non-functional within a two-year period (2007, p. 120).
Facilitating access does not, in itself, promote development (Gómez & Ospina, 2001). As Mansell (1999, in
Hamelink, 2014, p. 80) explains, the policy bias that focusses on access neglects social process and the
creation of relevant content - both necessary conditions for converting media access to socially or
economically useful knowledge. Similarly, the provision of access, and the subsequent expectation that
said access to information can be leveraged for other ends, fails to take into account disjunctures in
infrastructural growth and development services elsewhere within the development apparatus (Thomas,
2008).
What does this mean for community radio? The telecentre example demonstrates the crucial
distinction between access to technology and the capacity to utilise that technology in a way that the
individual has reason to value (Gómez & Ospina, 2001; A. K. Sen, 1999). Despite the importance placed
on access in both community radio and media, communication, and development literature, it remains a
precondition rather than an end result in more ways than one.

Access in action
Despite the problematic aspects of access from the perspective of both participation, media,
communication, and development, the data supports the importance of access to community radio
stations and their listeners. There were several different aspects of access that served to shape how
listeners were able to engage with their community radio stations and vice versa. These aspects related
to technological access, physical access, and content access.
One of the key challenges identified by both listeners and staff at both stations related to
technological limitations. Though both stations reported tower issues, the station manager of Malai
Vanoli described the further implications for listeners when technological access is limited or denied:

127
 "The greatest challenge is the tower. The information does not reach every people because of the
network problem. We could hear the radio clearly here but not near the radio station. * People
from cities on the plains** call and tell that they're listening to our programs. They cannot
understand the tribal songs but still, ask the meaning of the song through phone. But here there
are only two tribal villages where the radio could be heard. For one group of tribal people, none
of their villages can hear the radio. We play content and songs in their language, but they cannot
hear it. When you are not able to hear the radio, gradually the interest to participate in the radio
programs decreases. They hardly show any interest in participating. Only if they could hear what
they speak they will get interest in participating. I consider this as the greatest challenge. In spite
of this, we record their programs in CD player and play while we go to their villages for field visit.
But nothing matches the joy of hearing their voices in live program."
- Station manager, Malai Vanoli.
* This interview took place in a village some 20km from the station, far beyond the station's 15km
broadcast range.
** More than 100km from the station.
This example clearly demonstrates the broader ramifications of problems associated with technological
access and, more broadly, how access impacts on deeper participation. Due to a technical problem, an
entire key demographic of the station has been denied access and, as such, has lost much of their
motivation to participate further.
Enkal Vanoli has taken major steps to provide technological access to listeners wherever
possible. A volunteer at Enkal Vanoli discussed the results of a listener survey they had undertaken on
behalf of the station:
"Many people told that they will listen to the radio regularly if we provided them one. We asked
them if they need an individual radio or a common radio, they told even a common radio will be
enough, as they could listen to it while they are working in the field". - Enkal Vanoli volunteer.
The results of this survey prompted the station to supply radio sets, where possible. While this provides
access to some listeners, it does little to address or circumvent the tower problems that they, like Malai
Vanoli, regularly experience. As such, Enkal Vanoli has been experimenting with alternative methods of
providing technological access.
"The radio has given us a phone SIM. We receive calls from it and if we attend the call, they tell us
everything about the organisation. People don't listen to FM, so they propagate information using
the phone. We talked over the phone and through video conference. In four or five villages, they
cannot hear because of the tower problem. They have given us FM devices though. They promised
to give radio for all in the beginning, but they only gave for few." - Enkal Vanoli listener.
Similarly, such an approach does little to address the root causes of the technological problems and may
only alleviate access issues for a small number of listeners, it demonstrates the appreciation that the

128
station has of the importance of technological access.
The next aspect of access involves the physical accessibility of the station to listeners. Physical
access refers, not only to the station and its facilities but also to the station staff in terms of social
interaction and building relationships. The geographic location in relation to their broader locality played
a key role in the physical accessibility of the stations. While the Enkal Vanoli station is located on the
main road into a large village, walking distance from several bus stops and even a major highway, Malai
Vanoli is comparatively less accessible. Though within walking distance to a bus stop, the station is
located off the main road, nestled among tea plantations, within the campus of its parent NGO. Though
the NGO is clearly signposted both from the main road and at the entrance, the presence of the station is
not prominently advertised. Indeed, a visitor to the station must follow the driveway that winds up
through the different buildings of the NGO, right to its end, where the station is located. The large
campus is meticulously maintained and presents a professional and efficient image. Though it was not
explicitly mentioned in the interviews with listeners, one is prompted to speculate about the impact of
the somewhat imposing NGO campus and whether such a facade serves to deter uninvited or casual,
spontaneous visits. This is however purely speculative and merits further research.
During the time spent at each station, listeners coming to the station were a semi-regular
occurrence at Enkal Vanoli. One listener was considering rabbit husbandry and recalled that the station
had previously broadcast a programme on the topic. He dropped by the station to ask for advice from the
radio staff and borrow a recording of the programme. On other occasions, the physical location of the
station contributed directly to listener access, with several listeners visiting on their way into the village,
seemingly with no agenda other than to chat with radio staff and have a drink of cold water. This was
reflected in the listener focus groups, with most participants reporting that they had visited the station.
"I have been to the radio station many times. I still remember the first time I visited. I went there
with lots of expectation. I thought that they won't allow us to make any sound or noise. But it was
completely different."
The translator teases that her expectation might have been set by a popular Hindi movie, Radio.
There is laughter and a brief recitation of a song from the movie.
"As the place looked very familiar I got a feeling that I belong to that place. I observed editing and
how live programs are being connected. I also learnt the basics of editing." - Enkal Vanoli volunteer
In contrast, during the time spent at Malai Vanoli, no spontaneous visits from listeners were observed.
There were pre-arranged visits from school groups and interviewees, but for the most part, radio station
staff visited listeners rather than the reverse. Malai Vanoli staff made mention of the fact that they try to
conduct interviews with listeners in the field, so the listeners do not have to travel to the station. The
mountainous terrain, inclement weather, limited public transport, remote nature of some of the villages,
as well as the cost of both transport and lost working time were all observed as barriers to more listeners
visiting the station. Just one participant from the Malai Vanoli listener focus groups had ever visited the

129
station itself.
A further key area of access refers to the accessibility of the broadcast content. Though this has
been discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, it is worth reiterating that the accessibility of the broadcast
content is a crucial factor in community radio. While this primarily refers to the relevance of the content
to the listeners, as previously discussed, an additional aspect of access of this nature is how accessible
the language of the broadcast is to the listeners. This has emerged in other studies as an important
feature of community radio, with Meadows et al. explaining that community radio presentation styles
characterised by a "lack of professionalism" and "the very distinctive and often, personal style of many of
the presenters" are deeply appreciated by audiences (2007, p. 34). Indeed, a more approachable
presentation style is seen to break down the barrier between presenters and audiences, so listeners see
the presenters as "just like us" (Meadows et al., 2007). There are observable differences between the
language use on AIR, for example, which one research participant referred to as "high Tamil", and the
more colloquial voices of both Enkal Vanoli and Malai Vanoli. One listener commented:
"It was like the villager's talk. In other FMs, it will be different. But in this radio, it felt like it was
face-to-face conversation." - Enkal Vanoli listener
It is evident that the personable and colloquial language use of the presenters is valued by listeners and
contributes to the accessibility of the broadcast content. The perceived accessibility of the broadcasters
through their language use and the highlighted comparison to "face-to-face conversation" directly links
to the second necessary precondition of participation: social interaction.

Interaction
The next aspect of participation to be explored here is that of interaction. Interaction, alongside access, is
the second necessary precondition for participation that, in itself, does not constitute participation
(Carpentier, 2015). Interaction is a term with a long sociological tradition and refers to establishing socio-
communicative relationships (Carpentier, 2011b). While access represents a more logistical aspect of
participation, or non-participation as it were, interaction explores more of the socio-communicative
aspects. Interaction represents an important aspect of community radio. McQuail (2000, p. 132) writes of
a "democratic-participant" model of communication that sees alternative media not just as a tool of
political resistance, but as a space for "interaction and communication in small-scale settings of
community, interest group and subculture" that enact "horizontal patterns of interaction". The
importance of interaction is further highlighted by Slater, who argues that "theories of 'the media'... are
fairly meaningless (or 'technologically determinist') if they posit media that are defined independently of
the social worlds in which they are configured in actual use" (2013, p. 97). Interaction is not only valuable
in its role as a precondition to participation, but it is also a critical part of the day-to-day workings of
community radio in its own right.
Interaction can be divided into two dimensions: the social and the communicative (Carpentier,

130
2015, 2016a). Key terms associated with the social dimension include "contact, encounter and
reciprocity", while the communicative aspects are referred to through "response" and "communication
itself" (Carpentier, 2015, p. 14). Though these terms provide a useful guide to exploring interaction within
the research data, in practice, the lines between the social and communicative dimensions of interaction
were significantly blurred. Reciprocity emerged several times throughout the course of the focus groups,
with listeners at both stations commenting on the reciprocal nature of their communicative exchanges
with radio station staff.
"We ask them about things we don't know and they too ask us things they don't know." - Enkal
Vanoli listener.
"They come to us and ask us to participate in the programmes. It is an opportunity to us and it also
benefits them." - Malai Vanoli listener.
Such encounters hint at a rebalancing of power relations between broadcasters and their listeners,
although the extent to which this occurs still appears too superficial to constitute true participation. In
contrast, more perfunctory interactions were also observed in action and noted by the listeners.
"They come to visit us... We speak to them and welcome them when they come. But otherwise,
we do not have any contact." - Malai Vanoli listener.
This example represents contact, or perhaps an encounter, but it seems to align more with the
communicative dimension of interaction, rather than the social.
The social dimension of interaction was roundly recognised by radio station staff as an important
part of encouraging listeners to take part in various activities.
"Listeners will not interact with us properly when we go for the first time. Only when they get
to know what's better, they'll start sharing their personal stuff." - Malai Vanoli staff member
"It's not easy if we don't connect with them personally. They won't immediately talk to us if we
give them the mic." - Enkal Vanoli staff member.
Developing social relationships through sustained interaction was essential to building the connections
necessary to create relevant broadcast content. Though these interactions undoubtedly have a content-
focus, there were undeniable deeper social relationships that developed as a result. This is contrary to
the limited amount of empirical work on the role of interaction within community radio. In one of the few
studies that explores the interaction between community radio producers and audiences from the
perspective of the audience, Atkinson (2008) found that producers usually interact with their audiences
in person, but the exchanges are often superficial or simplistic encouragements. These results were
echoed in the work of Guo several years later. She observed that though community radio broadcasters
are grounded in their communities, "interaction between them and their listeners - those beyond their
personal circles - is limited" (Guo, 2014, p. 130). This was not observed at either of the stations where
this research took place. Though there were undoubtedly many interactions that took place within the
personal circles of the radio station staff, there were also relationships that had developed further than

131
the initial content-focussed interactions, not only between station staff and listeners, but also between
different groups of listeners. Though this will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, the following
account illustrates the development of social relationships based on interaction, as well as the
intersection of physical access:
"We also visited Madam [station manager]. Just we used to go for filling petrol to our vehicle and
the station is on the way. We visit them as if we are visiting our relatives and our parents." - Enkal
Vanoli listener.

Power
It is clear from these discussions that power is a critical influencing factor on participatory processes.
Throughout the various typologies, precursors to participation, and the excerpts from the research data,
it is clear that power negotiations play a key role in how participation is shaped and enacted. Power is a
recurring factor within the various ladders and typologies discussed but it is notable in its absence in the
discussions on access, interaction, and engagement. Carpentier considers there to be two main schools of
thought when it comes to defining participation: a sociological and political. A sociological approach
interprets participation as simply "taking part in particular social processes", while a political definition is
far more restrictive, arguing that participation refers to the "equalisation of power relations between
privileged and non-privileged actors in formal or informal decision-making processes" (Carpentier, 2015,
pp. 71–72). Carpentier is highly critical of a sociological approach in terms of media studies, arguing that
there is more to be gained by taking a political perspective so as to understand the power structures
operating within media participation processes. Considering participation as simply "taking part" in social
processes would render all our prior discussions of access, interaction, and engagement as discussions on
participation, when it is quite clear that, for the most part, they are not. To return to an earlier excerpt
from the data, taking a sociological approach to defining participation reframes the case of a listener
visiting the station on his way to get petrol as participation in a social process, rather than as an example
of access and interaction. Similarly, attempting to place this example on to any one of the typologies of
participation discussed earlier is almost impossible, even when examining the lowest rungs. What is
missing here, is the absence of any power negotiations that differentiate the preconditions of
participation, from participation itself.
Taking a political perspective, as this research does, participation implies power-sharing, rather
than simply taking part in a process. As such, evaluating a participatory process requires questioning
whether any redistribution of power has actually taken place. Based on the research findings, which will
be discussed shortly, taking a political approach that views participation strictly as the "equalisation" of
power relations fails to consider the nuanced negotiations of power that take place across the spectrum
of participatory activities. This is not to discount the role of power within participatory discussions, but
rather to highlight the complexity of negotiating power relations across multiple spheres of influence.

132
Indeed, not every form of participation necessarily involves ousting the powerful; returning to Arnstein,
who considers participation to be a categorical term for power, it is really only the topmost rungs
("partnership", "delegated power", and "citizen control") where citizens experience any sort of "decision-
making clout" (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217). The point of this discussion is not to discount or dismiss any forms
of participation based on their position on a conceptual ladder, but rather to emphasize the role that
power structures play in how people are able to participate. Though the notions of alternative public
spheres and democratised access to media production are somewhat fundamental to understanding the
value of and rationale for community radio, it is important to remember that who is able to participate in
these processes and if or how they are able to do so is still governed by underlying power structures.
Community radio, despite the best of theoretical intentions, remains subject to the participatory and
democratic processes of society and the subsequent power struggles at work (Bailur, 2012; White, 1996).
This is true for community radio broadly and even more so for community radio working within a
development agenda, as discussed in Chapter 5. When Chambers posed his seminal question - "Whose
reality counts?" – the answer was, invariably, that power determines not just whose reality counts, but
also whose knowledge counts and how (Chambers, 1995; Ramalingam, 2013).
Returning to the data, there are few, if any, examples of true participation according to this
emerging political definition. The examples that do emerge come from those in existing positions of
power: representatives from the parent bodies, figures who were instrumental in establishing the
stations, older males of standing within their communities. These were the "participants". These were
the parties who spoke of their ability to share in the power to influence the content of the radio station,
as well as the structures within the station, and impact on the station, such as funding sources and
liaisons with regulatory officials. Does this, then, constitute participation? By our emerging definition,
there is power-sharing and influence on decision-making, but does participation for a small group
represent the upper rungs of the ladders or maximalist dimensions of participation? Is this small group
representative of the broader community? Do they "speak for" others in the sense of the "politics" of
participation, as opposed to the "political" (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001; Spivak, 1988)? The answer must be
no. White (1996) argues that, while participation may have the potential to challenge power relations, it
can also serve to reinforce and reproduce existing structures of inequality. As such, there must be special
mechanisms in place to encourage and support the participation of disadvantaged groups (White, 1996).
This privileged group cannot represent all listeners of the community radio stations, nor do they aim to.
What, then, does this mean for the realities of participation in a supposedly participatory media working
towards participatory development outcomes?

Limited participation
What is evident from these brief discussions on participation is the prevalence of "non-participation" -
access and interaction - and the complexity of power relations operating within and impacting on

133
participatory experiences. While community radio rhetoric paints an idealistic picture of maximalist
participation, with non-participation gracefully giving way to full and open participation for all, what
emerged from the research findings was very different. There were clearly structures in place that served
to influence the breadth and depth of participation in community radio in India. As has been observed
across the lower levels of the ladders and typologies of participation, the concept of restricted or limited
participation is not a new one. Pateman (2014) terms "partial participation" as the process when two or
more parties influence each other in a decision-making process, but the final decision-making power rests
with only one of the parties. In contrast, full participation sees each member of the process hold equal
power in determining the outcome of the decision (Pateman, 2014). Returning to the field of media
studies, Carpentier (2015) draws on the examples of talk shows and reality television in his work on what
he terms "structural" participation: participation that only occurs within the media organization's
decision-making structures. In contrast to structural participation is content-related participation, which
constitutes a different sphere of decision-making, but, despite giving participants the chance to exercise
their right to communicate, still takes place within the power structures of the media (Carpentier, 2015,
2016a). A further illustrative example of this comes from the work of Ewart in her discussion about the
brand of participation employed by talkback radio programmes. She observes the importance of
considering the specific conditions and processes that affect the interaction and participation facilitated
by talkback radio: “such processes, rather than facilitating participation in the public sphere for callers,
actually work to limit access to it for callers to these programmes” (Ewart, 2016, p. 3). The work of these
authors both refer to the structural conditions and processes within media organisation that serve to
limit or, at the very least, shape how audiences are able to participate.
In addition to the internal factors that serve to influence participation, there are myriad external
factors at play as well. Naturally, the contextual environment plays a significant role in limiting or
restricting how communities can participate in community radio in India. As discussed, community
broadcasting legislation in India restricts ownership models to educational institutions, well-established
NGOs, and agricultural science centres. This, in itself, significantly impacts on the amount of true
participation or representation a community radio station can aim to achieve, as representation at the
higher levels of management and ownership are restricted to the aforementioned ownership models
rather than derived organically from the community. Related to this is the development discourse that
operates throughout the community radio sector in India, as discussed in Chapter 5. It must be re-
emphasised that participation is not a key focus of the sector. Despite the importance placed on
community participation in community radio literature, community radio, from the perspective of
legislators, should serve a development purpose. Community radio stations are thus controlled by the
developmental objectives of their parent bodies, which may or may not include community participation
as an area of focus. Participation is not explicitly mentioned in the organisational aims of either of the
stations involved in this research.

134
 A further influencing factor that serves to limit or restrict who can participate in community
radio, and how, relates to social structures. Cleaver writes that, in terms of individual action and
participatory initiatives, the impact of social structures is under-researched and they are variously
perceived as both opportunities and constraints (2001). Structures may refer to the "communicative
processes, rules, roles, and rituals that constitute the realms of participation and representation... they
also refer to the institutions, organizations, and systems within societies that frame the ways in which
material resources are distributed" (M. J. Dutta, 2014, p. 71). Community radio rhetoric may serve to
downplay the impacts of such structures through its discourse of community. However, as discussed in
Chapter 4, the concept of community must be problematised. Shah argues that simplistic interpretations
of the term imply that communities are homogeneous, static, and harmonious units (1998). Use of the
term in this way conceals power relations and biases based on age, gender, class, caste, and religion (M.
K. Shah, 1998). As discussed, power relations impact both implicitly and explicitly on who is allowed to
participate and how they do so. Any attempt at community representation is limited by both the arbitrary
power structures of society, not to mention the practical limitations of achieving representation (Katiyar,
2017). This framework of impossibility is indirectly acknowledged by Indian community radio
policymakers, who instead turn their focus to ensuring that the “needs of the local community get
relevance through the programming” (Katiyar, 2017, p. 325). Such phrasing absolves responsibility for
equal or broader representation of various social groups and instead reinforces the status quo in terms of
social structures. As such, community radio stations in India are subject to the prevailing social structures
and have little support or impetus to challenge them.

