Editing Development communication (section)

==== Policy sciences ====
Policy sciences provide an integrated approach in solving various problems in local, national, regional and international level. Coined by Harold D. Lasswell, policy sciences draw knowledge from various disciplines where recommendations are formulated, hence, its integrated approach. Because of its integrative nature, policy sciences follow a systems approach such that elements are interrelated and forms a 'generality principle'.

Following its interdisciplinary nature is the idea that policy sciences encourage diversity of perspectives from various disciplines. This instigates consultative communication from various individuals in the principle of common interest.

In the pursuit of knowledge, policy scientists need to be careful in deciphering relevance of particular knowledge given the impact of various knowledge sources that are trying to influence policy decisions. In this regard, informed decisions are drawn from critiquing, careful analysis and recommendations that will be beneficial to many rather than a few individuals. 
<ref>Gale, T. (2008). Policy Sciences. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Retrieved from www.encyclopedia.com</ref>

Lasswell (1970: 3)<ref>{{Cite book|title=A Pre-view of Policy Sciences|last=Lasswell|first=Harold|publisher=American Elsevier|year=1970|location=New York|page=3}}</ref> defines policy sciences as ''knowledge of the policy process as well as knowledge in this process''. Torgerson (1985)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Torgerson|first=Douglas|s2cid=145404786|date=1985|title=Contextual Orientation in Policy Analysis: The Contribution of Harold D. Lasswell|journal=Policy Sciences|volume=18|issue=3|pages=241–261|doi=10.1007/BF00138911}}</ref> states that Lasswell proposed the development of policy science-or policy sciences-as an interdisciplinary field to embrace all the social sciences and to produce knowledge applicable to public problems. The term "policy sciences" in its plural form, therefore, emphasizes its interdisciplinary nature (Flor, 1991). According to Hale (2011),<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hale|first=Ben|date=2011|title=The methods of applied philosophy and the tools of the policy sciences|journal=International Journal of Applied Philosophy|volume=25|issue=2|pages=215–232|doi=10.5840/ijap201125219}}</ref> the central aim of policy sciences is to resolve problems [in the service of human dignity] and the diverse human, historical, and contextual element in public policy-making. This is a reiteration of the Lasswellian maxim on public policy in the following key elements: "contextual"; "problem-oriented"; "multi-method inquiry" or diverse empirical methods, "political", "normative, welfare-oriented" in the case of social policy goals; and posing "interdisciplinarity" or moving between humanities and social sciences. Indeed, Lasswell's original goal of the policy sciences was to provide, "intelligence pertinent to the integration of values realized by and embodied by interpersonal relations [such as] human dignity and the realization of human capacities" (Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950: p. xii).<ref>{{Cite book|title=Power and Society|last1=Lasswell |first1=Harold |last2=Kaplan |first2=Abraham |publisher=Yale University Press|year=1950|location=New Haven, CT}}</ref> The "policy sciences" therefore adopts an approach to understanding and solving problems that draw on and contribute to all fields of knowledge (Quebral, 2006)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Quebral|first=Nora|date=2006|title=Development Communication in a Borderless World|journal=Glocal Times|volume=3|pages=1–5}}</ref> and sets out procedures in an integrated and comprehensive form to help clarify and secure common interests.

