RESEARCH QUESTION
Our paper will use concepts that shape communication strategy, including networks, framing, and participatory communication theory to conduct an analysis of how the key actors of the Cochabamba Water War used these tools to affect social change by shaping public opinion, with the help of local media.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
In A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War for Ideas, Steven R. Corman introduces the Pragmatic Complexity Model of Communication which opposes dominant Message Influence Models of Communication (sender-receiver) and embraces the idea that, “Communication is a complex process of interpreting one-another’s actions and making attributions about thoughts, motivations, and intentions (Corman, 2007).” Furthermore he states that, “Strategic communication is best viewed as an unpredictable and risky tool, and should be used accordingly (Corman, 2007).” The idea behind this statement, is that “less is more” when it comes to communication strategy. He advises that strategic communicators replace old notions of repeating messages to gain traction and influence over change, with diversity and variation of messages (Corman, 2007). This coupled with the use of networks, framing, and participatory communication practices is the measure used in this paper to weigh the effectiveness of the communication strategies of each of the key actors involved in the Cochabamba Water War.
CONCEPTS
Networks
The most significant of the theories we used to assess the Cochabamba Water War, was the primary actor’s use of networks. According to Dr. Amelia H. Arsenault, “…the study of networks is, in essence, a study of relationships (Arsenault, 2011). By this definition, the interpersonal relationships of key individuals involved, as well as the relationships between principal organizations involved, are of utmost importance to the understanding of the outcome of our case study. Importantly, Arsenault defines points of communication (data points) as nodes. Furthermore, she claims:
“Networks are mercenary, ‘they kill or kiss nothing personal,’ depending on whether the node fulfills the needs of the network (2004b: 32). Networks are thus, flexible, scalable, and survivable because they constantly adapt to changes in the environment, deleting and adding nodes while maintaining a unity of purpose—the survival of the network." (Arsenault, 2011)
For the purpose of our analysis, it is also important to distinguish between formal networks and informal (emergent) networks. While formal networks are sustained by official organized arrangements of nodes, such as in legal contracts that bind local offices of larger corporations together, nodes in emergent networks are connected through shared identities and common goals (Arsenault, 2011). Nevertheless in both cases, it is the organizational strength of these networks that determines their survival.
Framing
In The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership, Gail T. Fairhurst and Robert A. Sarr pose that effective leaders not only pay attention to how things get done, but they understand how to function as managers of meaning. The skill required to manage meaning is called framing (Fairhurst and Sarr, 1996).
“To hold the frame of a subject is to chose one particular meaning (or set of meanings) over another. When we share our frames with others (the process of framing), we manage meaning because we assert that our interpretations should be taken as real over other possible interpretations (Fairhurst and Sarr, 1996).”
The main frames that are used by leaders and strategic communicators, as well as the media, are “metaphor,” “story,” "slogans," “catchphrases,” and "spin" (Fairhurst and Sarr 1996).
Metaphors show likeness between objects. They are a natural system by which people understand complex concepts. Framing through the use of metaphors helps to redefine an issue by comparing it to something that is familiar to the audience.
Stories grab attention by making the details of an event or case more real. Stories can include myths or legends and are used by the media to frame an issue in a memorable way.
Slogans, jargon and catchphrases enhance the meaning of a subject by attaching popular references or ideas to it.
Spin gives a subject a positive or negative connotation by emphasizing or obscuring certain details
Participatory Communication Theory
In line with Corman’s Pragmatic Complexity Model of Communication, which challenges dominant “top-down” communication strategies, in Theories of Development Communication, Srinivas R. Melkote asserts that in Participatory Communication Theory, “The key players are the people handling their problems in local settings and learning and honing their competencies in the concrete experiences of their existential realities (Melkote, 2010).” This concept stems from the understanding that traditional forms of development and development communication strategies are not successful in affecting social change.
Our paper will use concepts that shape communication strategy, including networks, framing, and participatory communication theory to conduct an analysis of how the key actors of the Cochabamba Water War used these tools to affect social change by shaping public opinion, with the help of local media.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
In A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War for Ideas, Steven R. Corman introduces the Pragmatic Complexity Model of Communication which opposes dominant Message Influence Models of Communication (sender-receiver) and embraces the idea that, “Communication is a complex process of interpreting one-another’s actions and making attributions about thoughts, motivations, and intentions (Corman, 2007).” Furthermore he states that, “Strategic communication is best viewed as an unpredictable and risky tool, and should be used accordingly (Corman, 2007).” The idea behind this statement, is that “less is more” when it comes to communication strategy. He advises that strategic communicators replace old notions of repeating messages to gain traction and influence over change, with diversity and variation of messages (Corman, 2007). This coupled with the use of networks, framing, and participatory communication practices is the measure used in this paper to weigh the effectiveness of the communication strategies of each of the key actors involved in the Cochabamba Water War.
CONCEPTS
Networks
The most significant of the theories we used to assess the Cochabamba Water War, was the primary actor’s use of networks. According to Dr. Amelia H. Arsenault, “…the study of networks is, in essence, a study of relationships (Arsenault, 2011). By this definition, the interpersonal relationships of key individuals involved, as well as the relationships between principal organizations involved, are of utmost importance to the understanding of the outcome of our case study. Importantly, Arsenault defines points of communication (data points) as nodes. Furthermore, she claims:
“Networks are mercenary, ‘they kill or kiss nothing personal,’ depending on whether the node fulfills the needs of the network (2004b: 32). Networks are thus, flexible, scalable, and survivable because they constantly adapt to changes in the environment, deleting and adding nodes while maintaining a unity of purpose—the survival of the network." (Arsenault, 2011)
For the purpose of our analysis, it is also important to distinguish between formal networks and informal (emergent) networks. While formal networks are sustained by official organized arrangements of nodes, such as in legal contracts that bind local offices of larger corporations together, nodes in emergent networks are connected through shared identities and common goals (Arsenault, 2011). Nevertheless in both cases, it is the organizational strength of these networks that determines their survival.
Framing
In The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership, Gail T. Fairhurst and Robert A. Sarr pose that effective leaders not only pay attention to how things get done, but they understand how to function as managers of meaning. The skill required to manage meaning is called framing (Fairhurst and Sarr, 1996).
“To hold the frame of a subject is to chose one particular meaning (or set of meanings) over another. When we share our frames with others (the process of framing), we manage meaning because we assert that our interpretations should be taken as real over other possible interpretations (Fairhurst and Sarr, 1996).”
The main frames that are used by leaders and strategic communicators, as well as the media, are “metaphor,” “story,” "slogans," “catchphrases,” and "spin" (Fairhurst and Sarr 1996).
Metaphors show likeness between objects. They are a natural system by which people understand complex concepts. Framing through the use of metaphors helps to redefine an issue by comparing it to something that is familiar to the audience.
Stories grab attention by making the details of an event or case more real. Stories can include myths or legends and are used by the media to frame an issue in a memorable way.
Slogans, jargon and catchphrases enhance the meaning of a subject by attaching popular references or ideas to it.
Spin gives a subject a positive or negative connotation by emphasizing or obscuring certain details
Participatory Communication Theory
In line with Corman’s Pragmatic Complexity Model of Communication, which challenges dominant “top-down” communication strategies, in Theories of Development Communication, Srinivas R. Melkote asserts that in Participatory Communication Theory, “The key players are the people handling their problems in local settings and learning and honing their competencies in the concrete experiences of their existential realities (Melkote, 2010).” This concept stems from the understanding that traditional forms of development and development communication strategies are not successful in affecting social change.