Meaningful participation
The concept of limited participation, be it resulting from internal structures of the media organisations,
or any number of various social, cultural, economic, and discursive factors, paints a bleak portrait of
community radio in India. Observing similar challenges in his work with a Ugandan community radio
station, Semujju laments that, in an environment where access and participation are only for a select few,
"community media do not differ from commercial media" (2014, p. 207). As we have seen, the instances
of non-participation, namely access and interaction, were relatively common. Participation though, as we
understand it in terms of influence and power-sharing, was limited to those parties in existing positions
of power, be it institutional, professional or cultural.
Such a pessimistic outlook was not necessarily reflected in the data. Rather than lamenting a
'lack' or 'restricted' form of participation in their local community radio station, participants repeatedly
expressed what they had gained from their participation, in whatever form it took. This prompted a re-
examination of participation and how it is viewed in community radio and development literature.
Though a number of models have been developed with the aim of exploring various facets of
participation in terms of both media and development (see Carpentier, 2016a; Pretty, 1995; White, 1996;

135
among others), the outcomes of participation for participants at a grassroots level, as opposed to
implementing bodies, are far less understood. At first glance, considering participation in terms of the
benefits to those involved may imply "participation for material incentives" (Pretty, 1995) or
"instrumental participation" (White, 1996). However, given our prior discussion of agency and the
problematic assumption that the motivation to participate for participation's sake is inherent, considering
participation from the perspective of the benefits to those involved may paint a more realistic picture of
both the latest and manifest motivations for participation. Further, many of these evaluations of
participation tend to dichotomise a complex concept. Though discussing oppression and development
more broadly, as opposed to participation specifically, Manyozo makes a salient point about the
tendency towards binary arguments. He argues that there are many grey areas in between these
binaries: "in fact, there are moments and ruptures when oppression functions as liberation. This thought
is significant because as societies work towards liberating the oppressed subaltern groups, there is
conscious or subconscious use of the language and discourse of the oppressor" (Manyozo, 2017, p. 33).
This argument, for the grey areas, is central to what can be drawn from the research data.
As such, based on the earlier discussions on participation and the research data, I introduce the
concept of meaningful participation. Meaningful participation builds on the concept of "meaningful
mobility", introduced by Tacchi, Kitner, and Crawford in their work on mobile phones and development in
India (2012). They argue that there is an over-emphasis on economic development in the field of Mobiles
for Development (M4D, see Donner, 2010) which has led to a narrow view of the meanings attached to
communication technologies. There is an entire spectrum of intangible benefits that such a narrow view
fails to recognise: “personal empowerment, gender equity, emotional fulfilment, etc” (Tacchi et al., 2012,
p. 530). Applying this perspective to another form of technology, community radio, encourages a more
qualitative, holistic view of the benefits and outcomes of those who participate. Considering 'meaningful'
rather than maximalist or minimalist allows space to explore the impacts of participation in environments
where it may be limited or restricted by structural factors. Hence, the concept of meaningful participation
emerged as a lens for viewing the research findings.
'Meaningful' is evidently a vast term, imbued with any number of interpretations based on the
context and discipline through which it is employed. Countless literature exists debating and defining
what is ‘meaning’ and what can be considered ‘meaningful'. For the purpose of this research, however,
we posit that it suffices to take an intersubjective ontological view of the term: though meaning takes
shape within the minds of individuals, it comes to exists through communicative dialogue with others
(Leontiev, 2005). A deliberately broad interpretation was employed throughout this research in order to
allow a definition of what might be considered ‘meaningful’ to emerge from the data. Based on this,
through drawing on the research findings and the previously conducted work on meaningful mobilities
(Tacchi, 2014; Tacchi et al., 2012), a number of themes emerged relating to different facets of what could
be considered meaningful. The key themes were voice, identity, ownership, and agency.

136
Voice
Voice represents a particularly important aspect of meaningful participation in community radio. Voice
has variously been associated with "personhood", "individuality", embodiment, and the right to engage in
social and political discourse (Appadurai, 2004; Couldry, 2004; Kunreuther, 2012; Tacchi et al., 2009).
Defying simple definition, voice references "inclusion and participation in social, political, and economic
processes, meaning making, autonomy, and expression" (Tacchi, 2009, p. 169). In terms of the personal
aspects, voice is a basic dimension of human experience and constitutes an intimate account of one's life
and its conditions (Couldry, 2015). There is a significant body of theoretical work on the value of voice in
both development and community radio literature, and much of this work supports the role of voice
within a conceptualisation of meaningful participation.
In terms of fulfilling the preconditions of participation, voice has clear links with the non-
participatory processes of interaction and access. There is somewhat of a cyclical and closely intertwined
relationship between access and voice. Thomas and van de Fliert capture the complexity of this
relationship: "access is enabled by voice in environments supportive of voice" (2015, p. 137). While
access represents a pre-condition of voice, the realisation of voice can lead to further improvements in
access. Participation does not necessarily feature in this equation, with Lister warning that participatory
interventions can be a way of "managing" rather than "hearing the voices of the poor" (2004, p. 171).
Similarly, Cornwall differentiates participatory processes from voice, arguing that while these processes
may create space, supporting the realisation of voice is more nuanced:
"Voice needs to be nurtured. People need to feel able to express themselves without fear of
reprisals or the expectation of not being listened to or taken seriously. And this, of course, cannot
be guaranteed no matter how well-meaning the instigators of the process may be" (Cornwall,
2008, p. 278).
As discussed, community radio may present an opportunity to create such spaces, but there are no
guarantees as to how voice may actualise in such an environment.
Turning to discussions of development, "voice poverty" explores the importance of voice to
alternative interpretations of development. Voice poverty is "the denial of the right of people to
influence the decisions that affect their lives, and the right to participate in that decision making" (Tacchi
& Kiran, 2008, p. 31). This concept draws from the work of Sen (1999), in exploring aspects of
development more related to capabilities and freedoms, as well as Lister's work on poverty, and voice as
human and citizenship rights (2004). Voice is systematically denied to the large segments of the
population who are not recognised by the market (Thomas & van de Fliert, 2015). In terms of media,
voice poverty sees groups with negligible access to the mass media denied opportunities for political
participation and self-expression (Malik, 2012). Access is linked closely to voice here, as voice poverty is
the result of "systematic efforts to restrict access to modes of self-expression" (Pavarala, 2015, p. 15).
Further, it represents a policy environment and media landscape where freedom of speech and

137
expression through the media is confined to powerful groups (Malik, 2012; Pavarala, 2015). Clearly,
community and alternative media could have a role to play here; indeed, Pavarala suggests that
eliminating voice poverty by creating space for the articulation of marginalised voices could see
community radio contribute to a more democratic public sphere (2015). Ideally, community media should
function as the collective process for the "production, sustaining and enacting of collective voice"
(Couldry, 2015, p. 51). How this operates in practice, particularly in an environment of rampant voice
poverty, is less understood.
Despite the overwhelmingly theoretical support for the concept of voice, what was identified in
the research data was quite different. The perspectives of the broadcasters overwhelmingly identified
voice as a key factor in terms of how they viewed their contribution to their listeners:
"Some people cannot bring out their voice. We need give them a voice through radio. So, it is
basically giving voice to the voiceless". - Malai Vanoli broadcaster.
"They find happiness in hearing their voice and informing their friends and family about their
participation." - Enkal Vanoli broadcaster.
"Let it be their personal matters, or let it be matters related to the country happenings, it gives
them a chance to speak their hearts out... For example, if a person called Ramesh from a
particular community speaks in the radio, then it becomes a chance for the entire community to
listen to the radio for hearing what Ramesh has spoke." - Malai Vanoli broadcaster.
The community radio rhetoric of "voice for the voiceless" is clearly pervasive, but how this is realised is
more nebulous. Broadcasters highlighted the role of pride and social interaction in relation to voice, but
some of the more political aspects of the term discussed in the literature did not emerge.
While broadcasters at both stations discussed voice at length, particularly how they saw their
role in relation to "providing" a voice, listeners barely made mention of voice. Instead, they discussed
feelings of pride surrounding their participation or hearing their voices on the radio as illustrated in the
following excerpts:
"That day I spoke in a local channel and it made me feel very happy." - Malai Vanoli listener.
"We will feel very happy while we hear our own voice in the radio. We feel proud of ourselves for
the content we have spoken." - Malai Vanoli listener.
"We ourselves are surprised listening to our voices in the radio. We cannot believe if it is our
work." - Enkal Vanoli listener.
"I feel accomplished and proud about this program out of all I have done for the radio." - Enkal
Vanoli volunteer.
Any notions of embodiment of self, expression of individuality, or political engagement failed to emerge
in discussions. Though listeners roundly agreed that the radio station "represented" them, any more
direct or explicit actualisation of voice was not overtly discussed. This is not to discount or minimise the
experiences and realisations of voice for these listeners, quite the opposite. As Malik (2012) wrote in a

138
piece for media watchdog The Hoot: "Indeed, for those who have traditionally been unacknowledged and
silenced, socially and culturally, the opportunity to have one's voice heard can be an imposing experience
of self-worth".
A further point to note in relation to listener perceptions of voice, one that will be discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 8, is the emphasis that listeners placed on listening in relation to voice, as
opposed to voice in itself. Couldry (2015) suggests that alternative media, including community radio, act
as the social application of both the speaking and listening that are the social process of voice. This is
illustrated in the following quote:
"We speak in many places and that's different. But in radio, people listen to what we speak." –
Malai Vanoli listener.
What is implied in this quote is that the authority and power bestowed on those that speak on the radio
somehow means that their voice is more likely to be listened to and taken seriously, both key factors to
realizing voice. Returning to our original discussions on defining participation in community radio, does
an interview constitute participation in community radio? This particular listener spoke with great
enthusiasm about the first time she spoke on the radio, and how she gathered her friends and family
together to listen to the broadcast. From her perspective, it was a reciprocal exchange between herself
and the interviewer, they both got something out of it and she was proud that her opinions were valued
enough to be broadcast. Similarly, the listeners and volunteers quoted earlier expressed pride and a
sense of accomplishment resulting from their experiences within the community radio station which, for
the most part, consisted of being interviewed and then hearing themselves broadcast on the radio.
Though perhaps being interviewed could be interpreted as falling within the category of 'minimalist',
content-drive participation, it is evident that there has been significant value derived from these
experiences from the perspective of the listeners.

Ownership
The second aspect of meaningful participation is ownership. In this context, ownership does not
necessarily refer to property, but rather to "individual identity, agency, and wellbeing - including what
Gandhi described as swaraj (self-rule or self-reliance)" (Tacchi et al., 2012, p. 533). Ownership appears
regularly in participatory development literature as a critical factor impacting upon participant buy-in
(Gumucio-Dagron, 2001; Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009a), as well as in relation to community media, where
community ownership represents both an ideal model and a fundamental theme (Carpentier, 2015;
Katiyar, 2017; Tabing, 2005). Ownership is a relevant concept to both participatory development and
community radio; it was observed in the research that it also represents a valuable component of
meaningful participation.
Ownership as a manifestation of meaningful participation was observed throughout the research
in several different ways. First, in perhaps a more traditional interpretation, ownership was discussed at

139
length between members of Enkal Vanoli's parent body, the farmers' federation. There was a strong
sense of ownership over the station among this group.
"It was started for the purpose of the farmers. It was for farmers and, as a farmer, I felt it was my
radio. For example, if I own a watch, I will have the feel that it belongs to me. But if I watch time
from other's watch I won't feel it is mine. The same way I felt this as my radio from day one." –
Enkal Vanoli listener and farmers' federation member 1.
"Earlier people used to shy away from speaking in the mic. Nowadays they are enthusiastic to
speak in the radio as they feel it represents them... and so they don't hesitate to record their
opinion in the radio." – Enkal Vanoli listener and farmers' federation member 2.
"As it is our radio and it is under our control, we could order them to broadcast programs that
would create awareness among the people... All this is possible only because the radio belongs to
us and we a part of it, we could ask them to broadcast programs that would benefit the people
and the programs that would be liked by them." – Enkal Vanoli listener and farmers' federation
member 3.
Ownership and control were clearly recognised by this particular group, though it is also worth noting the
omnipresent development discourse, operating throughout discussions of representation and the
perceived needs of and benefits to the listeners.
In different groups, however, notions of ownership emerged in distinctly different ways. Among
the female volunteers at Enkal Vanoli, ownership emerged through local links with a staff member and is
closely related to agency, which will be discussed shortly.
"At first, the people at home protested and did not allow us go anywhere. But now they have slowly
started to understand what we are doing. (Enkal Vanoli RJ) has a great role in that. She came door-
to-door and encouraged us to participate, and we have also benefitted through it. We are very proud
that a woman from our village is doing so much for the community. We are also determined to
become like her". - Enkal Vanoli listener and volunteer.
The importance of locality was also discussed by another predominantly female listener focus group,
where a sense of ownership derived from the physical proximity of the station.
"Instead of moving towards opportunity, it comes toward us and we utilize it."
"It is near to our village and that gave an affinity. It is near to us and we feel it is our station" -
Exchange between two Enkal Vanoli listeners.
Similarly, a Malai Vanoli listener touched on a number of these relating to her feelings of ownership over
the local station, notably representation and social interactions:
"They work for us, right? So they are like us. We should think that they are one among us, right?
We talk with them and they take our opinions out, right? So we co-operate with them and they
are like our friends". - Malai Vanoli listener.
Participation emerges in some way throughout most of these examples. From the perspective of the

140
parent body, listeners are more likely to participate because they are represented; from the perspective
of a volunteer, her ability to participate was influenced due to her family and husband’s sense of pride,
trust, and ownership of a local staff member; a combination of factors - a sense of ownership,
representation, and social interaction - contribute to a listener's willingness to participate. This illustrates
a complex web of empowerment and meaning that simultaneous prompts and results in participation.

Identity
A further aspect of meaningful participation, one highlighted by Tacchi, Kitner, and Crawford (2012), is
that of identity. Identity can be understood as the ways in which individuals and groups define and give
meaning to themselves in relation to others (Fornäs & Xinaris, 2013). Identity, particularly mediated
identity, represents a complex interplay of apparent opposites in that it represents both affiliations with
others, in the sense of a community, as well as individuality and uniqueness from others (Fornäs &
Xinaris, 2013). The role community radio plays in constructing communities and group identity has been
discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, identity as a facet of meaningful participation, however, was
observed to relate more to individual identity. Identity links closely with other facets of meaningful
participation, most notably voice and ownership. Voice represents personhood and individuality, and is
significant as an identification of personal identity: Kunreuther describes this as "as natural in its
relationship to identity as the fingerprint or signature" (2012, p. 51). Identity falls within the broader
category of ownership. In their work on meaningful mobilities, Tacchi, Kitner, and Crawford (2012)
describe this relationship between ownership and identity in terms of marginalised women in India taking
ownership of their own identities, which had always been subsumed under their husbands'. The
formation and expression of individual identity was observed throughout the research and represents an
important facet of meaningful participation in community radio.
Community radio can play a particularly important role in identity formation and expression.
Fornas and Xinaris argue that "people shape their tools of communication that then shape them" (2013,
p. 12), explaining that media plays a critical role in identity formation as it has such an impact on the way
people understand and define themselves and others. Community radio does this through participation.
Through participation in management, organisation and content production, community radio allows
'ordinary people' and marginalised groups to have their voices heard and, in doing so, define, strengthen
and express their internal identities to the outside world (Malik, 2015; Pavarala & Malik, 2007). Echoing
radical democratic theory, Rodriguez argues that political action can involve any attempt by non-
hegemonic groups to contest dominant discourses and redefine their identity in their own terms (2001, p.
150). Thus, for those who are generally excluded from both media production and representation,
identity formation and expression represent the political dimension of participation through the
balancing of power relations. This quality of community radio represents an appealing attribute of the
medium for development purposes. Buckley (in UNESCO, 2010) suggests that community media have

141
both intrinsic value, facilitating communication as a basic human need, and instrumental value, relating
to access to information and social and political influence. Development impacts tend to focus on the
more instrumental impacts of community media, whereas the intrinsic value of community media
strengthens the capability to communicate, which is central to "self-identity and to recognition by
others" (Buckley in UNESCO, 2010, p. 113). Despite the lack of primacy granted to identity formation and
expression as a function of community radio, particularly within development agendas, there is evidence
to support the value of community radio contributing in this capacity.
While other aspects of meaningful participation were far more visible, the expression of identity,
cultural and individual, was observed among the listeners who participated in the research. Rather than
make assumptions based solely on these observations, bearing in mind that community radio represents
just one part of the broader communicative ecology, among other modes of identity formation and
expression, more emphasis is placed on the listeners' expressions of their sense of identity. There was
one particular example that represented the liberating and empowering act of identity formation,
expression, and recognition resulting from participation in community radio.
Earlier I was just me, without any identity. But after being a part of this radio I am identified in my
village as a girl who makes them speak in the radio. - Enkal Vanoli volunteer.
This powerful statement was in response to a question that asked if she had learned anything or gained
anything from her interactions with the radio station. When asked the same question, most other
participants spoke of an interesting fact or programme that they had heard. This particular woman's
response was unprompted by any mention or prior discussions on identity. The woman who expressed
these sentiments is married with two children, she has a diploma in nursing and had worked for the
village ICT centre for a number of years. It is, however, her participation in the local community radio
station that she associates most with her identity. Having said that, it is worth paraphrasing Tacchi, who
reminds us that technology, like mobile phones in her research or community radio here, contributes to
processes rather than acting as mechanisms, as they serve to "highlight, extend and magnify
communicative and other capabilities" (2014, p. 116). A final point to note relates back to participation.
While this woman was a volunteer at the station and thus took a more active role in content-creation,
volunteers were, for the most part, unable to influence programming decisions or participate in higher
management. Again, this serves to relegate the activities of this volunteer to the lower rungs of the
aforementioned participatory models or ladders, though the value and meaning derived from this
"minimal" participation is undeniable.

Agency
The final facet of meaningful participation that was observed and discussed throughout this research was
that of agency. Dahlgren and Alvares explicitly refer to participation as “an expression of agency” (2013,
p. 48). It is through such "expressions" that citizens are able to extend and exert their rights as members

142
of political communities and subsequently leverage greater control over socioeconomic resources (Hickey
& Mohan, 2004). Agency is particularly important in postcolonial settings as it interrogates how
postcolonial subjects are able to engage or resist imperial power (Ashcroft et al., 2013). Jacobson,
drawing on the work of Sen, argues that agency forms part of the conceptual basis of understanding
development as freedom – the freedom to choose the life one has reason to value (Jacobson, 2016; A. K.
Sen, 1999). Kleine (2011) explains this process in more detail, explaining that individuals use agency to
navigate the various opportunity structures to which they have access. More agency results in more
choices and thus a higher degree of empowerment to choose and enact the development outcomes that
the individual most has reason to value. Couldry summarises: "people require knowledge and a sense of
agency if they are to be actively involved in determining what happens to them" (2006, p. 52).
By far the most common examples of agency that were observed throughout the research
related to women's empowerment. Participation in local community radio stations, even at the level of
simply being interviewed for a programme or volunteering to conduct listener surveys in their local
village, had a profound effect on women. This is of particular importance because often, even where
participation has resulted in increased agency for other community members, there are those within the
community whose voices are silenced (M. J. Dutta, 2014). From a development perspective, Sen argues
that women's agency and voice influences the nature of other public discussions: "freedom in one area
(that of being able to work outside the household) seems to help to foster freedom in others" (1999, p.
194). In each of the women's listener focus groups at Enkal Vanoli, empowerment and increased agency
resulting from engagement with the radio station was discussed at length. There was also a brief
discussion in one of the women's focus groups at Malai Vanoli, but it was in the context of an existing
self-help group rather than relating specifically to the work of the radio station. Interestingly enough,
rather than any specific initiative or development project run by Enkal Vanoli, it was a female staff
member who, through her social interactions and respected position in the community, used her power
to persuade a group of women, and their families, to take a more active role in volunteering and taking
part in station events. The results of her work frequently appeared in the findings of the research, with
many female volunteers at this particular station mentioning this staff member by name and crediting
her with their increased confidence and freedoms. This is the same staff member credited with the
feelings of ownership among female listeners and volunteers, as discussed earlier. There were numerous
examples of this from the Enkal Vanoli listener focus groups:
"Earlier we used to be at home. Nowadays we travel a lot. At first, the people at home protested
and did not allow us go anywhere. Earlier our husbands won't allow us to travel like this alone. But
now they are allowing us, now after we explained what we are doing, they have slowly started to
understand."
"Earlier, we don't go anywhere and were not interested in it. Now in the home, I get support for
traveling. Now we get the opportunity to go freely."

143
 "In the beginning, a negative attitude to talk and participate in the radio was there. But my in-laws
came and saw the program at the station. My husband too [came for the program]. The respect we
get in the station and the exposure to what they do in the program changed their attitude. Now
also in our home, they wish and send us to participate. In many homes they support them."
The impact of the radio station, particularly the role of the staff, is tangible in terms of agency and
mobility for these women. A further aspect of agency related closely to increased social interaction and
expanded social circles resulting from this increased mobility:
"Likewise we got many friends outside our village. We meet them once or twice in any events but
later become thick friends. we even invite them over to our houses while they come here. We have
got many friends."
"Yes, like one Amma came to our village for cooking competition (hosted by the radio station). But
she later become our soul mother. She shared her preparations with us and treated us like her
daughters. She was a stranger and we didn't even know her before. But she instantly bonded with
us sharing her sorrows. Now we are in regular contact with her."
This echoes Sen's (1999) observation about agency and freedom in one area fostering further freedom
and agency in other areas. Recalling the discussions of the jugaad methodology in Chapter 2, here we see
an altered interpretation of jugaad. One that moves away from agency focussed on an intentional
subject, and instead understands jugaad as “distributed and ecological and nonrepresentational
processes of converting movement, contingency, and matter into specific kinds of value” (Rai, 2015, p.
989).
Returning, once again, to participation, the volunteering that these women were able to take
part in involved conducting listener surveys and being interviewed for different radio programmes. This
could hardly be considered "maximalist" participation by Carpentier's definition, nor does it represent
any particular power shift from the producer of content to the listeners, yet it presents an example of
meaningful participation in action. This group of volunteers clearly perceived significant value resulting
from their work, despite the supposedly "limited" nature of their participation, as well as the more
tangible benefits in terms of increased agency and mobility.

