Dear brother
By Hashim Muhammad Suleiman, PhD
A change agent doesn’t rush; a change agent doesn’t get angry and talk down on the people he wants to change. A change agent is a behavioral scientist and a behavioral scientist has in his kitty, the understanding of human psyche. An agent that understands human psyche doesn’t write to denigrate the minds he wants to change. A change agent doesn’t climb on high moral pedestal and start talking down on his people simply because they refused to abide by what he wants them to abide by. A change agent doesn’t angrily write down on people and then start looking for similar write downs to validate his stance.
Yes brother, a change agent isn’t a pure scientist who marvels away at his wonderful, lab oriented breakthroughs and experiment, control induced ideas. I’ve related with many scientists whom easily got frustrated on why their creations aren’t accepted by the end users. And, I always and squarely put the blame on such scientists as I’ll squarely put the blame on you this time around for none acceptance of your intervention by the end users. Yes brother. Take a step away from your intervention and understand the end users of your intervention. It is only when you do that, you’ll now be able to put in place, interventions that’ll be acceptable by the end users.
In relation to the above, dear brother, let me refer you to some literature to help. Please, endeavor to reread the following:
1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
2. Uses and Gratification Theory (UGT)
3. Johari Window
4. Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DIT)
5. Development Communication Source Book (by Paulo Mefalopolus).
Apart from the above globally acclaimed perspectives about why people accept or discard ideas and interventions, there are other myriad of scholarships that showed how an intervention can be accepted by the end users.
One interesting thing about all these myriad of scholarships and literature is that they all blame you, not the people you’re angry with for not accepting your ideas. How did they blame you? Simple. They all discarded the idea of intervention through the Top-Down approach that you used. Development experts have since discarded the idea of developing an idea of development from highbrow offices and dishing down those ideas in commando style down to the people. What works is participatory idea formulation and execution down to ownership of the intervention by the end users. At this juncture, I’ll also urge my brother to reread the concept of the Typologies of Participatory Interventions and Communication.
Read Also:
Further, it’ll be of good service to cap it up with classical examples of why many interventions fail simply because of miscommunication with the end users of such interventions. I’ll give only two examples here:
1. In Uganda, there was a village on top of a stiff hill. Everyday children from the village missed morning classes because they had to fetch water from the stream down the hill up to their hamlets. An educational NGO intervened and put up piped borne water system up the hill. After some weeks, the pipes taking the water up the hill were vandalized. The NGO simply replaced the vandalized pipes and went back to their highbrow offices. After some weeks, that too was vandalized. That’s when it dawned on the NGO that something was wrong. A research was commissioned to unearth what was happening.
To the chagrin of the NGO, they found out that their intervention was an affront to the entire community. That it was only when those children have gone to fetch water down the hill that their fathers can go to their wives to satisfy a human need that’s more urgent than a pipe borne water. Also, it was only when those children went down the hill that they (children) had time for gists, jokes and other human communication needs.
2. In another community, an NGO realized that many children were lost due to constant bouts of malarial attacks. As such, the NGO designed and intervention and went to work. After several days of plans, they entered the community, gathered members of the community and lectured them on how mosquitoes cause malaria. Handbills, fliers and posters of mosquitoes biting people were shared.
After the lectures, the musicals, the drama presentations and the sharing of posters, handbills and fliers, it was time for a thank you speech from the leader of the community. The leader spoke eloquently about all what the NGO did. He thanked the NGO. However, he told the NGO that the mosquitoes the NGO was talking about wasn’t known to the community. According to him, the mosquitoes in their community are so small compared to the ones depicted on the NGO’s handbills, fliers and posters.
So brother, what happened to your intervention wasn’t a chanced happening. It is what happens to all interventions that do not plan for what the end user wants. For an intervention to be owned by the end user, it must be tailored to satisfy both the reasonable and even some “unreasonable” curiosities of the end user.
Dear brother, let me apologize for coming to the open with this. I come open so that other interventionists would also go into introspection and understand why they’re having difficulties in pushing their interventions for acceptance by the end users. I hope you’ll understand.
Thank you.
Muhammad can be reached on [email protected]