According to [[Harold Lasswell]] (1971), the policy sciences are concerned with the knowledge ''of'' and ''in'' the decision processes of the public and civic order.<ref name="Laswell, H.D. 1971">Laswell, H.D. (1971). [http://www.policysciences.org/classics/preview.pdf A Preview of Policy Sciences] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924075209/http://www.policysciences.org/classics/preview.pdf |date=24 September 2015 }}. American Elsevier.</ref> Knowledge of decision processes points to the empirical and scientific understanding of how policies are made and executed. At one moment, the analyst regards his subject-matter as an objective phenomenon, but this phase alternates with another in which the analyst comes to view himself as actively involved in the phenomenon which he investigates. Inquiry displays both tension and interplay between these moments; they are distinct yet interwoven, complementary in the ongoing development and refinement of contextual orientation (Togerson, 1985). Empirical knowledge pertains to those generated through scientific inquiry and observation as applied to decision processes. As such, the notion of the policy sciences is construed in various shades since it was introduced in the 1940s and over the years, Lasswell and his colleagues refined the concept, through practice and peer review, as the intellectual tools needed to support problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method inquiry in the service of human dignity for all.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.colorado.edu/UCB/TheUniversity/Committees/SPS/F/courses/psci5076.html|title=Introduction to the Policy Sciences|last=Brunner|first=Ronald|date=1996|website=PSCI5076: Introduction to Policy Sciences|publisher=University of Colorado|access-date=28 March 2016|archive-date=4 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000158/http://www.colorado.edu/UCB/TheUniversity/Committees/SPS/F/courses/psci5076.html}}</ref> The policy sciences is a forward-looking body of knowledge, with the plural form emphasizing its interdisciplinary and holistic nature.<ref>Allen (1978), cited in Flor, Alexander (1991). Development Communication and the Policy Sciences. ''Journal of Development Communication''. Kuala Lumpur: Asian Institute of Development Communication</ref> It recognizes the multiplicity of factors affecting certain problems and multi-dimensions of certain phenomena that are subject to decision processes.<ref name=":2" /> According to Laswell (1971, p.&nbsp;39),<ref>{{Cite book|title=A Pre-View of Policy Sciences|last=Lasswell|first=Harold|publisher=American Elsevier Publishing Company|year=1971|location=New York}}</ref> an adequate strategy of problem solving in policy sciences encompasses five intellectual tasks performed at varying levels of insight and understanding namely: goal clarification; trend description; analysis of conditions; projection of developments; and invention, evaluation, and selection of alternatives. As such, the emphasis of policy sciences is on applying scientific or empirical evidences in understanding problems so that more realistic, responsive and effective interventions are identified and implemented.  Since a problem is multidimensional, various scientific disciplines are needed to form a comprehensive analysis of a certain phenomenon. The trend toward a policy sciences viewpoint is a move away from fragmentation and the fragmented "worm's eye view" of policy matters.<ref name="Laswell, H.D. 1971" />

According to Yehezkel Dror in his article entitled, "Approaches to Policy Sciences," two of the main features of policy sciences can be summarized as follows:
1) Policy sciences, as with all applied scientific knowledge, are, in principle, instrumental-normative in the sense of being concerned with means and intermediate goals rather than absolute values. But policy sciences are sensitive to the difficulties of achieving "value free sciences" and try to contribute to value choice by exploring value implications, value consistencies, value costs, and the behavioral foundations of value commitments.
2) Policy sciences emphasize meta-policies (that is, policies on policies), including modes of policy-making, policy analysis, policy-making systems, and policy strategies. While the main test of policy sciences is better achievement of considered goals through more effective and efficient policies, policy sciences as such do not deal with discrete policy problems, but do provide improved methods and knowledge for doing so. Furthermore, he mentioned that the main foci of concern for policy sciences include, for example, (i) policy analysis, which provides heuristic methods for identification of preferable policy alternatives; (ii) policy strategies, which provide guidelines for postures, assumptions, and main guidelines to be followed by specific policies (for example, with respect to incrementalism versus innovation, attitudes to risk and time, comprehensive versus shock policies, and goal-oriented versus capacity oriented policies); (iii) evaluation and feedback, including, for instance, social indicators, social experimentation, and organizational learning; and (iv) improvement of the system for policymaking-by redesign and sometimes nova design (designing anew), including changes in input, personnel, structure, equipment, external demands, and so forth.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dror |first1=Yehezkel |title=Approaches to Policy Sciences |journal=Science |year=1969 |volume=166 |issue=3902 |pages=272–3 |doi=10.1126/science.166.3902.272 |pmid=17731493|doi-access= }}</ref>

As defined by Laswell (1970),<ref>Lasswell, H. D. (1970). The emerging conception of policy sciences. Policy Sciences (1) 3–14.</ref> the policy sciences may be conceived as knowledge of the policy process and of the relevance of knowledge in the process. Its approach is anticipatory which aims to improve policymaking in order to provide as much lead time as necessary in the solution of societal problems.<ref name="Flor, A. G. 1991">Flor, A. G. (1991). Development communication and the policy sciences. Journal of Development Communication.</ref> However, it should be considered that since it is a science, the knowledge that can be acquired in the process should be based on the concept of scientific evidence. Therefore, one issue that may arise along the way is how to regard societal problems and issues scientifically. However, according to Lasswell and McDougal (1992),<ref>Lasswell, Harold, and Myres McDougal. (1992) Jurisprudence for a Free Society: Studies in Law, Science and Policy. (2 vols.) West Haven, CT: University of New Haven Press.</ref> while the problems are addressed scientifically, there is also a need for considering the contextual and normative approach to solving problems. The reason is that the knowledge produced is not only universalizable but ethical and empirico-analytical. Through this, policy science is thought not only problem-oriented but also multidisciplinary and contextual.<ref>Dror, Y. (1970). Prolegomena to Policy Sciences.  Policy Sciences, Volume 1.</ref>