144
8 Pass the mic

Defining listening
"What stood out for me in the interviews, still I can remember, we spoke to one Amma. Her name was V, I
even remember that. And I didn't know she was a single woman like alone with her children. And at the
end of the interview, she never talks out it seems, she has never told this to anyone it seems. But, by the
end of the interview, she wanted us to record what happened in her personal life. She lost her husband to
extreme drinking and smoking. So he had TB and suffered a lot and he had a kidney failure, liver failure,
some complications because of his bad habits. So she lost her husband to that. And uh, she was in tears,
and she tried to tell that: I have not spoken this anywhere but please record. Radio is giving more
awareness to it. So please be sure that your husband or your son is not getting addicted to any of such. So
that was the thing which stuck my mind. Yeah, that was the thing which is standing out to me. Like she
wanted to tell some social message through the interview and the radio. So... yeah, that was good." -
Translator.
***
This chapter represents an attempt to draw together the various elements of this thesis that are based
on what was observed and discussed in the data. To summarise our discussions up to this point, the
development industry, through the spectacle of development, plays a major role in influencing
community radio in India from the policy level through to the grassroots. As discussed in Chapter 5, the
spectacle of development, operating through discourses of modernisation, influence what stations say,
what they do, who they talk to, who is able to participate, and how they are able to participate. This was
evidenced through several examples, from the influence of large-scale, top-down development initiatives
and their pervasiveness within a supposedly community-driven media, to the language that the
broadcasters use when discussing their role in the community. Despite the overwhelming influence of the
spectacle of development, there remain cases of community radio listeners deriving value from the
limited way in which they are able to participate in content decisions and production. Furthermore, as
discussed in Chapter 6, there is evidence to support that the most effective work of community radio
stations takes place when they act as amplification to existing forms of community knowledge
construction and sharing. How though, do these positive examples of the work of community radio
emerge from within and, sometimes, in spite of the domineering spectacle of development? The answer
to this question, and the focus of this chapter, is listening.
Listening is a curious phenomenon. It is one of the most fundamental learnings of human life:
Wolvin and Coakley explain that listening is the first language skill we develop, thus "our ability to speak,
read, write, and master complex cognitive skills is directly and indirectly dependent upon our ability to
listen" (Wolvin & Coakley, 1985, p. 13). Simultaneously, and perhaps because of this, listening as a skill is

145
often underestimated: it is assumed that listening does not require doing much, just showing up or
staying quiet when someone is speaking (Manyozo, 2017). Listening has similarly been underestimated in
communication theory, relegated to the periphery of discussions, falling unproblematically under the
blanket term "receiver" (Berlo, 1960; Shannon, 1948; among others). In order to develop a meaningful
discussion of listening in this context, it is essential to move beyond simplistic, 'traditional' interpretations
of listening, particularly those usually applied to community radio. As communication theory has
developed, there has been a growing understanding of the complexity of listening, though it still
represents a distinctly under-researched area. Listening refers to both the cognitive tasks associated with
receiving, understanding and interpreting messages, and the behavioural tasks of verbal and non-verbal
feedback in response to those messages (Burleson, 2011; Jones, 2011). Purdy differentiates between
"hearing" as "the physiological process of receiving sounds", and "listening" as the infinitely more
complex process of "attending, perceiving, interpreting, remembering, and responding to other human
beings, in a sociocultural-linguistic environment that thoroughly permeates and influences the receptive,
meaning creation process" (1991, p. 61). Such definitions imply that the onus for listening - receiving,
interpreting, and responding to messages - rests with one party or one side of the communicative
equation. What is more useful, at least in the context of this research, is considering listening in terms of
dialogue as opposed to passive reception. Dialogue implies much more than a multitude of voices,
instead it refers to a "discursive communion" entered into with the aim of understanding alternative
perspectives, "not as a way of reaffirming and strengthening our position" (Manyozo, 2016, p. 4; Thomas
& van de Fliert, 2015). Penman and Turnbull advocate for a reimagining of the concept of distinct
speakers and listeners, instead referring to "participants" in dialogue for whom speaking and listening
occur contemporaneously (2012). The distinction between listening as it may traditionally be interpreted
and as engaging in dialogue is further explained by Bavelas and Gerwing (2011), who suggest that while
"addressees" are active participants in dialogue, "overhearers" are merely passive recipients of
information. Indeed, from Blackman’s perspective, dialogue is a critical feature in distinguishing hearing
from listening: she explains that while hearing is “monological”, listening is “always dialogical and
relations, directed towards the other” (2012, p. 139). Listening is clearly a complex phenomenon
involving both cognitive and behavioural tasks, that is interpreted here as engaging in dialogue with
others, as opposed to the passive act of receiving messages.
Turning to listening in community radio, media consumers are generally considered to be
overhearers; kept at such distance from the sites and processes of media production that they are
"doubly assumed and imagined – assumed and imagined to exist and assumed and imagined to listen"
(Macnamara, 2013, p. 161). Interpreting audiences as "overhearers" is problematic when discussing
community radio where the relationships between broadcasting and listening are supposedly more
complex and multidimensional, given the participatory ideal of the medium. Community radio ideals,
however, are also guilty of falling into the trap of privileging voice over listening. Indeed, providing a

146
"voice for the voiceless" dominates community radio rhetoric on a global scale. Voice has variously been
associated with "personhood", "individuality", embodiment, and the right to engage in social and political
discourse (Appadurai, 2004; Couldry, 2010; Kunreuther, 2012; Tacchi et al., 2009). Couldry offers a caveat
to such valorisations of voice though, writing of the importance of voice that is met with recognition: "it is
through the process of listening that the value of voice is mutually registered" (2009, p. 580). Similarly,
being 'voiceless' is not attributed to having nothing to say but rather having no-one to listen (Servaes &
Malikhao, 2005). Community radio is clearly a site of complex interplay between voice and listening; in all
conceptualisations though, the onus for voice and listening seems to be on community radio audiences.
What is less explored in the literature on voice and listening in community radio is the role of the
broadcasters in listening to their audiences. Having established a working definition of listening, this
chapter now explores the role that listening plays within the day-to-day operations of community radio.

The façade of listening

"What were the changes that happened in your daily life by listening to Enkal Vanoli?"
"I learned how TB develops in the human body, which I did not know earlier. Sister (radio staff
member) asked people directly about it. I learned and now I am explaining this to others. I made a note of
the symptoms and conditions. When my husband was admitted to hospital, on seeing the TB patients I
got scared and asked the doctor to shift him to another ward. The patients were without the mask; my
husband too was unwell. There were many TB patients around so, I requested the doctor to shift him to
another ward. When the doctor asked I explained the conditions and my fear. He consoled and assured.
He told every ward the status is same, but I came to know the facts. Hence I asked."
"You clarified with the doctor after knowing it?"
"I had explained the details to many. I knew. I was very much afraid. My brother consoled me. He advised
us to drink hot water during the stay in the hospital. I drank hot water at the hospital. My husband died
later. He had liver problem due to his liquor habit. I did not have awareness about it. I have not told that
when I have spoken on the radio programmes. You were asking about it and I wish to tell it. Through this
event, the awareness can be created. I did not have adequate awareness about his habit. I lost him now.
Likewise, others should not lose their dear ones. We must create awareness. I thought of this and wanted
to create awareness among women. I am emotional about it. But I have managed to talk about this
today. I was not aware of any of this earlier. Now I know so much. From my hospital experience, I learned
considerably. I wish I could create awareness for others. Information must reach many people through FM
radio."
***
Listening clearly represents a complex and contestable term that has been employed in a number of very
different ways, even within the same discipline. Similar to the conceptual vagueness of participation as an
overarching term, such definitional fluidity means that listening can easily be co-opted to fit the agendas

147
of those employing it. Dutta (2014) suggests that the growing critiques of top-down approaches of
development have led neoliberal governance structures, discussed in this thesis as the spectacle of
development, to co-opt the language of listening and participation to further consolidate their power. He
refers to this co-optation as "the façade of listening" where contemporary global oppression manipulates
"the language of listening to fundamentally silence and erase the opportunities of participation of the
margins" (2014, p. 76). There are clear parallels between the way the spectacle of development co-opts
participation and the workings of the façade of listening. As discussed in Chapters 5 and 7, the spectacle
of development works to limit opportunities for participation and keep marginalized groups complicit in
their own oppression. To illustrate the façade of listening in practice, Dutta (2014) draws on the example
of narratives of resistance that are co-opted by discourses of nationalism and homeland security and
portrayed as "threats to security". This exact scenario has been enacted within the community radio
sector in India. Broadcasting license applications from "troubled regions" have fallen victim to the
Ministry of Home Affairs and "its hawkish approach to security matters"; with the entire northeast as well
as those areas affected by Naxalite insurgency served by a minimal number of stations as compared to
the rest of the country (Pavarala, 2013, p. 3). It wasn't until 2014 that applications for community radio
stations in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand were granted, the first given to states affected by "left-wing
extremism" (Dhawan, 2014). Moitra, Kumar and Seth observe wryly that the groups that would benefit
most from community media platforms - "women, those in Naxal areas, groups marginalized by caste or
class" - were more difficult to reach due to costs, cultural dynamics, existing social inequities, and local
politics (2018, p. 126). Given this particularly pertinent example, it is clear to see that the façade of
listening has particular relevance to discussions of community radio working within a development
agenda. This section explores this influence in more detail, specifically in relation to how the spectacle of
development serves to exploit this façade of listening.
The spectacle of development makes use of the façade of listening to silence dissenting voices in
two related ways: through performative listening and through co-optation. Performative listening
celebrates listening as performance: as a scripted, planned activity that results in expected results that
align with broader goals. Community input is invaluable, so long as it contributes to the strict articulation
of a specific stance or approach, the one that aligns with that of the intervening organisation (Manyozo,
2017). The tools of performative listening are numerous and in widespread use - questionnaires, forums,
even phone-in radio programmes - all offer the impression that people are being listened to and, more
importantly, that the organisation is 'listening', even if there are no indicators of how all this listening
shapes the final outcomes of the policy or intervention (Manyozo, 2017). In his work on organisational
listening, Macnamara discusses the sophisticated "architecture of speaking" developed by large
organisations, including those in the development business, which serves to dominate conversations,
intimidate smaller players, and facilitates "non-listening" including instrumental, selective, placative,
defensive, as well as performative listening (Macnamara, 2016, 2017; Waks, 2010). Not only does

148
performative listening only take place through mainstream markers and structures of listeners, such as
the aforementioned engagement tools, it also forecloses opportunities for listening to voices that express
alternative logics (M. J. Dutta, 2014). Such strategic, performative listening serves to silence dissenting
and authentic voices by restricting the conditions and outcomes of listening to suit the agendas of
dominant structures and institutions.
Listening can also be co-opted by the spectacle of development to silence voices of resistance
through co-optation. As White, very succinctly, summarises: "incorporation, rather than exclusion, is
often the best means of control" (1996, p. 7). When marginalized groups want a say on the decisions that
affect their lives, the spectacle of development, under the guise of 'listening', responds with a benevolent
invitation into structures that minimise opportunities for true participation and influence, thus absorbing
and containing any dissenting voices (M. J. Dutta, 2014). This is, of course, not the case for all
marginalised groups, some of whom are not even granted a flimsy façade of listening. True listening is
messy and time-consuming, and is unlikely to result in what decision-makers or donors want - "staking
territory, expanding influence and maintaining political profile" (Ramírez & Quarry, 2018, p. 136). In this
case, the voices of marginalised communities are treated as "products", packaged to best suit any
number of policy-driven scenarios (Manyozo, 2017). Thus, the facade of listening, and the broader
spectacle of development, is an exercise in power. The power to choose whose voices are heard, how
they are used, and even what they are saying. The manipulation of voice in this way prevents
marginalized groups from giving account to their lives and conditions; to deny the capacity for narrative
and voice is to deny a basic dimension of human life (Tacchi in UNESCO, 2010). For marginalised groups,
acts of voice are a dialogical pathway towards questioning their socio-political and economic oppression
(Manyozo, 2017). These acts of voice gain power through how they are valued; co-optation and silencing
do not value voice, only through recognition and listening can the true value of voice be realised
(Couldry, 2010; Tacchi in UNESCO, 2010). Listening here is more than speaking to, or speaking for each
other, it is speaking alongside one another (Manyozo, 2017). Listening of this kind is empathetic and
identity-building, but it also can demonstrate awareness of dominant voices and work to undermine
them (Freire, 2000; Manyozo, 2017). In this way, listening is a constant interrogation of power because,
by its very nature, listening is shaped in opposition to dominant speech (M. J. Dutta, 2014; Manyozo,
2017). The façade of listening represents a deliberate and strategic silencing of dissenting voices, either
through performative listening or co-optation. Not only does this limit opportunities for voice and
dialogue, but it denies marginalized groups the space to question the dominant power structures and
broader nature of their oppression.

Layers of listening
From these discussions, it is clear that listening is incredibly important from a political perspective but
also easily co-opted by dominant structures and groups. Turning to community radio, listening is usually

149
conceptualised in a simplistic way in that it is seen as primarily the task of audiences. Despite its radical
theoretical underpinnings, community radio also falls into the simplistic binary of active producers and
passive consumers (Burgess, 2006). While voice in community radio has received much more attention,
from the perspectives of both broadcasters and audiences (see Genilo, Bhowmick, & Hossain, 2016;
Howley, 2002; Rodriguez, 2001; Tacchi, 2003; Tacchi & Kiran, 2008; among others), listening on the part
of community radio broadcasters is far less explored. Placing the onus for listening solely on community
radio audiences is problematic, particularly within a development and social change agenda, as the focus
becomes "whether those poor populations are listening effectively and therefore ... whether their lives
and behaviours change as a result" (Tacchi, 2013, p. 232). While listening may serve to "anchor" social
change activities (O’Donnell, 2009), such a perspective fails to account for the complex structural causes
of poverty and disempowerment (Wilkins, 2012). In the context of media, communication, and
development, listening should represent an "ethical value", particularly in situations where social
polarisations impact media narratives and economic equalities mean certain groups lack the ability to be
heard in the public sphere (Wasserman, 2013). Dreher observes that "attention to listening shifts some of
the focus and responsibility for change from marginalized voices and on to the conventions, institutions,
and privileges which shape who and what can be heard in the media" (Dreher, 2009b, p. 447). As such,
focussing on how community radio broadcasters listen represents an ethical rebalance of traditional
media, communication and development conceptualisations of listening.
While listening forms the key focal points of this chapter, the concepts of voice and listening are
inextricably linked, particularly in a media like community radio. The relationship between voice and
listening is clearly articulated by Couldry in his work on voice as a value. He suggests that valuing voice
requires specific attention to the conditions under which voice is effective (2010). Listening is a crucial
factor in this as "it is through listening that the value of voice is mutually registered between us"
(Couldry, 2009, p. 580). Thus, articulating the concept of listening contributes to a deeper understanding
of voice as a process and a value (Couldry, 2009, 2010). The link between voice and listening has been
written about by a number of authors. Most notably, Bickford, in her seminal title The Dissonance of
Democracy, suggests that democracy and politics revolve around the interplay between speech and
listening, and that listening does not at all diminish the role of speech (1996). In a more recent work,
Bassel (2017) reiterates this observation, explaining that listening as a political process has the potential
to disrupt the power and privilege of traditional speaker/listener roles. The links between voice and
listening, and the blurring of the roles of speaker and listener, clearly have the potential to rebalance
power structures, but how this listening manifests within a community radio environment is less clear.
Community radio represents a promising site for political listening given its conceptual focus on
participation and alternative public spheres. What emerged from the data though, was three different
but connected circles of listening. These circles of listening can be conceptualised through a Venn
diagram in which there are various overlapping possibilities across each distinct circle of listening. It is

150
worth emphasizing that such a conceptualisation is non-hierarchical and aims to display the
interconnections rather than placing particular importance on any one type of listening.

Figure 1: Circles of listening in community radio

Slater (2013, p. 70) advocates for considering the "onion-like layers of relationships and value which may
seem, at first, remote or unconnected". Not every form of listening represents a challenging of power
relations but listening, even in its most perfunctory forms, is a critical part of everyday life, more so for
community radio broadcasters, whose livelihood depends on their ability to listen, record and re-package
for broadcasting. In order to explore political, boundary-blurring listening, it must first be differentiated
from everyday forms of listening. To identify and differentiate these various circles of listening, a number
of markers were drawn from the literature and applied to the research data. Slim and Thompson (1993,
p. 2) suggest that listening must result in "acknowledgement and action" so that speakers know that their
words have been taken seriously. Based on this, they developed a notion of "applied" oral testimony so
as to differentiate the use of listening in development projects from purely academic studies (Cross,
1993). Further, in her discussion of digital storytelling, Dreher suggests a "listening framework" based on
processes of "receptivity, recognition and response" (2012, p. 159). Receptivity forms a critical first point
for political listening because the listener must at least be open to, or even want to know what others
have to say (Macnamara, 2014). Recognition offers a "productive way of thinking about response or what
comes after listening" (Dreher, 2009b, p. 454). Finally, response and action are related outcomes or
results of listening. Bickford argues that response is indicative of listening in that it signifies paying
"attention in order to understand and judge others' contributions, reshape their own opinions, and
determine their own responses" (1996, p. 51). Macnamara also draws a specific link between these, and

151
related, markers of listening and voice: "the conceptualization of listening as comprising attention,
recognition, interpretation with a view to understanding and response is important for voice to be
meaningful and matter" (2013, p. 171). Based on the markers identified in the literature, receptivity,
recognition and response/action were used to frame audience/broadcaster interactions in order to
identify and differentiate the various layers of listening identified within the research data.

Social
"I used to listen to radio in my parents’ home. We used to listen to the radio while we work in field. Earlier
days we had only radio and no TV. My paternal home lived in poverty and hence there was no scope for
having TV. Me and my father listen to songs and health tips in the radio. After the advent of cell phones,
we used to listen to the radio in the cell phone." - Enkal Vanoli audience member.
***
The first circle of listening that was observed within the research data related to listening for social
purposes. There is a significant body of literature exploring the role of interpersonal listening (Bickford,
1996; Dreher, 2009b; Husband, 1996, 2009), but the role of such listening within a community radio
context is much less explored. As discussed throughout this thesis, community radio audiences benefit
from listening to community radio in a number of different ways. Listening, as facilitated by community
radio, supports the knowledge sharing and local communication channels that serve to amplify IKCS.
Given the observed role of community radio as amplification of IKCS, it is worth noting that, outside of
modernity, IKCS are also considered pathways that facilitate the development of listening skills and tools
(Manyozo, 2017). This relationship between IKCS and listening was also observed by a Malai Vanoli staff
member, who spoke of learning from traditional knowledge and the role of community radio in
supporting this:
"We might not know many things in life. Elders teach us better, but in their absence radio teaches
us about life. We can also teach the same to our kids." - Malai Vanoli staff member.
Further, the social aspects of listening form an important part of how community radio audiences enact
and derive meaning from their participation in such environments. This area also represents an
intersection of both voice and listening in that audience members relish the opportunity to express their
voice and have this voice heard, and that community radio staff members appreciate their role in
facilitating this voice and actively engaging in listening.
"They find happiness in hearing their voice and informing their friends and family about their
participation. We record events from a temple festival. The entire village will be happy as the
other villagers listen to what was spoken during the event and send their feedbacks." - Enkal
Vanoli staff member.
This happiness and pride resulting from the expression of voice may serve to subvert the spectacle of
development, at least in some small way. Though warning of the limits of the promise of happiness,

152
Ahmed observes that “empire is justified in terms of the augmentation of human happiness…. For
happiness to become a mission, the colonized other must first be deemed unhappy” (2010, pp. 124–125).
Thus, this happiness and pride through the exertion of voice may serve to subvert the spectacle of
development by questioning the narrative of the miserable “wretched of the earth” waiting to be saved
from their unhappiness (Ahmed, 2010; Fanon, 1963).
Listening as a social function is also essential to the construction and maintenance of
'communities'. The relationship between speech and listening is vital in the formation of groups: the
negotiated process of interaction between speaker and listener could even be considered a "shared
community" (Purdy, 1991, p. 63). While 'community' within community radio has been more extensively
discussed in Chapter 4, listening represents an important aspect of developing the social connections
necessary to sustain feelings of community. Purdy, rather poetically, refers to communication as "the
source and sustenance of community" and suggests that community is created and shaped through the
interpretive process of listening (1991, pp. 51–52). While social groups may often share interests, this is
not what makes them a group. Instead "it is the shared set of practices and the affinity that sharing
creates" (Bickford, 1996, p. 105). Such shared practices may manifest through knowledge sharing
facilitated by the community radio station. One station staff member observed the community-building
nature of such shared practices:
"One of our listeners told us whenever his programmes broadcasted he gets many call informing
him and he, in turn, call us to share his happiness. Whichever program is good, many listeners call
us to appreciate. This builds a sense of oneness." - Enkal Vanoli staff member.
This "one-ness" or sense of community is not restricted to among audience members. Social listening
contributes to the embedded nature of community radio staff within their communities and supports the
role of community radio as rhizome in connecting disparate elements of the community. The social
nature of the relationships that both stations had developed with their various stakeholders - parent
body representatives, volunteers, organisations, and audience members - appeared to facilitate open
communication channels and, thus, deeper listening:
"We feel like we are a joint family. We mutually co-operate with each other. We organise
monthly meetings where they (radio staff) share their insights. They tell us if they have some
problem or if they are in need of something. They also ask us suggestions for the improvement of
the radio. This is how our relationship works." - Enkal Vanoli parent body member.
"Yeah, as they are localities, they know us personally. So they act accordingly. In some cases, they
exactly know what we need from them." - Malai Vanoli audience member.
The value in acting in this capacity was recognised and valued by community radio staff. Indeed,
developing these relationships was one staff member's favourite part of her job.
"What I like is going for fieldwork. I get to meet many people, receive feedback, and develop
relationships. So I love doing field work." - Enkal Vanoli staff member.

