To "C"ommunicate or to "c"ommunicate?

Who would have thought the dynamics of communication between science experts and policy experts needed decoding before it is communicated? During Dr. Bielak's talk, it became evident that experts seem to be insulated within their own fields and accustomed to speaking their own discipline's coded language. Consequently, whenever exchange of information is necessary to "outsiders", it is not communicated in an effective manner, or perhaps the message is not "decoded" appropriately by the receiver.

The process of communication is complex (it consists of a sender who encodes a message that is then transmitted through a medium, and then decoded by the receiver). I found it difficult at the outset to understand the term "knowledge brokering" or even its relevance to this complex process. However, it soon began to make sense that since "big C" (Communication department) takes care of catering to the larger publics, "little c" is needed to attend to communicating to more specific publics such as policy makers, decision makers, and most importantly the interested/attentive public. The quality, depth and breadth of information need to be tailored appropriately to actively engage these important audiences.

This is where it gets interesting. Knowledge brokering is the intermediary process at the level of “little c” that helps to build links by bringing relevant people together to share ideas, assisting them in understanding each other's abilities and needs, and guiding them to sources of knowledge.[1] More importantly, the role of knowledge brokers becomes essential in helping ensure that the right questions are being answered.

Beginning to think about this complex process, particularly in communicating knowledge that is confined within our various disciplines led me to reflect on the dynamics within our multi-disciplinary WWB team. Everytime I write these blogs, I struggle to ensure I am effectively communicating the intended message with enough clarity for all my colleagues (who I am sure agree is not an easy task!). It also became more obvious that a gap exists in communication as soon as we began to test our elevator speeches during the seminar, using terminology that was discipline oriented and not quite comprehensible to out-of-discipline colleagues. Lesson learnt in both cases: know your message and know your audience!

Regardless, with a little tweaking, I am certain we will all have well-polished elevator speeches that effectively communicate the right message to the right audiences (thanks to Dr. Bielak). 

Here is mine - please critique:

“Hello, my name is Dona and I am a graduate student in Globalization Studies and Water Without Borders. My research aims to identify the obstacles embedded within national water policies that prevent rural populations from exercising their rights to access clean water and a healthy living standard. It will also explore policy trends at the international level that steer national water policies in the direction of excluding rural areas. Greater attention to this issue can facilitate achieving the Millenium Development Goals and improving the output of policies in the water sector. I am asking to be granted funding for this project as I am certain the findings will have the potential to be emulated and tested in different settings. I hope I captured your interest and will be glad to provide further details regarding my work.”

---

[1] Bielak, A.T., A. Campbell, S. Pope, K. Schaefer and L. Shaxson “From Science Communications to Knowledge Brokering: The Shift from Science Push to Policy Pull.” In Cheng, D., M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B.Schiele and S. Shi (eds), Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer., 2008:  220.

Developing capacity with developing policies.

“The only reason we are on track with water MDGs is because we are reaching for the ‘low-hanging fruit’ as the urban and peri-urban populations are easier to reach in terms of provision of water and sanitation. The rural population and the rural poor are more difficult to supply” – Dr. Mayfield

The notion of the “low-hanging fruit” presented by Dr. Mayfield helped confirm the greater relevance of my gradually developing MRP on globalization and its impact on development of water policies. Globalization has certainly helped facilitate increased progress on many fronts for improving water quality, access and attention to urban and peri-urban areas.[1] However, the fruits of globalization as discussed in this seminar were largely targeted at urban areas with easier potential for supply and development, marginalizing a whole section of the population who seem to be always left behind on the bandwagon to “development”- the rural poor.

Rural areas and water provision are the next big challenge because providing money and solutions to rural communities is much more difficult. This under investment coupled with increasing environmental targets eventually lead to the need to privatize the industry in order to generate sufficient additional funds.[2] The problem is that with law reforms pushing for increased private tenure and the predominant poorer status of rural communities, two phenomena are occurring:

1.  Laws become discriminatory as they increase class division by permitting those with capital to purchase land and water rights, further marginalizing the poor and certain communal traditions.
2. In many cases the private sector itself marginalizes rural communities given they yield less returns on investment due to predominantly poorer socio-economic conditions and distance from urban centers (where profit exists).

Brooks explains that “national and supranational strategies alone are not enough” anymore to deal with water scarcity and that “experience around the world proves that local management is essential to the sustainable exploitation of scarce water supplies” especially because local management permits a democratizing decentralization of decision and accountability.[3]

With a focus on local management, greater attention should be dedicated to capacity development. The Four Pillars approach developed by UNU-INWEH refers to the interdependency between the public sector, the community and community based organizations, the private sector and academic sector in capacity development. The emphasis is on the "capacity to educate and train, to measure and understand aquatic systems, to legislate and regulate and to provide appropriate, affordable water infrastructure". Perhaps with increased capacity building opportunities offered to individuals in local rural areas, the first step towards bridging the gap of privilege and accessibility is successfully taken. However, how far can this step go if policies implemented from above seem to have the tendency to reverse these progressive developments?

---

[1] Although some may argue it has also had negative implications with greater interference of international organizations in domestic affairs and a strong push for privatization- with criticism increasingly directed at the World Bank.

[2] http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/enviwat.pdf, p21.

[3] Brooks, David B. Water: Local-level Management. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2002, p6.