Generally, the relationship between development communication and the policy sciences can be described as inextricable<ref name="Flor, A. G. 1991"/> although both fields of study have different concentration, scope, and limitations. Furthermore, both development communication and the policy sciences share the same practice: the need for actively applying knowledge from and principles of the social sciences in solving large-scale societal problems under conditions of social change.<ref name="Flor, A. G. 1991"/> In today's society where it is being described as troubled and problematic, there is no better way to confront the societal issues but to have a strong knowledge and a better understanding of communication policy.

In the context of communication policy development, the policy sciences are necessary to make more purposeful, responsive, and effective communication policies. Profoundly influenced by Freud and Marx, Lasswell emphasized the importance of the contextual orientation of policy analysts, both individually and collectively (Lasswell, 1965). When he first articulated this principle of contextuality, Lasswell indeed referred explicitly to the "exposition of the dialectical method" (1965)<ref>{{Cite book|title=The World Revolution of Our Time: A Framework for Basic Policy Research|last=Harold D. Lasswell|first=in Harold Lasswell and Daniel Lerner (Eds) World Revolutionary Elites|publisher=MIT Press|year=1965|location=Cambridge, MA|pages=29–96}}</ref> in Lukacs's ''History and Class Consciousness'', adding that the insights of psychoanalysis provided a complement to the Marxian dialectic which would aid in understanding "the symbolic aspects of historical development" (Laswell, 1965, p.&nbsp;19). Here Lasswell proposed a mode of contextual-configurative analysis whereby, through "an act of creative orientation" (Laasswell, 1965, p.&nbsp;13), the inquirer could locate himself in an 'all-encompassing totality" (Lasswell, 1965, p.&nbsp;12). In this regard, Lasswell considered such contextual orientation indispensable to the conduct of rational inquiry, and urged the use of contextual-configurative analysis in the development of a policy science profession. Hale (2011, p.&nbsp;221)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hale|first=Ben|date=2011|title=The Methods of Applied Philosophy and the Tools of the Policy Sciences|url=http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2011.37.pdf|journal=International Journal of Applied Philosophy|volume=25|issue=2|pages=215–232|doi=10.5840/ijap201125219}}</ref> contends that Lasswell saw that robust policy solutions could only be obtained by insisting upon a commitment to contextuality, problem orientation, and methodological diversity. All for good reasons: first, no decision can adequately be understood apart from the larger social process in which it is itself apart. Thus '''contextuality''' is a key element in the policy sciences. As a reliance on ideology, principle, and grand historical projects cannot, given the complexity and contextuality of policy problems, serve with reliable solution, a discipline geared to resolve problems should expressly orient itself on those problems and should be purposeful. Thus '''problem orientation''' is the second key element in the policy sciences. Finally, due to the multidimensionality and complexity of many of these problems it stands to reason that the policy scientist should draw from a diversity of methodologies. Thus '''methodological diversity''' is the third key element in the policy sciences. It is Lasswell's sincere belief that understanding the policy formation and decision-making process will eventually also be beneficial in the creation of public policy (Hale, 2011).

[https://tidsskrift.dk/mediekultur/article/view/21614 Hepp, A., Roitsch, C., & Berg, M. (2016)] introduces the approach of contextualised communication network analysis as a qualitative procedure for researching communicative relationships realised through the media. It combines qualitative interviews on media appropriation, egocentric network maps, and media diaries. Through the triangulation of these methods of data collection, it is possible to gain a differentiated insight into the specific meanings, structures and processes of communication networks across a variety of media. The approach is illustrated using a recent study dealing with the mediatisation of community building among young people. In this context, the qualitative communication network analysis has been applied to distinguish "localists" from "centrists", "multilocalists", and "pluralists". These different "horizons of mediatised communitisation" are connected to distinct communication networks. Since this involves today a variety of different media, the contextual analysis of communication networks necessarily has to imply a cross-media perspective.