153
 Social listening clearly represents an important circle of listening that is deeply entwined with the
value that audience members are able to derive from their engagement with community radio. Social
listening on the part of community radio staff members plays a role in the amplification of IKCS, the
construction of community radio as rhizome, and contributes to how community radio audiences are able
to express voice and derive value from participation in community radio. The social circle of listening,
however, represents just one aspect of the broader listening practices that community radio stations and
staff engage in. The second circle of listening that explores these practices is incentivised listening.

Incentivised
A further circle of listening that was observed is incentivised listening. Incentivised listening may take any
number of forms and describes listening with the explicit aim of resulting in a positive outcome for the
'listener'. While this may have negative connotations, it realistically represents the day-to-day realities of
interaction and communication. This is equally true in a community radio context. Listening, even in its
most simplistic form, is central to the work of community radio broadcasters. This does not mean that
incentivised listening is inherently negative, particularly when discussing the experiences of marginalized
groups. As Iqani (2016, p. 16) explains:
"oppression and justice always take material form. No question of equality is ever only a matter
of principle, philosophy, ideology or rights. It is always a matter of who has what and who does
not. Equality is a question of access to material resources and the chance for comfortable,
enjoyable lifestyles."
While listening for overt material incentives was not often demonstrated throughout the research, there
were examples of incentivised listening for other reasons. Employment was one, with one audience
member listening in the hope of securing a job for her daughter.
"I passed my daughter's resume for a job in the radio as she is at home without a job. My brother-
in-law who is a pastor also passed her resume. She was earlier a teacher but the school was shut
down. I encouraged her to do this job, even though she wasn't paid for six months. Still, I
encouraged her to continue as she would see many people in the workplace and get exposed to
the outer world. Now after joining there, she has evolved strength of her own. She goes for
interview without my assistance and many people compliment for her new-found boldness." -
Malai Vanoli audience member.
Other examples of incentivised listening from the audiences were fairly innocuous and potentially in line
with the goals of the programmes and the station.
"Some information that they give will be unknown to us. So we listen to it as it may be useful." -
Malai Vanoli audience member.
"I listened to tips given by a diabetician. My husband has diabetes. I came to know eating shallots
and marinated fenugreek is good for eliminating diabetes only through that show." - Enkal Vanoli

154
 listener.
Incentivised listening also relates to expression of voice:
"I participated in a documentary drama that was broadcasted in the women's show. I remember
listening to it because I participated in the drama and I tuned in to listen to what I have spoke." -
Enkal Vanoli audience member.
Such examples serve to demonstrate the benign nature of most incentivised listening despite its
connotations. The one overt case of listening for material incentive that emerged from the Enkal Vanoli
broadcasters discussing the results of a listenership survey.
"We went to take a survey on listenership of the radio. Why we asked them if they listen to the
radio, many of them told that they will answer only if we get them a radio. Few people told they
will listen and few people told they will listen if we get them a radio. Few people also requested
for a public radio." - Enkal Vanoli volunteer.
At first glance, this appears to be an overly cynical response on the part of survey respondents. Pretty is
critical of the role of incentives in participation, suggesting that material incentives, in particular, can
"distort perceptions, create dependencies, and give the misleading impression that local people are
supportive of externally driven initiatives" (1995, p. 1252). While such a critique raises valuable points,
recalling earlier discussions on participation, the choice not to listen, or participate, is equally valid,
though less recognised. As Cornwall observes, communities on the receiving end of so many well-
meaning engagement attempts can become tired and cynical - she recounts the words of a "would-be
community representative": "'You can't eat participation, can you?... what is in it for us?'" (2008, pp.
274–275).
When turning to the broadcasters, incentivised listening could be observed through interactions
that took place purely to generate broadcast content. Genilo et al. suggest that being interviewed for a
news programme or 'participating' in a news interview is enough to constitute "giving voice to the
voiceless" in community radio (Genilo et al., 2016, p. 157). While this may be enough for some individual
cases, what we now know about participation suggests that this may not be the case. From a
participation perspective, this is reflective of a minimalist or "consulting" form of participation. In terms
of listening, such an approach, when taken in isolation, represents incentivised listening. Naturally, there
were many examples of station staff conducting this kind of listening, one particularly noteworthy
example though, emerged from a Malai Vanoli audience focus group.:
"We have participated in the events while they have come here. But we have not spoken in phone
calls much... They come to visit us. We speak to them and welcome them when they come. But
otherwise, we do not have any contact. They have come here to take interview... They have come
for two or three times. They will ask us to tell the information we know." - Malai Vanoli audience
member.
While this focus group was conducted in a small village that was quite some distance from the station, it

155
is representative of a more transactional form of incentivised listening. In contrast to this, more
reciprocal forms of listening seemed to include relational or social aspects.
"The workers in radio are in regular contact and they became my friends. I participate in all the
programmes organised by the radio. I also follow the programs in the radio. We spend time for
radio out of our busy schedule as it is useful for us in many ways. Even today we have lot of work
to do but we have come just for the cause of radio." - Enkal Vanoli audience member.
To refer to the circles of listening diagram (see Figure 1), such listening would fall within both incentivised
listening and social listening. What is also worth mentioning in relation to incentivised listening which
may not be captured on any diagram is the aspect of enjoyment. While pride and meaningful
participation have been discussed in Chapter 7, incentivised listening may also refer to "community radio
as fun" (Milan, 2008, p. 30).
"I will point out this pregnancy programme. It has something to do with a child's future. The radio
people and I were mutually happy for this programme. And importantly, I told from what I know
very well and that made me content." - Malai Vanoli audience member.

Feedback
"We announce the telephone number at the end of every show. We also give the listeners our WhatsApp
number, Facebook ID and email ID and request them to give feedback. Most of the listeners give their
feedback through phone. Few also give feedback through WhatsApp. But as most of our listeners are also
our members, they give their feedback while we go for a meeting. They tell us if the program was good or
bad. They give feedback to check the quality of broadcasting. They will also appreciate us if the program
was good. They will share their happiness if the program they participated is broadcasted in the radio and
so on. They will also give suggestions for better broadcast and adjustment of time slots. Apart from this,
we conduct radio assessment camps every six months. We gather all the members and ask him what type
of programs they need from the radio and which time will be convenient for them to listen to the radio. So
they will give feedback about what programs can be included. They request us to broadcast information
about subsidies training programs and doctors’ programs. They will also ask us to look for the time slot as
the time we broadcast is not convenient for them to listen. We do not broadcast in the afternoon and
continuously request us to change that. They will also tell about the signal and tower problem they face.
We get feedback in the field, through phone calls, and also during these assessment camps." - Enkal
Vanoli staff member.
***
A related aspect of incentivised listening, one that represents the dominant form of incentivised listening
for community radio staff, is that of audience feedback. While soliciting and receiving feedback is
generally unrelated to personal listening incentives, listening in such a context is clearly motivated by
other factors. The above statement from an Enkal Vanoli staff member clearly demonstrates the
importance of audience and, especially, parent body feedback to the station. The importance of ongoing,

156
grassroots feedback in a development context is further demonstrated by Easterly in his seminal work,
The White Man's Burden. Easterly (2006, p. 169) uses changing the temperature of a thermostat as a
metaphor for the aid industry:
"The difficulty of foreign aid agencies is that a bureaucrat is controlling the thermostat to the
distant blanket of some poor person, who has little ability to communicate whether she is too
hot or too cold. The bureaucratic Planners get little or no feedback from the poor. So the poor
foreign aid recipients get some things they never wanted, and don't get things they urgently
need."
Indeed, feedback represents a critical part of complex systems such as the change processes involved in
development (Ramalingam, 2013). Diversity and participation are vital in such processes as feedback
loops affect how change occurs (Lennie & Tacchi, 2013). This is particularly true given the regulatory
environment of the Indian community radio sector and the limitations on community ownership of
stations. Audience feedback represents one of the few ways foster participation and a sense of
ownership around the station. This is particularly important recalling the brief history of AIR discussed in
Chapter 6: it wasn't until 1956 that AIR first made an attempt to solicit audience participation, even in the
form of feedback (K. Kumar, 2003; Pavarala & Malik, 2007). In their in-depth study of community radio in
India, Pavarala and Malik found that participation is key to increasing listenership and further
involvement in community radio: "If any village has participated in production of a programme for
community radio, its residents listen, pay attention and identify with it more closely" (2007, p. 250). This
phenomenon was noted by Enkal Vanoli staff:
"At the end of every big package, we conduct survey to find the success of our programmes. We
could understand the impact of our programs through the feedback given during the survey.
Earlier while we took survey 1000 people only 34% of them were our listeners. After this program,
it increased to 65% and we could learn from their feedback that they listened to this program." -
Enkal Vanoli staff member.
From a participation perspective, feedback is usually associated with access. As discussed in
Chapter 7, access may imply audiences gaining a presence within media organisations through feedback
discussions where they are encouraged to comment and criticise (Bosch, 2003; Carpentier, 2016b). As
demonstrated in the opening interview excerpt, there are many ways in which audience members can
access the station by providing feedback. The primary method of obtaining feedback though seemed to
be either through surveys or conversations that took place while gathering interviews.
Returning to the markers of listening discussed earlier, what differentiates standard feedback
from feedback as a form of listening is that of response and action. There were numerous examples of
both stations acting in response to feedback:
"We have shared our opinion and even given advice. Here we start work since morning, say about
six o'clock in the morning, and we have recommended to broadcast the programme in the

157
 evening from five o'clock to seven o'clock. And they accepted our recommendations. Because in
the evening, generally the farmers will be finished their work in the field. So we have put forth our
suggestions for those programme timings and they have accepted." - Enkal Vanoli audience
member.
"Earlier, we used to do agriculture-related programs, with whatever resources we had. But then
we got feedback at one of the events we arranged. They asked us to give information about the
seasonal crops, about what could be planted in which season and how it can be maintained. So
we got messages from agricultural officers regarding the monsoon and suggestion for crops that
are appropriate to be planted in monsoon. As per the listeners' requests, we started broadcasting
this information in the radio. We started changing our program schedule as per the listeners
choice." - Enkal Vanoli staff member.
"There are a few local schemes sponsored by the panchayat. Not every people will be aware of
this, so they request us to give information and do programs regarding the schemes. We spoke to
the panchayat and do programs that creates awareness among the people. When we do this,
they show some involvement. This act as a platform for the people to involve and work with us." -
Malai Vanoli staff member.
An interesting intersection of voice and listening emerges from the feedback that Enkal Vanoli station
staff received and subsequently about some of the programme formats:
"From the initial stages of the radio, the one complaint we receive is we talk more in the radio
and there is no entertainment. After their continuous complaints, we changed the format. Instead
of hosting all the programs ourselves, we started involving lots of listeners in the program. We
took interviews and broadcasted them. Earlier, we used to collect facts from internet and books
and tell them in the radio. But the listeners got bored as it was in the tone of a lecture. But now
we choose a certain topic and make a panel discussion about the topic. It can either be a
discussion or a debate. Based on the feedback given by the people, we gradually changed the
time and format of various programs." - Enkal Vanoli staff member.
In the case of Malai Vanoli, their parent body was both a hindrance and a help in relation to acting on
listener feedback.
"We cannot straight away do anything as we are part of the NGO. But there are several other
departments through which we could do some help. For example, we could deal the water crisis
of the people through water project that is going on. If there is a sanitation problem, then we
check with the workers if there is any problem regarding the salary or any other and try helping
them through radio." - Malai Vanoli staff member.
Despite this, both stations seemed to place significant emphasis on audience feedback, with audience
members at both stations discussing numerous opportunities to provide feedback. This suggests an
environment of receptivity to and recognition of audience feedback. As such, in the majority of cases

158
within this research, the process of soliciting, receiving, and responding to feedback represents a
commitment to listening - incentivised listening, but listening nonetheless.

Political
The final circle of listening is political listening, which serves to blur the boundaries between speakers and
listeners, and allow marginalised groups to question the power relations that support their oppression.
While political listening has been hinted at throughout this thesis, this circle of listening focusses on how
the political emerges through and within the listening practices of community radio. In her work on the
politics of listening, Bassel proposes a fundamental question that really should underpin any discussions
of listening: why listen? "The answer is very simple and impossible at the same time: political equality"
(Bassel, 2017, p. 6). Political listening can and should be a major factor in how policies are developed and
implemented; institutions and policy-makers should not just be promising 'voice' to their constituents,
but must also commit to listening (Dreher, 2012; Manyozo, 2017). Shifting the responsibility for listening
on to mainstream institutions is an act of valuing the voice of those groups that are so often denied
access to such institutions (Dreher, 2012). Despite the value placed on voice in both community radio and
development rhetoric, listening is critical if voice is to be valued. Dutta (2014) advocates for taking a
culture-centred approach to listening in order to broaden discursive spaces to include the voices of
marginalized groups. A culture-centred approach to communication strategies for change interrogates
the role of communities and focusses on whose voices are heard (Tufte, 2017). The concept of listening
as creating space is also discussed by Dreher, who suggests that this does not necessarily represent
absence or withdrawal, "but rather a space that sustains interconnection and interaction" (2009a, p. 12).
What is worth briefly mentioning here though, is the presence of multiple layers of oppression. Listening
may represent an opportunity to create spaces that facilitate the deconstruction of dominant
communication frameworks (M. J. Dutta, 2014), these spaces, and who can be invited into them, are
inherently political. While community radio may create space for certain oppressed groups to exercise
voice and participate in public discourse, there are other groups who remain excluded from such spaces.
Class and caste represent crucial undercurrents of this research: while not explicitly discussed by research
participants, such factors clearly influence who is able to enter these discursive spaces. Manyozo (2017)
reminds us that oppression is a behaviour, not an identity; as such, local organisations, not just western
or international groups, may also perpetuate oppressive discursive practices. Alternative spectacles of
development are equally susceptible to a linear, modernist repertoire (Manyozo, 2017). While listening
itself can represent a counter-hegemonic act, Purdy (1991, p. 63) observes the inherent power relations
of interpretation: "despite the intended meaning of a speaker, the listener still has the final
interpretation of the message presented. The listener in essence shifts the speaker's meaning or
interprets from his experiential point of reference in the world." If listening is to be politically meaningful,
there must be "continual interrogation of power to unpack the ways in which power works to minimize

159
the opportunities for listening to diverse voices" (M. J. Dutta, 2014, p. 76). Thus, listening within
community radio for development does not represent a panacea to the problems associated with the
spectacle of development or broader societal power relations, but instead offers a space of potential
interconnection and deconstruction.
One relatively simple example of how the political is embedded within the listening practices of
community radio is the interview format. Interviews, so widespread in radio broadcasting and journalism,
represents a key site of power struggle. Interview questions are primarily asked by those already in
positions of power - doctors, lawyers, loan officers, and journalists; furthermore, asking a question, and
even more so a sequence of questions, serves to constrain the discourse options available to the
interviewee (Hutchby, 2005). Recalling Chapter 6, the comments of a female Enkal Vanoli broadcaster
appear very different when examined through a lens of political listening:
"It's very difficult to make women talk. They hesitate at first point because they think they lack of
knowledge in certain topics. So I take some books handy while I go for interviews. If they can't
suddenly remember any. I will ask them read from the book and tell some points. After a few
points gradually they will remember some more points on their own. Some women needs
motivation to talk. I simply talk to some women to motivate them for speaking in the radio. Few
women will like to talk on their own. But few others will prefer answering for questions. For such
people I will ask questions such that they answer. Sometimes we'll ask them to refer to the book
we take. Sometimes we ask them to consult with their elders if what they speak is correct." -
Enkal Vanoli staff member.
The power structures and agendas in such an example are clear. Community radio as a space of political
listening is certainly not immune to power relations. As listeners, community radio staff have the final say
of interpretation which is magnified in their power over broadcasting decisions. This disconnect between
the authentic expression of voice and listening often resulted in discomfort on the part of the staff
members:
"Some of the listeners call us to ask why their program isn't broadcasted. It wouldn't have been
broadcasted in the schedule time, we would have changed the schedule or we would have left it
without broadcasting as it is not fit for broadcast. But we cannot tell it to them openly..." - Enkal
Vanoli staff member.
The position of power that community radio broadcasters hold, even when creating spaces of listening,
offers a new perspective on the incentivised listening discussed earlier. As one audience member put it:
"Only when they came for interview we spoke, otherwise we haven't." - Malai Vanoli audience
member.
Despite the incentivised nature of some of this listening and the unequal power relations associated with
the broadcasting/listener model, community radio still represents possibly the best chance for audiences
to express voice and be listened to in the media. One staff member recognised this as the imperative for

160
them to encourage participation:
"We should also convince the people to make use of opportunity to talk in a radio which is
otherwise quite impossible for the people to go to other radio stations and talk." - Enkal Vanoli
staff member.
The sense of personal responsibility in relation to facilitating voice and listening was observed among
staff members at both stations, as were the results of these efforts:
"Earlier we used to go in search of them. We go in search of people who can speak about
agriculture and our volunteers helped in identifying them. But later after the radio started getting
popularly broadcasted, people came voluntarily to share their views in the radio. So that is how
they participate." - Enkal Vanoli staff member.
"People do share their personal experiences. We actually go for some other interview but they
start interacting with us about their personal experiences." - Malai Vanoli staff member.
The political circle of listening is complex and multi-faceted. Community radio stations that
operate within a development agenda are faced with a multitude of competing social, economic,
legislative, and discursive power relations. Disrupting any one small facet of these sets of deeply
entwined power structures represents a significant deconstruction and subsequent creation of new
communicative spaces. In specific relation to this research, this is best encapsulated by the comments of
a community radio audience member, who later came to volunteer for her station:
"We have come out of our shells to speak. That itself is a great development. Earlier, we don't
speak and feel very shy to speak in the mic. Now, we have started to speak casually and now
we're holding mike for others." - Enkal Vanoli volunteer.
This example illustrates a clear disruption of dominant communicative practices through the intersection
of voice and listening. Creating such an environment requires those in positions of power, in this case, the
community radio broadcasters, to take action and yield so as to create space for others. Listening
represents a challenging, or even a risky, possibility, as there is the potential that what we hear may
require real change (Bickford, 1996). Listening, therefore, when not co-opted by corporate or oppressive
forces, represents hopeful practice that aims to equalise power relations. While the hopeful aspect of
listening is important, so is the practice. Bassel, paraphrasing a literary work of China Mieville (2015),
argues that listening must be combined with action so as to embody "hope with teeth".

"Listeners"
"All these people long to come out of their shells! I feel tremendously guilty for not using them. I realised
this only during these interviews. I have the interest to do what I can and bring them out, but I have no
resources. If we train them properly and set up some listeners club similar to readers club, through this
club they will work together, solve each other's problem or even go for a tour. I got this idea only during
these interviews. We have to separately form this club and have a separate person in charge who is

161
trained for this purpose alone. I hope this will become a success and aid the radio too..." - Enkal Vanoli
staff member.
***
The final aspect of listening to be discussed here is the role of those doing the listening. In this section,
the 'listeners' are community radio staff. It is worth making a point of methodological clarification here
on the terminology used throughout this thesis. Readers may note that, until this chapter, the
terminology used to differentiate audiences from community radio staff has been "listeners" and "staff"
or "broadcasters". This is reflective of traditional media dichotomies and signifies a one-way exchange of
information rather than the participatory, collaborative nature of community radio. Until now, this
terminology has been useful so as to demonstrate the dominant expectations placed on the various
stakeholders. In this chapter though, taking in to account the multifaceted nature of speaking and
listening, it has been more useful to refer to the groups as 'audience' and 'staff', rather than
'broadcasters' and 'listeners'. Indeed, traditional media terminology is somewhat problematic in this
context. Naturally, 'audience member', 'listener', 'volunteer', or 'staff member' represents just one facet
of complex identities and it is reductive, and somewhat offensive, to assume otherwise. As Couldry,
Livingstone and Markham suggest, taking such a stance represents a "media-centric" perspective: "being
part of an audience is just one of many activities in daily life, and media just one of many sources of
meaning and influence" (2016, p. 26). Indeed, this section explores the role of the 'listeners' - community
radio staff - in facilitating and engaging in the three identified circles of listening.
There have been a number of efforts to describe the role of community radio staff within their
communities. Gramsci's concept of the "organic intellectual" has previously been applied to community
media practitioners in that they serve as grassroots "intellectuals" that articulate the aspirations of
subaltern groups (J. Atkinson, 2005; Downing, 2000; Howley, 2002). In this capacity, community radio
staff should be in constant interaction with audience so as to incorporate their thoughts into what is
broadcast. Further, community radio staff as organic intellectuals should encourage their audiences to
take a critical view of the dominant hegemonic discourses and perspectives (Guo, 2014). Further, the
concept of the organic intellectual suggests partnership between the 'intellectuals' and the local people
so as to generate knowledge that is contextual and relevant (Pavarala & Malik, 2007). Manyozo (2018, p.
404) also discusses the role of organic intellectuals in IKCS, suggesting that they "evoke, administer and
circulate" technical and non-specialised knowledge. The concept of organic intellectuals clearly holds a
lot of appeal in a community radio context, yet it is not an exact fit in terms of community radio staff in
India. While the connections between community radio staff and audiences were clearly strong, and
community radio staff were deeply embedded within their communities on both a professional and a
personal level, there was a disconnect in relation to broadcasting outcomes. The community radio
broadcasters within the research were not observed encouraging critical views of hegemonic forces and
were limited in how they expressed the aspirations of their communities. The ownership models and

162
restrictive legislature of the community radio sector in India directly contribute to this. The listening
focus, in addition to much of the content and onus for encouraging participation, was more on improving
the day-to-day lives of communities rather than necessarily directly questioning power structures.
Nonetheless, there are aspects of community radio practitioners as organic intellectuals that prove
useful, namely the close partnerships and relationships with local people. This represents a running
theme through this thesis: the role of the social across the various aspects of community radio. Manyozo
argues that meaningful friendship and genuine commitment to liberation is crucial if listening is to
manifest as a form of speaking for, or on behalf of, oppressed groups without ventriloquising (2017). As
such, the social aspects of listening, namely friendship and social contact, are considered more important
in this context and interpretation of community radio staff as organic intellectuals. The importance of
friendship and social connections in listening on the part community radio staff were repeatedly
observed at both stations. In fact, each one of the participants in all the listener focus groups had come
to listen to their local stations through a recommendation of a friend or family member. This is logical
given the lack of budget for other forms of advertising the stations, but it also speaks to the embedded
nature of the community radio staff members within their communities and the networks they have
built.
"Usually I am a very introvert and shy person. She (staff member) used to encourage me to talk in
the radio. I have participated in many programs and I have also gone to the radio station to talk
in many programs. Only through radio I started knowing things that I did not know before. I also
started sharing the information I hear in the radio to others also." - Enkal Vanoli listener.
"If they are not working in the radio, we wouldn't even know about it." - Malai Vanoli listener.
There were numerous discussions on this topic within the data that served to demonstrate the
importance of the social and interconnected aspects of community radio staff as listeners.
The comment that prefaced this section - the Enkal Vanoli staff member's idea of forming a
listening club - represents the complex and often frustrating nature of the role of community radio
practitioners. Organisational constraints - on resources, on programming restrictions, on ownership
models and so forth - play a significant role in limiting the listening that community radio staff can engage
in. The passion and dedication of the staff members - which cannot be downplayed - is critical to the
success of the stations, as opposed to the investment of the parent bodies. This disconnect is best
illustrated through the following quotes from an Enkal Vanoli community radio practitioner and a
member of the station's parent body:
"We are giving them the salary, they are under control. We give them salary of 5000 or 6000
rupees (~55-66 GBP). For that salary, they work with utmost involvement and they do their job in
a good manner. They feel this salary is comfortable. This salary is equal to six labourers' wage.
We distribute among six labourers. In that scenario, they understand the situation and execute
their work as their duty with service in mind. They are not money-minded or keeping salary in

163
 mind." - Enkal Vanoli parent body member.
"According to me, the greatest challenge is inadequate staff. There are ongoing projects and it is
difficult to deal with it without staff. Even if we get new staff, it takes time to equip them. The
reason for this is money. They get paid well in other jobs and the salary here is not enough for
them. We also need money for new equipments. Some equipments are not in proper condition to
work. But if you ask me even if there is money when there are not enough staffs, the work we do
does not progress and the things get stalled. I consider these both as great challenges." - Enkal
Vanoli staff member.
Nonetheless, it was this same staff member whose quote prefaced this section. Despite the
organisational constraints and the clear disparity in expectations, this staff member was passionate,
energised and actively looking for ways to further engage the audience. As a side note, such an approach
- establishing a listening club - has enjoyed success in other community radio stations in India as an
accessible group listening environment may offer a democratic space that can facilitate collective
problem-solving and decision-making (Malik, 2015; Pavarala & Malik, 2007). Community radio staff
members are clearly restricted by the organisational environment in which they operate. As such, the
organisational attitude to listening within community radio stations has the potential to significantly
affect how staff are able to listen. Though organisational listening was not a primary focus of this
research, it represents a potential area for future investigation: the organisational listening practices of
community radio stations may significantly influence the way station staff are able to or are encouraged
to listen to their audiences.

164
9 The bowstring
"I did not reveal any individual talent. I did not bag any prize in competitions. I never thought of winning
an event. I just wanted to be a part of it. My participation and contribution itself makes me feel proud. No
individual talent; never got opportunities to explore the same. When an opportunity came, I just utilized it.
It made an impact in my life." - Enkal Vanoli listener.
***
Bow songs tell stories. They tell the epics tales that have been retold and refined over centuries, they tell
of local myths and traditions, they offer moral guidance and advice, and they bring people together by
way of theatrical performance. Community radio too, tells stories. It proselytizes and shares, it brings
people together through exchanging ideas and knowledge, through shared experiences and community.
In both willupattu and community radio, there is contingency, there is tenacity, there is jugaad. There
must be, particularly given the forces that serve to influence and shape outcomes, whether those forces
are the voices of the leftists or the powerful and pervasive spectacle of development. Throughout this
thesis, there have been clear parallels between willupattu and community radio. By working within the
spectacle of development and spectres of modernisation, we see community radio assume the role of a
passive, agreeable chorus, or the embodiment of the “ideal listener”. But through the amplification of
local knowledge communication systems, through deriving deeply personal meaning and value from
limited participation, and through multifaceted listening on the part of the stations, it is possible to see
the narrative of the rightists emerge, clear and strong, despite the structures imposed by the leftists.
Understanding these governing structures, whether they be legislative or discursive, reveals the true
contingency of community radio stations and the value that they are able to elicit and provide for their
audiences.
This research employed a bricolage approach to crafting a knowledge paradigm loosely informed
by constructivism. The research design draws on principles of postcolonial feminist thought as espoused
by authors such as Edward Said (1979) and Gayatri Spivak (1988), as well as the concept of cognitive
justice which recognises the equally valid existence of different forms of knowledge outside of
mainstream, western thought (Visvanathan, 2009). Such an interpretive framework considers the
knowledge emerging from this research as co-constructed by the researcher and research participants.
Given the co-constructed nature of the knowledge emerging from this research, it is important to
recognise the influence of the positionality of the researcher both in terms of the power associated with
the 'researcher' subject position, but also the researcher’s privileged background as a white, female from
a wealthy country. Based on an interpretive framework informed by cognitive justice, there are several
key terms that form the basis of the research and thus required clear interpretation. Firstly, the concept
of development, which attracts myriad definitions, is interpreted as deeply complex and highly
dependent on the individual freedoms and capabilities that people have reason to value (A. K. Sen, 1999).

165
Following on from this, the research is situated within the field of media, communication and
development, which consists of three primary approaches: media for development, media development,
and participatory development (Manyozo, 2012). Community radio is most often associated with this
latter - as a tool of participatory development.
Community radio has been researched in a variety of ways, though qualitative audience research
was identified as most relevant to the research aims and questions at hand. There have been a number of
alternative methodologies associated with evaluating the impact of community radio, including
ethnographic action research (Tacchi et al., 2007, 2003) and barefoot impact assessments (Jallov, 2005).
These methodologies provide a useful guide in developing the jugaad approach to ethnography that
forms the methodology of this research. Hindi slang for a "quick fix" or "making do", jugaad captures the
contingent, versatile nature of community radio and applies such an attitude to the design of a
methodology. Drawing on principles of ethnography including thick description, immersive interaction,
multiple sites, and reflexive practice, a jugaad approach facilitates the design of a qualitative
methodology that aligns with the research aims, interpretive framework, and the practicalities of data
collection.
Based on the jugaad methodology, data collection took place using several methods from the
ethnographer's toolbox including participant observation and interviews, as well as several more novel
approaches including Kusenbach's "go-alongs" (2003) and listener storytelling, loosely based on the work
of King (2015). Data collection took place over several phases. First was an initial acclimatising phase at
the UNESCO Chair on Community Media at the University of Hyderabad which served to orientate the
researcher to the local community radio environment through meetings with key figures in order to
develop an understanding of contemporary debates and discussions within the sector and
contemporaneous research taking place. Fieldwork commenced in earnest with an initial period spent at
each of the stations in order to observe the day-to-day operations and work practices of staff. Following
this, the research moved outside of traditional sites of media production (Couldry, 2004) by conducting
"go-alongs" with community radio staff members so as to observe work in these spaces and to establish
initial contact with key audience members. The final phase of data collection consisted of interviews:
specifically, focus group discussions with key groups of listeners as identified by the community radio
practitioners; listener storytelling interviews with select individuals; group interviews with community
radio staff members; and finally, one-on-one interviews with key informants from the stations. The data
collected was analysed using constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014) and aspects of narrative
analysis. There were several limitations associated with the methods of data collection and the
circumstances of the research, namely issues surrounding foreigner registration, as well as the
accessibility and familiarity of research participants in terms of storytelling interviews. While these
limitations certainly affected the time and amount of data collection that was possible, particularly at one
site, the quality of the data that was collected was uncompromised.

166
 Community radio is a complex and multifaceted medium. Regulations, funding sources, and
ownership models vary around the world, and even the stations that are geographically close together
can vary significantly. As such, an all-encompassing definition is highly elusive (Carpentier et al., 2003).
Given this diversity, rather than try to establish a general definition, two broad theoretical constructs
were established: community radio and its role in democratising media access, and community radio in
the construction and maintenance of communities. Having established the key theoretical underpinnings
of community radio generally, it is possible to see similarities among the significantly different
approaches to community radio across South Asia. The way community radio is enacted in India is based
on its history of colonial broadcasting as well as the Government of India's reluctance to explore even the
possibility of a community radio sector. It wasn't until 2006 that the sector was truly able to grow into
what we see today: 217 operational stations across the country owned by educational institutions,
agricultural science centres, and established NGOs. The sector is currently grappling around issues of
"NGOisation" (Malik & Bandelli, 2012; Pavarala, 2015), communication rights, and the omnipresent issues
of sustainability. This is the contextual environment of the research sites: two rural stations located in the
southern state of Tamil Nadu. The stations were loosely disguised so as to respect the privacy of research
participants, with pseudonyms given to the stations and all research participants.
The foremost findings of this research relate to the influence of a development agenda on the
community radio sector in India. Manyozo introduces the concept of "the spectacle of development" to
describe the ways in which oppression is perpetuated by the "production, exchange and utilization" of
imaginaries that are based on stereotypes, fail to acknowledge difference, and silence the voices of
subaltern groups (2017, p. 14). Considering development as a performative spectacle provides a useful
frame for understanding the insidious ways in which development shapes the lives of so-called
'beneficiaries', from the highest level of government and multilateral organisational policies, all the way
to the grassroots, including the on-the-ground activities of community radio stations. The spectacle of
development operates through what is termed here as a "spectre" of development - a modernisation
discourse. Modernisation represents a paradigm of development that is widely regarded as imperialistic
and outdated yet pervades throughout even the most supposedly participatory development
interventions. The spectacle of development was observed in a number of ways throughout the research
data. Foremost, in the ways that audiences and station staff interpreted development, as well as the
language they employed to discuss what they considered to be development. There was clear evidence of
a modernisation discourse operating through a top-down transmission of information, which stands in
stark contrast to the participatory, horizontal flows of communication espoused in community radio
literature. Furthermore, the spectacle of development was also observed in the saturation of the
Government of India's Swachh Bharat Mission, a sanitation project with a key aim of ending open
defecation by the end of 2019. Both community radio staff and audience members consistently
associated SBM with development. The broad approach to SBM, however, is deeply indicative of the

167
spectacle of development in that it employs top-down communication and fails to account for the social
and cultural structures that also govern a complex issue like open defecation. Community radio stations
find themselves a cog in a highly publicised and well-funded intervention where financial rewards and
veiled threats ensure compliance. Finally, the spectacle of development was observed on a personal level
through one community radio audience member's storytelling interview. The audience member
recounted the story of when her daughter fell seriously ill and almost died after a miscarriage. Upon
analysis, the spectacle of development through the spectre of modernisation emerged through the
emphasis placed on western medicines, the power structures between doctors and patients, as well as
the cynical way in which the community radio station exploited the story for its overtones of gaining
knowledge as a result of listening to radio, and the 'dangers' of failing to do so.
While the spectacle of development clearly influences the work of community radio stations in
India, there were examples of how the spectacle and subsequent spectres can be subverted. The
spectacle of development has a long history of operating through the Indian media: it is the legacy of
colonialism as enacted through broadcasting systems. It is this history that led Page and Crawley to
suggest that, in South Asia, community radio "is a term which is generally used to describe radio for the
benefit of the community rather than radio which the community runs itself" (2001, p. 327). Tracing this
history, the limited number of success stories relating to early iterations of community radio and public
broadcasting all relate to local broadcasting about local issues in local languages. The same can be said
for one of India's most prominent community radio stations, Sangham Radio, which is widely lauded for
being operated by Dalit women who cover local issues in their own dialect. The implication of these
success stories is that the spectacle of development can be subverted, particularly when community
radio stations act as amplification of local or indigenous knowledge communication systems. This was
observed through the amplification of local technical knowledge, as observed through the knowledge
sharing practices of farmers, as well as cultural knowledge, which could be seen in the preservation of
local traditions and the sharing of various aspects of different cultures. Community radio was also
observed to support IKCS through its role as a rhizome, as described by Bailey, Cammaerts and Carpentier
(2007). This takes place when community radio stations establish themselves as what Jallov refers to as
"efficient local knowledge centres" through the creation of "independent, sustainable, and indigenized"
networks (2005, p. 33). These networks were constructed and maintained through the close social
connections between community radio staff members and various segments and individuals within the
communities. These social connections were not just between station staff and community members, but
community radio also served to facilitate connections between disparate groups that otherwise had no
contact. This was an example of community radio amplifying IKCS in its role as rhizome, but also engaging
in the process of community building and maintenance. Further, community radio acted as a link
between community members and other organisations, such as government officials, NGOs, and other
professionals such as agricultural experts and doctors.

168
 As discussed, community radio acted as a key facilitator in amplifying IKCS among listener
communities. What is heavily implied by this though, is that audience participation is necessary in order
to benefit from such practices. It has been established that community radio is intended as a
participatory medium, but the spectacle of development and other contextual factors serve to limit who
is able to participate and the extent to which they can do so. Participation in community radio has been
defined in a number of ways ranging from minimalist approaches, where participation is limited to
access, to maximalist, holistic approaches which see participation at all levels of content and
management (Carpentier, 2015, 2016a). Access and interaction represent important preconditions to
participation that were widely observed throughout the data, yet in themselves, they do not constitute
participation. Participation implies power sharing, which is near impossible given the ownership
structures and the influence of the spectacle of development. What was also observed though, was the
value or meaning that audience members derived from their participation, however limited or restricted
it may be according to definitions in the literature. Audience members derived value in several areas -
voice, ownership, identity, and agency - all of which were termed "meaningful participation" which draws
on the work of Tacchi (Tacchi, 2014; Tacchi et al., 2012) on meaningful mobility.
The final area of key findings relates to the role of listening. Listening here is understood as more
than the physical act of hearing, but rather embodies an ethical value as well as the reception and
interpretation of messages. Listening acts as an underlying thread throughout this research, both in the
ways that audience members are able to derive value from their engagements with community radio, to
the way that community radio staff members connect with their listeners. Listening is certainly not
immune to the co-optations of the spectacle of development. Indeed, what Dutta (2014) terms the
"façade of listening" accurately describes the kinds of performative, placative listening employed by
development professionals in the pursuit of nominally 'participatory' development interventions.
Fortunately, there were other forms of listening that emerged from the research data, namely three
interrelated circles of listening: social, incentivised and political. Social listening is critical to the
development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships. The importance of this kind of listening can
be seen throughout the role of community radio in amplifying IKCS and the social aspects of community
radio as rhizome. Further, social listener contributes to the ways in which community radio audience
members form aspects of their identity through their engagements with the community radio stations. A
key aspect of meaningful participation was the opportunity to express voice and the feeling of being
listened to. The second circle of listening is incentivised listening. While this has connotations of the
instrumental listening associated with the facade of listening, incentivised listening is not inherently
negative. Instead, it describes much of the reason for tuning in to community radio - to get something
out of it, whether that be entertainment, information or to learn something new. On the part of
community radio staff members, incentivised listening may take the form of listening for the purpose of
generating content or listening to solicit feedback. Incentivised listening was seen on the part of both

169
community radio audience and staff members through the sharing of IKCS, which requires a cycle of staff
listening, then audience listening in order for the IKCS to be amplified. The final circle of listening is
political listening which aims to blur the boundaries between the defined roles of speaker and listener in
order to achieve political equality. Community radio stations that find themselves navigating the
spectacle of development are faced with a multitude of competing social, economic, legislative, and
discursive power relations. Disrupting any one small facet of these sets of deeply entwined power
structures represents a significant deconstruction and subsequent creation of new communicative
spaces. Creating these spaces requires those in positions of power, such as community radio
broadcasters, to relinquish this power and act as "listeners" themselves so as to work towards political
equality.
The findings of this research have implications for both community radio theory and practice.
Though India represents a unique community radio environment and the highly contextual nature of
community radio stations themselves make it difficult to generalise, understanding the impacts of a
development agenda on the day-to-day activities of a station does have wider implications. This is
particularly significant given the role that community radio has played in media, communication and
development projects and interventions around the world. The restrictive nature of a development
agenda should act as both a cautionary tale and a question as to the fundamental purpose of community
radio. Is the purpose of community radio to work towards externally imposed, vaguely defined
'development'? Or is community radio about communication rights, voice, activism, critiques of
mainstream media discourse, expression of alternative views and interests, or even fun? Answers to
these questions lay far beyond the scope of this research but warrant ongoing reflection and perhaps
offer a critical guide to further inquiry. As Dutta explains, listening as a communicative framework for
social change requires a re-imagining of the very idea of social change (2014). It requires looking beyond
the spectacle of development and looking through the spectre of modernisation discourses so as to
remove the distractions for meaningful listening. As this thesis has demonstrated, even within the
spectacle of development, change and improvement find a way. Despite the constraints, limitations, and
thinly-veiled imperialism imposed by the spectacle of development, community radio, through its
grassroots engagement with people facilitates the preservation and celebration of local cultures and
knowledge, it creates space for participation in media production where the value is defined by those
participating, and it creates space for a more equitable platform for listening and voice to intersect.
What is clear from this research however is that, for community radio stations working within a
development agenda, audience members most appreciate programming and activities that are deeply
embedded within the contextual environment of the community and are based on listening to their
needs and interests. This could take the form of programming that supports and amplifies local
approaches to knowledge sharing or activities that encourage different groups to meet and socialise. It
could be through offering the kinds of participation that audiences have reason to value and give

170
meaning to. It could also take the form of programming and activities that are intimately aligned with the
community's needs thanks to a commitment to deep, multifaceted listening. The broader implications of
these findings offer insight into how stations might design programming and activities to deeply engage
with their audiences and embed themselves as an essential part of the local media landscape.
Encouraging listening on the part of community radio stations also emphasises the role of the staff
members and the importance of employing and adequately valuing (and compensating) passionate,
driven people who are themselves embedded within the local community. Community radio staff and the
impacts of relationships with audience members represents a potential area for future research. This
thesis has demonstrated that these relationships are crucial, but further investigation into why and how
this is the case would surely prove valuable.
Returning to our fictional willupattu song, while the spectacle of development alongside spectres
of modernisation might demand a single voice with passive listeners, and the facade of listening suggests
a single voice with a chorus of well-behaved "ideal" listeners, responding predictably and on cue,
community radio is a co-production: a conversation between staff and audiences, rightists and leftists.
While the rightists may set the tone and timbre, without the leftists, there is only half a song.