To guide communication policy-makers in addressing challenges, Picard and Pickard (2017)<ref>Picard, R.G. and Pickard, V. (2017). Essential Principles for Contemporary Media and Communications Policymaking. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-11/Essential%20Principles%20for%20Contemporary%20Media%20and%20Communications%20Policymaking.pdf</ref> proposed policy principles that aim to guide contemporary media and communications policymaking in democratic countries so the contributions of these operations and systems to society may be improved.   They maintain that "Media and communications policies are central to many of the social and political issues that societies face today." However, existing policies are often unable to respond to rapid technological, economic, political, and social developments because they address only particular media and communication challenges at a particular time.  On the other hand, fundamental principles are constant, thus providing guidance on how to respond to new concerns and challenges and making appropriate policies.

Picard and Pickard (2017)<ref name="Picard, Robert G 2017">Picard, Robert G. and Pickard, Victor (2017). Essential Principles for Contemporary Media and Communications Policymaking. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. University of Oxford Press.</ref> note that "policy principles are coherent statements based on underlying norms and values that help policymakers and organisations respond to issues and take part in legislative and regulatory activities". In practice, principles are articulated and then used to set policy objectives and determine the means to achieve them. The latter two stages opine Picard and Pickard (2017), are subjected to ''political'' processes that determine the final policy outcome.

Picard and Pickard (2017)<ref name="Picard, Robert G 2017"/> therefore came up with the following rubric list of potential principles that they believe are crucial in crafting a much reflective communication policy:

# Meeting fundamental communication and content needs;
# Providing effective ability for public use of media and communications;
# Promoting diversity/plurality in ownership of media and content available;
# Affording protection for users and society;
# Providing transparency and accountability;
# Pursuing developmental and economic benefits; and
# Pursuing equitable and effective policy outcomes.

The authors (Picard and Pickard, 2017) disaggregated these key principles as follows:

Principles are therefore not neutral, because they are normative, reflecting specific values that are subject to contestation. In choosing among policy principles, Picard and Pickard (2017)<ref name="Picard, Robert G 2017"/> assert that policymakers should optimally be concerned about ''effects of policy on all stakeholders'', giving primacy to fundamental communication ''needs'' of society and seeking to ''balance'' social and economic benefit.

"Communication and Culture, Conflict and Cohesion" is a book edited by Alexander G. Flor (2002), an expert on Knowledge Management for Development, which discusses the need for convergence in society through inter-cultural communication, using case studies in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. It also examines environmental conflicts, indigenous peoples, and the [[official development assistance]] in the Philippines. In the book, Flor noted that communication and culture are "inextricably linked". Societal conflict in this age of informatization is a "function of culture caused by a dysfunction of societal communication". The quality and degree of societal communication – the mass media and education—determine the ways that cultures are exposed to others. The higher the quality and degree of inter-cultural communication, the lower the propensity for conflict, and vice versa. He observed that many of the world's contemporary wars – in Rwanda, Basque, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Aceh, East Timor—are not being waged by national political struggles "but by cultures". For example, Catholic bishops and Islam ulama agree that the conflict in the island of Mindanao in the Philippines is triggered by "opposing value systems (on the use of natural resources), opposing social structures (feudal vs. oligarchic), and opposing worldviews (materialistic vs. idealistic)" – all of which, Flor noted, are components of culture. One of the first steps to help repair the situation is for communication policy scientists to "begin with tolerance as a short-term solution, and understanding as a long-term solution". Tolerance and understanding require "good communication" from both ends of the spectrum that are striving to achieve "mutual understanding" – the goal of Kincaid (1979) for communication in his Convergence Model. The concept of convergence looks at the communication process as cyclical between source and receiver, and interactive between their message and feedback. "With convergence comes cohesion." Mutual understanding achieved through communication helps preclude conflicts, and encourages cohesion among the world's cultures.

<ref>Flor, Alexander G. (2002). Communication and Culture, Conflict and Cohesion. University of the Philippines-Los Banos College of Development Communication, and the Foundation for Development & Communication, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.https://www.academia.edu/179751/Communication_and_Culture_Conflict_and_Cohesion</ref>
<ref>Kincaid, D. Lawrence (1979). The Convergence Model of Communication. Institute of Communication & Culture, University of Hawaii East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.</ref>