171
 References
@DrSuad. (2017, February 12). You don’t need to be a voice for the voiceless. Just pass the mic. [Tweet].
Retrieved from https://twitter.com/DrSuad/status/830838928403988480
ABC News. (2014, December 24). Boxing Day tsunami: How the disaster unfolded 10 years ago. ABC News.
Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-24/boxing-day-tsunami-how-the-disaster-
unfolded/5977568
Adjaye, J. K. (2008). The technology of the human voice: Oral systems of information dissemination and
retrieval among the Akan of Ghana. The International Information & Library Review, 40(4), 236–242.
Ahmed, S. (2010). The promise of happiness. Duke University Press.
Akindes, F. (2003). Methodology as lived experience: Rhizomatic ethnography in Hawai’i. In P. K. Murphy
Marwan (Ed.), Global media studies: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 147–164).
Algan, E. (2003). The problem of textuality in ethnographic research: lessons learned in southeast Turkey. In P.
K. Murphy Marwan (Ed.), Global media studies: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 23–39). London; New
York: Routledge.
AMARC Europe. (1994). The Community Radio Charter for Europe. In First AMARC Pan-European Conference of
Community Radio Broadcasters. Ljubljana, Slovenia. Retrieved from http://www.amarceurope.eu/the-
community-radio-charter-for-europe/
Amarnath, J. S., & Raja, P. K. (2006). An economic analysis of tank rehabilitation in Madurai district of Tamil
Nadu. Agri. Econ. Res. Rev, 19, 187–194.
Amit, V. (2002). Realizing community: concepts, social relationships and sentiments. Psychology Press.
Amit, V., & Rapport, N. (2002). The trouble with community: anthropological reflections on movement, identity
and collectivity. Pluto Press London.
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso Books.
Anderson, P. (2013). The Indian Ideology. London; New York: Verso Books.
Ang, I. (1989). Beyond self-reflexivity. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 13(2), 27–29.
Ang, I. (1990). Culture and communication: Towards an ethnographic critique of media consumption in the
transnational media system. European Journal of Communication, 5(2), 239–260.
Ang, I. (1996). Ethnography and radical contextualism in audience studies. The Audience and Its Landscape,
247–262.
Annamalai, E. (2010). Politics of language in India. In Routledge Handbook of South Asian Politics (pp. 229–
247). Routledge.
Appadurai, A. (2004). The capacity to aspire. In V. Rao and M. Walton (Ed.), Culture and public action.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4),
216–224.
Arondekar, A. (2009). For the record: on sexuality and the colonial archive in India. Duke University Press.

172
Arora, V., Ramakrishnan, N., & Fernandez, L. (2015). Community Radio and Sustainability: A Participatory
Research Initiative. New Delhi.
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (2003). The empire writes back: Theory and practice in post-colonial
literatures. Routledge.
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (2013). Post-colonial studies: The key concepts. Routledge.
Atkinson, J. (2005). Conceptualizing global justice audiences of alternative media: The need for power and
ideology in performance paradigms of audience research. The Communication Review, 8(2), 137–157.
Atkinson, J. D. (2008). Towards a model of interactivity in alternative media: A multilevel analysis of audiences
and producers in a new social movement network. Mass Communication and Society, 11(3), 227–247.
Atton, C. (2001). Alternative Media. London, GBR: SAGE Publications Inc. (US). Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/qut/docDetail.action?docID=10285227
Bailey, O. G., Cammaert, B., & Carpentier, N. (2007). Understanding alternative media. McGraw-Hill Education
(UK).
Bailur, S. (2008). Analyzing telecentres using postcolonial theory. Paper No. 35: Development Informatics
Working Paper Series.
Bailur, S. (2012). Who Is the Community in Community Radio? Economic & Political Weekly, 47(17), 92–99.
Bailur, S. (2015). ‘Development, Development, Development’: Rules and Norms Performed at a ‘Community’
Multimedia Centre in South India. Materiality, Rules and Regulation: New Trends in Management and
Organization Studies, 52.
Banjade, A. (2007). Community radio in Nepal: A case study of Community Radio Madanpokhara. Ohio
University.
Baruah, U. L. (2017). This is All India Radio. Publications Division Ministry of Information & Broadcasting.
Bassel, L. (2017). The Politics of Listening: Possibilities and Challenges for Democratic Life. Springer.
Bavelas, J. B., & Gerwing, J. (2011). The listener as addressee in face-to-face dialogue. International Journal of
Listening, 25(3), 178–198.
BBC. (2018, August 7). M Karunanidhi: The radical wordsmith who shook up Indian politics. BBC. Retrieved
from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45093900
Bebbington, A., Farrington, J., Lewis, D. J., & Wellard, K. (2005). Reluctant partners? Non-governmental
organizations, the state and sustainable agricultural development. Routledge.
Bennett, N. (2003). The Russian rural information network. The One to Watch: Radio, ICT’s and Interactivity.
Berger, G. (2010). Problematizing ‘media development’as a bandwagon gets rolling. International
Communication Gazette, 72(7), 547–565.
Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication; an introduction to theory and practice. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Berrigan, F. J. (1979). Community Communications: The Role of Community Media in Development. Reports and
Papers on Mass Communication No. 90. ERIC.
Bessire, L., & Fisher, D. (2012). Radio Fields : Anthropology and Wireless Sound in the 21st Century. New York,
NY, USA: New York University Press (NYU Press). Retrieved from

173
 http://site.ebrary.com/lib/rmitau/docDetail.action?docID=10621324
Bhabha, H. K. (1985). Signs taken for wonders: Questions of ambivalence and authority under a tree outside
Delhi, May 1817. Critical Inquiry, 12(1), 144–165.
Bhatt, S. C. (2006). Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories: In 36 Volumes. Tamil Nadu (Vol. 25).
Gyan Publishing House.
Bickford, S. (1996). The dissonance of democracy: Listening, conflict, and citizenship. Cornell University Press.
Bird, S. E. (1992). Travels in nowhere land: Ethnography and the “impossible”; audience. Critical Studies in
Media Communication, 9(3), 250–260.
Birtchnell, T. (2011). Jugaad as systemic risk and disruptive innovation in India. Contemporary South Asia,
19(4), 357–372.
Blackman, L. (2012). Immaterial bodies: Affect, embodiment, mediation. Sage.
Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational & communication research. Sage.
Bosch, T. E. (2003). Radio, community and identity in South Africa: A rhizomatic study of Bush Radio in Cape
Town. Ohio University.
Bose, D. L. (2016). Community radio - where is the community? The Hoot. Retrieved from
http://www.thehoot.org/media-watch/community-media/community-radiowhere-is-the-community-
9743
Botnick, K., & Raja, I. (2011). Subtle technology: The design innovation of Indian artisanship. Design Issues,
27(4), 43–55.
Burgess, J. (2006). Hearing ordinary voices: Cultural studies, vernacular creativity and digital storytelling.
Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 20(2), 201–214.
Burleson, B. R. (2011). A constructivist approach to listening. The Intl. Journal of Listening, 25(1–2), 27–46.
Burrell, J. (2011). User Agency in the Middle Range: Rumors and the Reinvention of the Internet in Accra,
Ghana. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 36(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/41149046
Cadiz, M. C. H. (2005). Communication for empowerment: The practice of participatory communication in
development. Media and Glocal Change. Rethinking Communication for Development, 145–158.
Carbin, M., & Edenheim, S. (2013). The intersectional turn in feminist theory: A dream of a common language?
European Journal of Women’s Studies, 20(3), 233–248.
Carpentier, N. (2011a). New Configurations of the Audience? The Handbook of Media Audiences, 4, 190.
Carpentier, N. (2011b). The concept of participation: If they have access and interact, do they really
participate? CM-Časopis Za Upravljanje Komuniciranjem, 6(21), 13–36.
Carpentier, N. (2015). Differentiating between access, interaction and participation. Conjunctions.
Transdisciplinary Journal of Cultural Participation, 2(2), 7–28.
Carpentier, N. (2016a). Beyond the ladder of participation: An analytical toolkit for the critical analysis of
participatory media processes. Javnost-The Public, 23(1), 70–88.
Carpentier, N. (2016b). Community media as rhizome: Expanding the research agenda. Journal of Alternative
and Community Media, 1, 4–6.
Carpentier, N., Cammaerts, B., & Bailey, O. G. (2008). Understanding Alternative Media. Buckingham, GBR:

174
 Open University Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/qut/docDetail.action?docID=10229857
Carpentier, N., & Doudaki, V. (2014). Community Media for Reconciliation: A Cypriot Case Study.
Communication, Culture & Critique, 7(4), 415–434.
Carpentier, N., Lie, R., & Servaes, J. (2007). Making community media work: community media identities and
their articulation in an Antwerp neighbourhood development project. Communication for Development
and Social Change, 347.
Carpentier, N., Lie, R., & Servaes, J. A. N. (2003). Community Media: Muting the democratic media discourse?
Continuum, 17(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1030431022000049010
Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Subaltern studies and postcolonial historiography. Nepantla: Views from South, 1(1),
9–32.
Chambers, R. (1995). Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? Environment and Urbanization, 7(1), 173–
204.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Chatterjee, P. (1984). Gandhi and the critique of civil society. In R. Guha (Ed.), Subaltern Studies III: Writings on
South Asian History (pp. 153–195). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, P. (1993). The nation and its fragments: Colonial and postcolonial histories (Vol. 11). Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Chatterjee, P. (2011). Lineages of political society: Studies in postcolonial democracy. Columbia University
Press.
Clarke, A. E. (2007). Grounded theory: Critiques, debates, and situational analysis. In The SAGE handbook of
social science methodology (pp. 423–442).
Cleaver, F. (2001). Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development.
Participation: The New Tyranny, 36.
Coelho Jr, N. E., & Figueiredo, L. C. (2003). Patterns of intersubjectivity in the constitution of subjectivity:
Dimensions of otherness. Culture & Psychology, 9(3), 193–208.
Coffey, D., & Spears, D. (2017). Where India goes: Abandoned toilets, stunted Development and the costs of
caste. Harper Collins.
Cooke, B. (2004). Rules of thumb for participatory change agents. Participation: From Tyranny to
Transformation, 42–55.
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books.
Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and fuzzwords: deconstructing development discourse. Development in
Practice, 17(4–5), 471–484.
Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community Development
Journal, 43(3), 269–283.
Couldry, N. (2003). Passing Ethnographies: Rethinking the sites of agency and reflexivity in a mediated word. In
P. K. Murphy Marwan (Ed.), Global media studies: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 40–56). London; New
York: Routledge.
Couldry, N. (2004). Theorising media as practice. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 115–132.

175
Couldry, N. (2006). Listening beyond the echoes: Media, ethics and agency in an uncertain world. Paradigm
Publishers.
Couldry, N. (2009). Rethinking the politics of voice. Continuum, 23(4), 579–582.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903026594
Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. Sage Publications.
Couldry, N. (2015). Alternative Media and Voice. The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community
Media.
Couldry, N., Livingstone, S., & Markham, T. (2016). Media consumption and public engagement: Beyond the
presumption of attention. Springer.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage
publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Sage publications.
Crook, M. (2009). Radio Storytelling and Beyond. In J. Hartley & McWilliam, Karen (Ed.), Story circle: Digital
storytelling around the world (pp. 124–128). Oxford, UK: Wiley Online Library.
Cross, N. (1993). Talking back: the role of oral testimony in participatory development. Slim, H. and P.
Thompson. Listening for a Change: Oral Testimony and Development. Panos Publications, London.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage.
Czarniawska, B. (1997). A narrative approach to organization studies (Vol. 43). Sage Publications.
Czarniawska, B. (2004). The uses of narrative in social science research. In M. A. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), The
Handbook of Data Analysis. Sage.
Czarniawska, B. (2014). Social science research: From field to desk. Sage.
da Costa, P. (2018). Communicating Development Results in an Emerging “Post-Aid” Era. In Communication in
International Development (pp. 153–169). Routledge.
Dagron, A. G. (2003). Take five: A handful of essentials for ICTs in development. The One to Watch—radio, New
ICT’s and Interactivity, 21–38.
Dagron, A. G., & Bleck, C. (2001). Making waves. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.
Dahlgren, P., & Alvares, C. (2013). Political participation in an age of mediatisation: Towards a new research
agenda. Javnost-the Public, 20(2), 47–65.
Dart, J., & Davies, R. (2003). A dialogical, story-based evaluation tool: The most significant change technique.
American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 137–155.
David, M. J. R. (2001). Mahaweli Community Radio. In B. Girard (Ed.), A Passion for Radio: Radio Waves and
Community. Black Rose Books Ltd.
De Kock, L. (1992). An Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Ariel: A Review of International English
Literature, 23(3).
Deane, J. (2014). Media Development. In K. Wilkins, R. Obregon, & T. Tufte (Eds.), The Handbook of
Development Communication and Social Change (pp. 226–241). Hoboken: Wiley.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Bloomsbury Publishing.

176
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Department of Economics and Statistics. (2017). Statistical Handbook of Tamil Nadu 2017. Chennai, India:
Government of Tamil Nadu. Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov.in/deptst/
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dey, I. (2004). Grounded theory. In Qualitative research practice (pp. 80–93).
Dhawan, H. (2014, January 3). Naxalite-affected areas to have community radios. Times of India. Retrieved
from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Naxalite-affected-areas-to-have-community-
radios/articleshow/28304943.cms
Donner, J. (2010). Framing M4D: the utility of continuity and the dual heritage of “Mobiles and Development.”
The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 44(1), 1–16.
Doron, A., & Raja, I. (2015). The cultural politics of shit: class, gender and public space in India. Postcolonial
Studies, 18(2), 189–207.
Downing, J. D. H. (2000). Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements. Sage Publications.
Downing, J. D. H. (2003). Audiences and readers of alternative media: The absent lure of the virtually
unknown. Media, Culture & Society, 25(5), 625–645.
Dreher, T. (2009a). Eavesdropping with permission: the politics of listening for safer speaking spaces.
Dreher, T. (2009b). Listening across difference: Media and multiculturalism beyond the politics of voice.
Continuum, 23(4), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903015712
Dreher, T. (2012). A partial promise of voice: Digital storytelling and the limit of listening.
Dutta, A., & Roy, R. (2014). Decolonizing transgender in India: Some reflections. Transgender Studies Quarterly,
1(3), 320–337.
Dutta, M. J. (2014). A culture-centered approach to listening: Voices of social change. International Journal of
Listening, 28(2), 67–81.
Easterly, W. R. (2006). The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill
and so little good. Penguin.
Edwards, R. (1998). A critical examination of the use of interpreters in the qualitative research process. Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24(1), 197–208.
Enghel, F., & Noske-Turner, J. (2018). Communication in International Development: Doing Good Or Looking
Good? Routledge.
Escobar, A. (2011). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (STU-Stud).
Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7rtgw
Evans, M., Miller, A., Hutchinson, P., & Dingwall, C. (2014). Decolonizing Research Practice: Indigenous
Methodologies, Aboriginal Methods, and Knowledge/Knowing. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative
Research, 179.
Ewart, J. (2016). The rules of engagement: talkback radio audiences’ understandings of the conditions of
access to programs. Continuum, 1–9.
Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth. Grove Press New York.
Fenton, N. (2016). Alternative media and the question of power. Journal of Alternative and Community Media,

177
 1, 10–11.
Fernandes, S. (2017). Curated Stories: The Uses and Misuses of Storytelling. Oxford University Press.
Fisher, D. (2012). From the studio to the street: producing the voice in indigenous Australia.
Forde, S. (2011). Community Broadcasting Audiences (Australia). . In Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media.
(pp. 110–112). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412979313
Forde, S., Ewart, J., Foxwell, K., & Meadows, M. (2007). Community Media Matters.
Forde, S., Foxwell, K., & Meadows, M. (2003). Through the Lens of the Local: Public Arena Journalism in the
Australian Community Broadcasting Sector. Journalism, 4(3), 314–335.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849030043004
Forde, S., Meadows, M., & Foxwell-Norton, K. (2002). Culture, commitment, community: the Australian
community radio sector.
Fornäs, J., & Xinaris, C. (2013). Mediated identity formation: Current trends in research and society. Javnost-
The Public, 20(2), 11–25.
Foxwell, K. (2001). Quantifying community radio… some qualifications. Australian Community Broadcasting
Series, 1(5), 1–14.
Foxwell, K., Ewart, J., Forde, S., & Meadows, M. (2008). Sounds like a whisper: Australian Community
Broadcasting hosts a quiet revolution. Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture, 5(1).
Frank, A. G. (1969). Latin America: underdevelopment or revolution: essays on the development of
underdevelopment and the immediate enemy (Vol. 165). Monthly Review Press New York. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/stable/j.ctt7rtgw.5
Fraser, C., & Restrepo-Estrada, S. (2001). Community radio handbook. Unesco Paris.
Fraser, C., & Restrepo-Estrada, S. (2002). Community radio for change and development. Development, 45(4),
69–73.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy.
Social Text, (25/26), 56–80.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gaonkar, D. P. (1999). On alternative modernities. Public Culture, 11(1), 1–18.
Genilo, J. W., Bhowmick, B. C., & Hossain, M. S. (2016). Giving Voice to the Voiceless: Community Radio in
Bangladesh. In K. Vikas & P. Gupta (Eds.), Media & Communication in Sustainable Development (pp. 142–
163). Yamuna Nagar, India: Society for Education & Research Development.
Gergen, K., & Gergen, M. (2007). Social construction and research methodology. The SAGE Handbook of Social
Science Methodology, 461–478.
Ghosh, A. (2011). Initiatives in ICT for rural development: an Indian perspective. Global Media Journal, 2(2), 1–
8.
Gibb, R., & Danero Iglesias, J. (2016). Breaking the silence (again): on language learning and levels of fluency in
ethnographic research. The Sociological Review.
Gibson, T. A. (2000). Beyond cultural populism: Notes toward the critical ethnography of media audiences.

178
 Journal of Communication Inquiry, 24(3), 253–273.
Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2010). Intersubjectivity: Towards a dialogical analysis. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 40(1), 19–46.
Girard, B. (2003). The one to watch: Radio, new ICTs and interactivity. Food & Agriculture Org.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Transaction Publishers.
Gómez, R., & Ospina, A. (2001). The Lamp without a Genie: Using Telecentres for development without
expecting miracles. Journal of Development Communication, 12(2), 16–25.
Gopinath, G. (2005). Impossible desires: Queer diasporas and South Asian public cultures. Duke University
Press.
Gouws, A. (1996). Feminist epistemology and representation: the impact of post-modernism and post-
colonialism. Transformation, (30).
Grossberg, L. (1986). On Postmodernism and Articulation An Interview with Stuart Hall. Journal of
Communication Inquiry, 10(2), 45–60.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative
Research, 2(163–194).
Guha, R. (2017). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. Pan Macmillan.
Gumucio-Dagron, A. (2001). Making waves: Stories of participatory communication for social change.
Rockefeller Foundation New York.
Gumucio-Dagron, A. (2005). Miners’ radio stations: A Unique Communication Experience from Bolivia. In O.
Hemer & T. Tufte. (Eds.), Media and Glocal Change. Rethinking Communication for Development. (pp.
317–324). Goteborg, Sweden: Goteborg University.
Gumucio-Dagron, A., & Rodríguez, C. (2006). Time to call things by their name. Media Development, 53(3), 9.
Gumucio-Dagron, A. (2008). Vertical Minds versus Horizontal Cultures: an Overview of Participatory Process
and Experiences in Jan Servaes,(ed.), Communication for Development and Social Change. UNESCO, Sage
Publications: New Delhi.
Gumucio-Dagron, A. (2014). Indigenous communication: From multiculturalism to interculturality. The
Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change, 108–124.
Gunaratne, S. A. (2000). Handbook of the Media in Asia. Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd.
Guo, L. (2014). Engaging voices or talking to air? A study of alternative and community radio audience in the
digital era.
Guo, L. (2015). Exploring the Link Between Community Radio and the Community: A Study of Audience
Participation in Alternative Media Practices. Communication, Culture & Critique.
Gurunathan, A., & Shanmugam, C. R. (2006). Customary Rights and their Relevance in Modern Tank
Management: Select Cases in Tamil Nadu. In workshop entitled ‘Water, Law and the Commons’
organized in Delhi from (Vol. 8, pp. 1–17).
Gusfield, J. R. (1975). Community: A critical response. Harper & Row New York.
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois

179
 society. MIT press.
Hall, S. (1985). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the post-structuralist debates. Critical
Studies in Media Communication, 2(2), 91–114.
Hamelink, C. J. (2014). Equality and Human Rights. The Handbook of Development Communication and Social
Change, 72–91.
Hammersley, M. (2013). What’s wrong with ethnography? Routledge.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography : Principles in Practice. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Retrieved from http://rmit.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=308687
Harcup, T. (2015). Listening to the voiceless: the practices and ethics of alternative journalism.
Hemer, O., Tufte, T., & Eriksen, T. H. (2005). Media and glocal change: Rethinking communication for
development. Nordicom.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294.
Herring, S. C. (1991). The grammaticalization of rhetorical questions in Tamil. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine
(Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. 1, pp. 253–284). Benjamins Amsterdam.
Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Participation--from tyranny to transformation?: Exploring new approaches to
participation in development. Zed books.
Hildyard, N., Hedge, P., Wolvekamp, P., & Reddy, S. (2001). Pluralism, Participation and Power: Joint Forest
Management in India. In Participation: The New Tyranny (pp. 56–71).
Hinterberger, A. (2007). Feminism and the politics of representation: Towards a critical and ethical encounter
with “others.” Journal of International Women’s Studies, 8(2), 74–83.
Hobart, M. (2002). Introduction: the growth of ignorance? In An anthropological critique of development (pp.
13–42). Routledge.
Honwad, S., Kern, A., & Hoadley, C. (n.d.). ‘Jugaad’: Transgressions Within Research Methodologies.
Transforming Learning, Empowering Learners.
hooks, bell. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. South End Press.
Howley, K. (2002). Communication, culture and community: Towards a cultural analysis of community media.
The Qualitative Report, 7(3), 1–24.
Howley, K. (2009). Notes on a Theory of Community Radio. Understanding Community Media, 63.
Hurston, Z. N. (2008). Their Eyes Were Watching God. New York: Harperluxe.
Husband, C. (1996). The right to be understood: Conceiving the multi-ethnic public sphere. Innovation: The
European Journal of Social Science Research, 9(2), 205–215.
Husband, C. (2009). Between listening and understanding. Continuum, 23(4), 441–443.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903026602
Hussain, F., & Tongia, R. (2007). Community radio for development in South Asia: A sustainability study. In
Information and Communication Technologies and Development, 2007. ICTD 2007. International
Conference on (pp. 260–273). IEEE.
Hutchby, I. (2005). Media talk: Conversation analysis and the study of broadcasting. McGraw-Hill Education
(UK).

180
Ilboudo, J.-P., & del Castello, R. (2003). Linking rural radio to new ICTs in Africa: bridging the rural digital divide.
The One to Watch Radio, New ICTs and Interactivity.
Iqani, M. (2016). Consumption, media and the global South: Aspiration contested. Springer.
Jacobson, T. L. (2003). Participatory communication for social change: The relevance of the theory of
communicative action. Communication Yearbook, 27, 87–124.
Jacobson, T. L. (2016). Amartya Sen’s Capabilities Approach and Communication for Development and Social
Change. Journal of Communication.
Jallov, B. (2003). Creating & Sustaining ICT Projects in Mozambique. B. Girard (Ed.), 73–80.
Jallov, B. (2005). Assessing community change: development of a ‘bare foot’impact assessment methodology.
Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media, 3(1), 21–34.
Jeffrey, J. (2004). Information technology and development: a new paradigm for delivering the Internet to rural
areas in developing countries Routledge studies in development economics 39. United Kingdom:
Routledge Ltd. Retrieved from
http://www.crcnetbase.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/doi/book/10.4324/9780203325506
Jenkins, R., & Goetz, A. M. (1999). Accounts and accountability: theoretical implications of the right-to-
information movement in India. Third World Quarterly, 20(3), 603–622.
Jerolmack, C., & Khan, S. (2017). Approaches to ethnography: analysis and representation in participant
observation. Oxford University Press.
Jerolmack, C., & Murphy, A. K. (2017). The ethical dilemmas and social scientific trade-offs of masking in
ethnography. Sociological Methods & Research, 0049124117701483.
Jones, S. M. (2011). Supportive listening. The Intl. Journal of Listening, 25(1–2), 85–103.
Juluri, V. (2003). Ask the West, will dinosaurs come back? Indian audiences/global audience studies. In P. K.
Murphy Marwan (Ed.), Global media studies: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 215–233).
Kamdar, M. (2018). India in the 21st Century: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press.
Katiyar, K. (2017). Understanding Community Volunteering and Representation: Case Study of Waqt ki Awaz
Community Radio Station. In 4th Annual International Communication Management Conference (pp.
324–339). MICA. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/54800973/Proceedings_ICMC_2017-
min.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1527084780&Signature=tc%2FirBaWlMF
Aso81%2BfJ9uwgBK8I%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B filename%3DReinforcing_Beauty
King, G. (2015). Hearing community radio listeners: A storytelling approach for community media audience
research. Participations, 12(2), 25.
King, G. (2016). The Radical Pedagogy of Community Radio and the Case of Radio al-Balad 92.4 FM:
Community Radio News Audiences and Political Change in Jordan. Department of Art History and
Communications Studies. McGill University, Montreal.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 311(7000),
299.
Kivikuru, U. (2005). The citizen, media and social change in Namibia. In O. Hemer, T. Tufte, & T. H. Eriksen

181
 (Eds.), Media and Glocal Change. Rethinking Communication for Development. Nordicom.
Kleine, D. (2009). The ideology behind the technology – Chilean microentrepreneurs and public ICT policies.
Geoforum, 40(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.02.006
Kleine, D. (2011). The capability approach and the ‘medium of choice’: steps towards conceptualising
information and communication technologies for development. Ethics and Information Technology,
13(2), 119–130.
Kolappan, B. (2018, December 26). ‘We don’t expect a secular govt. without Congress’ participation’, says
CPI(M) leader K. Balakrishnan. The Hindu. Retrieved from
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/we-dont-expect-a-secular-govt-without-
congress-participation/article25829024.ece
Kosnick, K. (2007). Ethnic media, transnational politics: Turkish migrant media in Germany. Transnational Lives
and the Media.
Kothari, R. (1988). Rethinking development: In search of humane alternatives. Ajanta Publications.
Kral, M. J. (2007). Psychology and anthropology: Intersubjectivity and epistemology in an interpretive cultural
science. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 27(2–1), 257.
Krishnamurthi, P., & Naguveer Prakash, V. (2007, November). Building Communities through Media –
Kalanjiam Community Radio Experience. Development Matters, 4–8.
Kumar, K. (2003). Mixed signals: Radio broadcasting policy in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 2173–2182.
Kumar, M. (2018, June 19). Unused funds choke India’s struggling community radios. Asia Times. Retrieved
from http://www.atimes.com/article/unused-funds-choke-indias-struggling-community-radios/
Kunreuther, L. (2012). Aurality under democracy: cultural history of FM radio and ideologies of voice in Nepal.
Radio Fields: Anthropology and Wireless Sound in the 21st Century, Edited by Lucas Bessire and Daniel
Fisher, 48–68.
Kuppuswamy, S., & Rajarathnam, S. (2009). Women, information technology and disaster management:
tsunami affected districts of Tamil Nadu. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable
Development, 4(2–3), 206–215.
Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4(3),
455–485.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
Lawler, S. (2002). Narrative in social research. Qualitative Research in Action, 242–258.
Lennie, J., & Tacchi, J. (2013). Evaluating communication for development: A framework for social change.
Routledge. Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/lib/rmitau/detail.action?docID=10659450
Leontiev, D. A. (2005). Three facets of meaning. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 43(6), 45–72.
Lewis, R. (2013). Gendering orientalism: Race, femininity and representation. Routledge.
Lie, R., & Servaes, J. (2015). Disciplines in the Field of Communication for Development and Social Change.
Communication Theory, 25(2), 244–258.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging

182
 confluences, revisited. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4, 97–128.
Lister, R. (2004). Poverty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lowrey, W., Brozana, A., & Mackay, J. B. (2008). Toward a measure of community journalism. Mass
Communication and Society, 11(3), 275–299.
Luthra, A. (2018). ‘Old habits die hard’: discourses of urban filth in Swachh Bharat Mission and The Ugly Indian.
Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 1–19.
MacBride, S. (1980). Many voices, one world: Towards a new, more just, and more efficient world information
and communication order. Rowman & Littlefield.
Macnamara, J. (2013). Beyond voice: audience-making and the work and architecture of listening as new
media literacies. Continuum, 27(1), 160–175.
Macnamara, J. (2014). Organisational Listening: A Vital Missing Element in Public Communication and the
Public Sphere. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 15(1), 89–108.
Macnamara, J. (2016). The Lost Art of Listening: The Missing Key to Democratic and Civil Society Participation.
In Public Lecture. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
Macnamara, J. (2017). Creating a democracy for everyone: Strategies for increasing listening and engagement
by government. London and Sydney: London School of Economics and Political Science and the
University of Technology Sydney.
Malik, K. K. (2012). Community radio: Eliminating voice poverty. The Hoot. Retrieved from
http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=5739&pg=1&mod=1&sectionId
Malik, K. K. (2015). Our Media, Our Principles: Building codes of practice for community radio in India.
Journalism Studies, 16(5), 750–764.
Malik, K. K. (2016). Time for a Reboot. CR News. Retrieved from http://uccommedia.in/news/time-for-a-
reboot/
Malik, K. K., & Bandelli, D. (2012). Community Radio and Gender.
Malik, K. K., Pavarala, V., & Belavadi, V. (2014). DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY RADIO CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT TOOLKIT (CR-CIT) PHASE – II. Hyderabad. Retrieved from
https://cemca.org.in/ckfinder/userfiles/files/CRCIT Phase II FINAL REPORT edited AD1.pdf
Mansell, R. (1982). The" new dominant paradigm" in communication: Transformation versus adaptation.
Manyozo, L. (2007). Method and practice in participatory radio: Rural radio forums in Malawi. Ecquid Novi:
African Journalism Studies, 28(1–2), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560054.2007.9653357
Manyozo, L. (2009). Mobilizing Rural and Community Radio in Africa. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies,
30(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560054.2009.9653389
Manyozo, L. (2012). Media, communication and development: three approaches. SAGE Publications.
Manyozo, L. (2016). From Speaking to Listening. Wumen Bagung.
Manyozo, L. (2017). Communicating Development with Communities. Taylor & Francis.
Manyozo, L. (2018). The Context is the Message: Theory of Indigenous Knowledge Communication Systems.
Javnost-The Public, 1–17.
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual

183
 Review of Anthropology, 95–117.
Marcus, G. E. (1997). The uses of complicity in the changing mise-en-scene of anthropological fieldwork.
Representations, (59), 85–108.
Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton University Press.
McAnany, E. G. (2012). History of Communication : Saving the World : A Brief History of Communication for
Development and Social Change. Urbana, IL, USA: University of Illinois Press. Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/rmitau/docDetail.action?docID=10651014
McMichael, P., & Morarji, K. (2010). Development and its Discontents. Contesting Development: Critical
Struggles for Social Change. Oxon: Routledge, 233–242.
McQuail, D. (2000). Mass communication theory. London: Thousand Oaks.
Meadows, M., Forde, S., Ewart, J., & Foxwell, K. (2007). Community media matters: An audience study of the
Australian community broadcasting sector.
Meadows, M., Forde, S., Ewart, J., & Foxwell, K. (2009). Making good sense: Transformative processes in
community journalism. Journalism, 10(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884908100599
Meadows, M., Forde, S., Ewart, J., Foxwell, K., & Morris, C. (2005). Perfect match? Qualitative audience
research and the community media sector. 3C Media Online.
Mefalopulos, P. (2005). Communication for sustainable development: Applications and challenges. Media and
Glocal Change. Rethinking Communication for Development, 247–260.
Melkote, S. R., & Steeves, H. L. (2001). Communication for development in the Third World: Theory and practice
for empowerment. Sage.
Miéville, C. (2015). The Limits of Utopia. Salvage Zone, 1.
Milan, S. (2008). What makes you happy? Insights into feelings and muses of community radio practitioners.
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 5(1).
Min, I. (2004). Perceptions of the audience by the alternative press producers: A case study of the Texas
Observer. Media, Culture & Society, 26(3), 450–458.
Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation. (2018). Swachh Bharat Mission. Retrieved from
http://swachhbharatmission.gov.in/SBMCMS/about-us.htm
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. (2018). Operational CR Stations. Retrieved from
https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/Operational CRS .pdf
Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises. (2015). STATE INDUSTRIAL PROFILE 2014-15 TAMIL NADU.
Chennai, India. Retrieved from http://dcmsme.gov.in/dips/state_wise_dips/state industrial profile - tamil
nadu_4316.pdf
Ministry of Urban Development. (2014). Guidelines for Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM).
Mitchell, J. P. (2007). Ethnography. In The SAGE handbook of social science methodology (pp. 55–66).
Mittal, E. (2011). Joining the Dots: Building a Peer Group of Community Radio Practitioners. In UNESCO (Ed.),
Ground Realities: Community Radio in India. Bangalore: Communication and Information Sector United
Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Mohan, G. (2001). Beyond participation: strategies for deeper empowerment. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.),

184
 Participation: The new tyranny? Zed books.
Moitra, A., Kumar, A., & Seth, A. (2018). An Analysis of Community Mobilization Strategies of a Voice-based
Community Media Platform in Rural India. Information Technologies & International Development, 14,
18.
Moore-Gilbert, B. (2000). Spivak and Bhabha. A Companion to Postcolonial Studies, 451–466.
Morley, D. (1993). Active audience theory: Pendulums and pitfalls. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 13–19.
Morris, N. (2003). A comparative analysis of the diffusion and participatory models in development
communication. Communication Theory, 13(2), 225–248.
Mosse, D. (2001). “People’s knowledge”, participation and patronage: Operations and representations in rural
development.
Moyo, D. (2009). Dead aid: Why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa. Macmillan.
Mtimde, L., Bonin, M. H., & Opoku-Mensah, A. (1998). What is community radio?: A resource guide. AMARC
Africa.
Murphy, P. D. (2011). Locating media ethnography. The Handbook of Media Audiences, 380–400.
Murru, M. F. (2016). Listening, temporalities and epistemology: A hermeneutical perspective on mediated civic
engagement.
Nandakumar, S., & Sridharraj, G. (2014). Community Participation and its Effectiveness in The Creation of
Programming/Content by Community Radios in Kongu Region. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 4(8),
330–335.
Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences.
Columbia University Press.
Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and zooming out: A package of method and theory to study work practices.
Organizational Ethnography. Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. SAGE, 120–138.
Nirmala, Y. (2015). The role of community radio in empowering women in India. Media Asia, 42(1–2), 41–46.
Noske-Turner, J., Tacchi, J., & Pavarala, V. (2018). Becoming visible: an institutional histories approach to
understanding the practices and tensions in communication for development. In Communication in
International Development (pp. 115–133). Routledge.
O’Donnell, P. (2009). Journalism, change and listening practices. Continuum, 23(4), 503–517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310903015720
Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner. (2011). Census Data. Retrieved from
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/pca/Searchdata.aspx
Olesen, V. (2011). Feminist qualitative research in the millennium’s first decade. The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research, 129–146.
Page, D., & Crawley, W. (2001). Satellites over South Asia: Broadcasting, culture, and the public interest. Sage
Publications Pvt. Ltd.
Pateman, C. (2014). Participation and democratic theory. Participation and Democratic Theory.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720444
Patro, B., & Singh, D. R. (2017). India’s Community Radio Stations Deserve More Space. Development

185
 Alternatives Newsletter, 27(2), http://www.devalt.org/OurNewsletters.aspx?Lid=3.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
Pavarala, V. (2003). Building Solidarities: A Case of Community Radio in Jharkhand. Economic and Political
Weekly, 2188–2197.
Pavarala, V. (2013). Ten Years of Community Radio in India: Towards New Solidarities. EduComm Asia, 17(2),
2–4.
Pavarala, V. (2015). Community Radio ‘Under Progress.’ Economic & Political Weekly, 50(51), 15.
Pavarala, V., & Malik, K. K. (2007). Other voices: The struggle for community radio in India. SAGE Publications
India.
Pavarala, V., Malik, K. K., & Belavadi, V. (2010). 'On Air’: A Comparative Study of Four Community Radio
Stations in India. In National Consultation on Community Radio Policy. New Delhi: UNESCO.
Pavarala, V., Malik, K. K., Belavadi, V., Deshbandhu, A., & Raghunath, P. (2014). Community Radio Continuous
Improvement Toolkit: Version 2.0. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA), New
Delhi.
Penman, R., & Turnbull, S. (2012). From listening… to the dialogic realities of participatory democracy.
Continuum, 26(1), 61–72.
Pidgeon, N., & Henwood, K. (2004). Grounded theory. In M. A. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data
analysis (pp. 625–648). Sage.
Pieterse, J. N. (2000). After post-development. Third World Quarterly, 21(2), 175–191.
Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2015). Digital Ethnography: Principles and
Practice. SAGE.
Pink, S., & Morgan, J. (2013). Short-term ethnography: Intense routes to knowing. Symbolic Interaction, 36(3),
351–361.
Powell, M., & Seddon, D. (1997). NGOs & the development industry. Review of African Political Economy,
24(71), 3–10.
Prabakar, N. (2009). A study on the role of campus community radio (Anna FM) in inculcating everyday science
awareness among marginalised women. Anna University, Chennai.
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263.
Price-Davies, E., & Tacchi, J. (2001). Community radio in a global context: A comparative analysis. Community
Media Association.
Pringle, I., & David, M. (2003). The Kothmale model: using radio to make the Internet visible. The One to
Watch: Radio, New ICTs and Interactivity.
Purdy, M. (1991). Listening and community: The role of listening in community formation. International Journal
of Listening, 5(1), 51–67.
Quarry, W., Ramirez, R., & Ramírez, R. (2009). Communication for another development: Listening before
telling. Zed Books London.
Quebral, N. C. (2012). The Underside of Communication in Development. Nordicom Review, 33(Special Issue),
59–64.

186
Radjou, N., Prabhu, J., & Ahuja, S. (2012). Jugaad innovation: Think frugal, be flexible, generate breakthrough
growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Rai, A. S. (2015). The affect of Jugaad: Frugal innovation and postcolonial practice in India’s mobile phone
ecology. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33(6), 985–1002.
Rai, A. S. (2019). Jugaad Time: Ecologies of Everyday Hacking in India. Duke University Press.
Rajagopalan, S. (2012). Whose security, whose development? : lessons from campaigns against female
infanticide in Tamil Nadu. In R. Samāddāra & S. K. Sen (Eds.), Political transition and development
imperatives in India. London and New York: Routledge.
Raju, S. (2002). We are different, but can we talk? Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography,
9(2), 173–177.
Ramalingam, B. (2013). Aid on the edge of chaos: rethinking international cooperation in a complex world.
Oxford University Press.
Ramalingam, B., Laric, M., & Primrose, J. (2014). From best practice to best fit. Unders¬ Tanding and
Navigating Wicked Problems in International Development. Overseas Development Institute.
Ramírez, R., & Quarry, W. (2018). Communication and evaluation: can a decision-making hybrid reframe an
age-old dichotomy? In Communication in International Development (pp. 151–168). Routledge.
Ransome, P. (2013). Ethics and values in social research. Palgrave macmillan.
Ratan, A. L., & Bailur, S. (2007). Welfare, Agency and “ICT for Development.” In Information and
Communication Technologies and Development, 2007. ICTD 2007. International Conference on (pp. 119–
130). IEEE.
Rathore, V. (2015, February 21). PM Narendra Modi’s “Mann Ki Baat” turns big business for All India Radio. The
Economic Times. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pm-
narendra-modis-mann-ki-baat-turns-big-business-for-all-india-radio/articleshow/46318943.cms
Rauch, J. (2015). Exploring the Alternative–Mainstream Dialectic: What “Alternative Media” Means to a Hybrid
Audience. Communication, Culture & Critique, 8(1), 124–143.
Rennie, E. (2006). Community media: A global introduction. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and Narrative. Vol. 1. Translated by Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer. Chicago
UP.
Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis (Vol. 30). Sage.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage.
Rodriguez, C. (2001). Fissures in the mediascape: An international study of citizens’ media. Hampton Press (NJ).
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York.
Rogers, M. (2012). Contextualizing theories and practices of bricolage research. The Qualitative Report, 17(48),
1–17.
Royte, E. (2017). Nearly, a billion people still defecate outdoors; Here’s why. National Geographic, 232(2).
Ruby, J. (1977). The image mirrored: Reflexivity and the documentary film. Journal of the University Film
Association, 29(4), 3–11.
Ruby, J. (1980). Exposing yourself: reflexivity, anthropology, and film. Semiotica, 30(1–2), 153–180.

187
Rudolph, L. I., & Rudolph, S. H. (2010). The old and the new federalism in independent India. In Routledge
handbook of south asian politics (pp. 163–178). Routledge.
Sachs, W. (1997). Development dictionary, The: A guide to knowledge as power. Orient Blackswan.
Saeed, S. (2009). Negotiating power: Community media, democracy, and the public sphere. Development in
Practice, 19(4–5), 466–478.
Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. Vintage.
SANCOM. (2015). THE COMMUNITY RADIO MOVEMENT IN INDIA – A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS. SANCOM.
Retrieved from http://www.sancomonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-CR-Movement-in-
India.pdf
Santana, M., & Carpentier, N. (2010). Mapping the rhizome. Organizational and informational networks of two
Brussels alternative radio stations. Telematics and Informatics, 27(2), 162–176.
Santos, B. de S. (2006). The rise of the global left. In The World Social Forum.
Schramm, W. (1964). Mass media and national development: The role of information in the developing
countries (Vol. 117). Stanford University Press.
Schramm, W. L., Nelson, L. M., & Betham, M. T. (1981). Bold experiment: The story of educational television in
American Samoa. Stanford University Press.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. Handbook of Qualitative
Research, 2, 189–213.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2009). Reading and writing as method: In search of trustworthy texts.
Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life, 56–82.
Schwarz, H., & Ray, S. (2008). A companion to postcolonial studies. John Wiley & Sons.
Scott, M. (2014). Media and development: development matters. Zed books.
Semujju, B. (2014). Participatory media for a non-participating community: Western media for Southern
communities. International Communication Gazette, 76(2), 197–208.
Sen, A. (2003). Waiting to Be Heard: Bringing Marginalised Voices to the Centre. Economic and Political
Weekly, 2198–2201.
Sen, A. (2015). Monitoring and Evaluation Report on Community Media 2015. New Delhi. Retrieved from
http://cemca.org.in/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Community-Media_Programme_Monitoring _Evaluation.pdf
Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford Paperbacks.
Sen, A. K. (2000). How does culture matter?
Servaes, J. (2008). Communication for Development and Social Change. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=278236&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Servaes, J., & Malikhao, P. (2005). Participatory communication: The new paradigm. Media & Global Change.
Rethinking Communication for Development, 91–103.
Servaes, J., & Malikhao, P. (2008). Development communication approaches in an international perspective.

188
 Communication for Development and Social Change, 158.
Servaes, J., & Verschooten, C. (2008). Hybrid Interactions: Human Rights and Development in a Cultural
Perspective. In J. Servaes (Ed.), Communication for Development and Social Change. New Delhi, India:
Sage Publications.
Sethi, R. (2011). The politics of postcolonialism: Empire, nation and resistance. Pluto Press.
Shah, M. K. (1998). The myth of community: Gender issues in participatory development. ITGD Publishing.
Shah, S. P. (2014). Street corner secrets: Sex, work, and migration in the city of Mumbai. Duke University Press.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–
423.
Shome, R., & Hegde, R. S. (2002). Postcolonial approaches to communication: Charting the terrain, engaging
the intersections. Communication Theory, 12(3), 249–270.
Shrestha, N. (1995). Becoming a development category. In J. Crush (Ed.), Development: A Cultural Studies
Reader (pp. 266–277). Routledge.
Shukla, M. (2014). Democratizing Information in India: Role of Community Radios as a Developmental
Intervention. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 18(4), 349–352.
Siemering, W. (2000). Radio, Democracy and Development: Evolving Models of Community Radio. Journal of
Radio Studies, 7(2), 373–378. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506843jrs0702_10
Sihlongonyane, M. F. (2009). ‘Community Development’as a Buzz-word. Development in Practice, 19(2), 136–
147.
Singh, R., Gupta, V., & Mondal, A. (2012). Jugaad—From ‘Making Do’and ‘Quick Fix’to an innovative,
sustainable and low-cost survival strategy at the bottom of the pyramid. International Journal of Rural
Management, 8(1–2), 87–105.
Singhal, A. (2005). Dissemination versus dialogue: A false dichotomy. Mazi.
Singhal, A. (2013). Indias communication revolution: from bullock carts to cyber marts.
Slack, J. D. (1996). The theory and method of articulation in cultural studies. Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in
Cultural Studies, 112–127.
Slater, D. (2013). New media, development and globalization: making connections in the global South. John
Wiley & Sons.
Slater, D., Tacchi, J. A., & Lewis, P. A. (2002). Ethnographic monitoring and evaluation of community
multimedia centres: A study of Kothmale community radio Internet project, Sri Lanka.
Slim, H., & Thompson, P. (1993). Listening for a change: oral testimony and development.
Sosale, S. (2004). Toward a Critical Genealogy of Communication, Development, and Social Change. New
Frontiers in International Communication Theory, 33.
Spencer, R., Pryce, J. M., & Walsh, J. (2014). Philosophical approaches to qualitative research. The Oxford
Handbook of Qualitative Research, 81–98.
Spivak, G. C. (1985). Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography. In R. Guha (Ed.), Subaltern Studies IV:
Writings on South Asian History. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (pp. 271–313).

189
 Springer.
Spivak, G. C., & Guha, R. (1988). Selected subaltern studies. Oxford University Press.
Spivak, G. C., & Harasym, S. (1990). The post-colonial critic: Interviews, strategies, dialogues. Psychology Press.
Sterling, S. R., O’Brien, J., & Bennett, J. K. (2009). Advancement through interactive radio. Information Systems
Frontiers, 11(2), 145–154.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tabing, L. (2005). How to do community radio: A primer for community radio operators. Unesco.
Tacchi, J. (2003). Promise of Citizens’ Media: Lessons from Community Radio in Australia and South Africa.
Economic and Political Weekly, 2183–2187.
Tacchi, J. (2006). Studying Communicative Ecologies: An Ethnographic Approach to Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs). In 56th Annual Conference of the International Communication
Association. Dresden, Germany.
Tacchi, J. (2009). Finding a voice: Digital storytelling as participatory development in Southeast Asia. In J.
Hartley & McWilliam, Karen (Ed.), Story circle: Digital storytelling around the world (pp. 167–175).
Oxford, UK: Wiley Online Library.
Tacchi, J. (2012). Open content creation: The issues of voice and the challenges of listening. New Media &
Society, 14(4), 652–668.
Tacchi, J. (2013). Digital engagement: Voice and participation in development. Digital Anthropology, 225.
Tacchi, J. (2014). Being meaningfully mobile: mobile phones and development.
Tacchi, J. (2015). Ethnographic action research: media, information and communicative ecologies for
development initiatives. In: Bradbury H, Editor. The Sage Handbook of Action Research, 220–229.
Tacchi, J., Fildes, J., Martin, K., Mulenahalli, K., Baulch, E., & Skuse, A. (2007). EAR Handbook. Retrieved from
http://ear.findingavoice.org/
Tacchi, J., & Kiran, M. S. (2008). Finding a voice: Themes and discussions. UNESCO.
Tacchi, J., Kitner, K. R., & Crawford, K. (2012). Meaningful mobility: Gender, development and mobile phones.
Feminist Media Studies, 12(4), 528–537.
Tacchi, J., & Lennie, J. (2014). A participatory framework for researching and evaluating communication for
development and social change. In The Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change
(pp. 298–320).
Tacchi, J., Slater, D., & Hearn, G. N. (2003). Ethnographic action research: A user’s handbook. New Delhi:
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Regional Bureau for
Communication and Information).
Tacchi, J., Watkins, J., & Keerthirathne, K. (2009). Participatory content creation: Voice, communication, and
development. Development in Practice, 19(4–5), 573–584.
Tanu, D., & Dales, L. (2016). Language in fieldwork: Making visible the ethnographic impact of the researcher’s
linguistic fluency. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 27(3), 353–369.
Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2009). Two cases of ethnography: Grounded theory and the extended case

190
 method. Ethnography, 10(3), 243–263.
Temple, B. (1997). Watch your tongue: Issues in translation and cross-cultural research. Sociology, 31(3), 607–
618.
Thangavelu, D., & Roche, E. (2018, August 8). Jaya, Karunanidhi death: What next in Tamil Nadu politics. Live
Mint. Retrieved from https://www.livemint.com/Politics/FKAolK3qy5DSkZTvXAGUPM/Jaya-Karunanidhi-
death-What-next-in-Tamil-Nadu-politics.html
Thomas, P. N. (2008). Communication and the persistence of poverty: The need for a return to basics.
Communication for Development and Social Change, 31.
Thomas, P. N. (2010). Political economy of communications in India: The good, the bad and the ugly. SAGE
Publications India.
Thomas, P. N. (2011). Negotiating communication rights: Case studies from India. SAGE Publications India.
Thomas, P. N. (2014a). Development communication and social change in historical context. The Handbook of
Development Communication and Social Change, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Thomas, P. N. (2014b). Theorizing development, communication and social change.
Thomas, P. N., & van de Fliert, E. (2015). Communication, Power and Social Change. In Interrogating the Theory
and Practice of Communication for Social Change (pp. 52–72). Springer.
Tilakawardana, S. (2007). Sri Lanka: A thin line between “public service” and alternative media. In K.
Seneviratne (Ed.), Media pluralism in Asia: The Role and Impact of Alternative Media. Asian Media
Information and Communication Centre.
Tönnies, F. (1957). Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft. East Lansing.
Tufte, T. (2017). Communication and social change: A citizen perspective. John Wiley & Sons.
Tufte, T., & Mefalopulos, P. (2009a). Participatory Communication : A Practical Guide. Herndon: World Bank
Publications. Retrieved from http://rmit.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=459716
Tufte, T., & Mefalopulos, P. (2009b). Participatory communication: A practical guide. World Bank Publications.
UN. (2016). Millenium Development Goals. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
UN. (2018). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/
UNESCO. (1983). MAHAWELI COMMUNITY RADIO: Project Findings and Recommendations. Paris. Retrieved
from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0005/000559/055973eo.pdf
UNESCO. (2010). A Report: National Consultation on Community Radio Policy. National Consultation on
Community Radio Policy. New Delhi: UNESCO. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002128/212875e.pdf
UNESCO. (2011). Ground Realities: Community Radio in India. (E. M. and R. Bhat, Ed.). Bangalore:
Communication and Information SectorUnited Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002173/217381e.pdf
Varadpande, M. L. (1987). History of Indian Theatre (Vol. 2). Abhinav Publications.
Vāsanti. (2006). Cut-outs, Caste, and Cine Stars: The World of Tamil Politics. Viking Adult.
Vemraju, R. (2014a). Looking Back, Looking Ahead: A Report of Peer Review by Operational Community Radio

191
 Stations. New Delhi: Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India.
Vemraju, R. (2014b). Looking Back, Looking Ahead: A Report of Peer Review II by Operational Community Radio
Stations. New Delhi: Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India.
Visvanathan, S. (2006). Alternative science. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3), 164–169.
Visvanathan, S. (2009). The search for cognitive justice. Seminar publication.
Vojvoda, A. (2015). “The poor and marginalized find themselveswithout a voice in that monolithic public
sphere.” In F. and C. K. Djateng (Ed.), Media and journalism in Peace Work (pp. 85–88). Civil Peace
Society.
Waisbord, S. (2001). Family tree of theories, methodologies and strategies in development communication.
Rockefeller Foundation, 99.
Waisbord, S. (2005). Five key ideas: coincidences and challenges in development communication. Media and
Glocal Change. Rethinking Communication for Development, 77–90.
Waks, L. J. (2010). Two Types of Interpersonal Listening. Teachers College Record, 112(11), 2743–2762.
Wasserman, H. (2013). Journalism in a new democracy: The ethics of listening. Communicatio, 39(1), 67–84.
White, S. C. (1996). Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice,
6(1), 6–15.
Whittaker, E., Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (2004). The Handbook of
Ethnography. JSTOR.
Wilkins, K. (2012). Advocacy communication. The Handbook of Development Communication and Social
Change, 57–71.
Wilkins, K., Obregon, R., & Tufte, T. (2014). The Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change.
Global Handbooks in Media and Communication Research. Hoboken: Wiley. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=690498&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1985). Listening. ERIC.
World Health Organization. (2018). Guidelines on Sanitation and Health. Geneva. Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/274939/9789241514705-eng.pdf
Ziai, A. (2017). Post-development 25 years after The Development Dictionary. Third World Quarterly, 38(12),
2547–2558.

192
Appendix 1: Interview details

Interview type Duration Location Participants

Malai Vanoli
Listener FGD 1 12:25 Participant’s home 5 female listeners and
volunteers
Storytelling 1.1 3:54 M…
Storytelling 1.2 3:55 P…
Storytelling 1.3 32:37 K…
Listener FGD 2 9:19 Village common 5 female listeners
Storytelling 2.1 4:31 area Sk…
Storytelling 2.2 2:53 Sb…
Group interview 1 18:54 Radio station 5 male RJs
One-on-one 1 17:00 Village common Female station manager
area
Enkal Vanoli
Listener FGD 3 18:49 Radio station 4 male listeners and
parent body members
Storytelling 3.1 43:39 K…
Storytelling 3.2 14:48 R…
Listener FGD 4 50:03 Village hall 3 female listeners and
volunteers
Storytelling 4.1 4:42 Kv…
Storytelling 4.2 5:50 Sy…
Storytelling 4.3 9:20 VN…
Listener FGD 5 19:56 Under a tree 5 male listeners and
volunteers
Storytelling 5.1 8:18 MV…
Storytelling 5.2 5:44 UK…
Listener FGD 6 43:29 Participant’s home 6 female listeners and
volunteers
Storytelling 6.1 7:30 B…
Storytelling 6.2 17:02 P…
Group interview 2 34:55 Radio station 5 RJs: 2 male, 3 female

193
One-on-one 2 27:31 Female station manager
Totals
Total listener focus groups 6
Total listener storytelling interviews 14
Total radio station staff group interviews 2
Total one-on-one staff interviews 2
Total listener participants 28 (19F, 9M)
Total radio station staff participants 11 (7M, 4F)

194
Appendix 2: Participant interview questions and
prompts
Malai Vanoli
Group interviews with staff
- How long have you worked at Malai Vanoli?
- What was your previous journalism/broadcast experience before working here?
- What’s your favourite part of your job here? Least favourite?
- What do you see as the role of community radio?
- Who is your audience? How do they engage with your programmes?
- What do audience members say they like or dislike about your programmes?
- Has an interaction with a listener ever influenced the way you work? (E.g. Have they provided an
idea for a programme that you have used?)
- In what ways do you think Malai Vanoli engages with its listeners? (Events, interviews, personal
conversations?)
- How do you personally feel like you engage with your listeners through your work?
- How often do you find yourself interacting with your listeners? In what way? (Over the phone, in
person socially, for interviews)
- Do you feel as though Malai Vanoli contributes to building a sense of community among its
listeners? Why do you feel that way?

One-on-one interview with station manager

- What sort of feedback mechanisms are in place at Malai Vanoli?
- What are the main ways that content is sourced?
- Who are the volunteers? How many are there? How are they recruited?
- What role does the local community have in the production/presentation of the programmes?
- What do you consider to be the biggest challenge facing Malai Vanoli?
- Can you think of a time when you feel like Malai Vanoli has listened to the community and
responded to their needs?
- Can you think of a time when this didn’t happen? Why?
- How do you think Malai Vanoli listens to their audience? Does this impact on the content and the
way you work?

Listener focus group discussions

- Please introduce yourself: where are you from, what do you do for work, age etc
- How often do you listen to the community radio station? For how long?
- What are you doing while you listen? (Working/cooking/childcare/focussed on listening)
- What was the last show you listened to?
- Do you discuss what you hear on the radio with your friends/family?
- Have you ever visited the station?
- Have you ever been in contact with the station? How? (Feedback, events, talk back, existing
relationships with station staff)
- Can you tell us about these interactions? What were the results of these interactions?
- Do you feel as though the station broadcasts material that is relevant to you?
- Do you feel like you can relate to the broadcasters? Do you feel they represent you? Why?
- Do you feel as though Malai Vanoli gives you a voice?
- Do you think that Malai Vanoli contributes to community development? In what ways?

195
Storytelling
- Can you introduce yourself? Tell your story (age, from, family, education, work, etc.).
- Tell the story of how you found RK
- What is the first program you can remember listening to? What did you think of it?
- Have you ever visited RK? If so can you tell the story of your first visit? If not, why?
- Have you ever produced content/participated in content-creation (interviews etc) for RK? If
so, can you tell the story of the production you are most proud of? If not, why?
- Have you ever heard anything on RK that informed your actions?
- Do you recall any programmes that had a direct impact on you or someone or something in
your community?

Enkal Vanoli
Group interviews with staff
- How long have you worked at Enkal Vanoli?
- What was your work background before starting work here?
- What do you see as the role of community radio?
- Who is your audience? How do they engage with your programmes?
- What do audience members say they like or dislike about your programmes?
- Has an interaction with a listener ever influenced the way you work? (E.g. Have they provided an
idea for a programme that you have used?)
- In what ways do you think Enkal Vanoli engages with its listeners? (Events, interviews, personal
conversations?)
- How do you personally feel like you engage with your listeners through your work?
- Do you feel as though Enkal Vanoli contributes to building a sense of community among its
listeners? Why do you feel that way?
- Do you think that Enkal Vanoli contributes to development within the community? In what
ways?

One-on-one interview with station manager

- What sort of feedback mechanisms are in place at Enkal Vanoli?
- What are the main ways that content is sourced?
- Who are the volunteers? How many are there? How are they recruited?
- What role does the local community have in the production/presentation of the programmes?
- How significant is the influence of the parent organisations on how the station runs?
- What do you consider to be the biggest challenge facing Enkal Vanoli?
- Can you think of a time when you feel like Enkal Vanoli has listened to the community and
responded to their needs?
- Can you think of a time when this didn’t happen? Why?
- How do you think Enkal Vanoli listens to their audience? Does this impact on the content and the
way you work?

Listener focus group discussions

- How often do you listen to the community radio station? For how long?
- What are you doing while you listen? (Working/cooking/childcare/focussed on listening)
- What was the last show you listened to?
- Do you discuss what you hear on the radio with your friends/family?
- Have you ever visited the station?

196
 - Have you ever been in contact with the station? How? (Feedback, events, talk back, existing
relationships with station staff)
- Can you tell us about these interactions? What were the results of these interactions?
- Do you feel as though the station broadcasts material that is relevant to you?
- Do you feel like you can relate to the broadcasters? Do you feel they represent you? Why?
- Do you think that Enkal Vanoli contributes to community development? In what ways?

Storytelling
- Can you introduce yourself? Tell your story (age, from, family, education, work, etc.).
- Tell the story of how you found Enkal Vanoli
- What is the first program you can remember listening to? What did you think of it?
- Have you ever visited Enkal Vanoli? If so can you tell the story of your first visit? If not, why?
- Have you ever produced content/participated in content-creation (interviews etc) for Enkal
Vanoli? If so, can you tell the story of the production you are most proud of? If not, why?
- Have you ever heard anything on Enkal Vanoli that informed your actions?
- Do you recall any programmes that had a direct impact on you or someone or something in
your community?

197
Appendix 3: Translator debrief interview

- Tell me about your own research. What sort of methodology/theoretical worldview do you take
on?
- You’re currently guest lecturing, what classes/courses do you teach?
- What did you think of/know about community radio before we started this research?
- Have you ever listened? Which stations?
- Have you ever participated? How?
- Have your knowledge and opinions of community radio changed over the course of this
research? How/why?
- What was the best part of this research for you?
- What was the worst, or most challenging part?
- How did you find working with the station staff? How about the interviewees?
- Was there anyone that was harder or easier to get along with/talk to?
- Your family is originally from the area of one of the stations, how did that affect your work
there?
- What do you think are the most interesting/important issues/topics that arose throughout the
course of the research?
- Is there anything else I should know/anything you want to add?

198