The Communication Initiative

[rramirez]

This is a contribution to the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564

***



Hi everyone,

We want to thank all of you for participating.  The contributions have been useful to us in our research and we hope that you have also found the discussion of interest and useful to your work.  We are now going to close this down as we need to move on to the next phase of writing up our research.  However we wanted to leave you with the write up we will be including in our research on this discussion.

Once again thanks to everyone who contributed.
 
Ricardo and Wendy

_______________


The Communication Initiative (CI) http://www.comminit.com hosted a 4 week, targeted on-line discussion forum on the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ (from 25 March to 20 April, 2007). The purpose was to gather examples of how similar organizations track the impact of dissemination efforts of comparable products. We requested examples of their approaches to: planning; producing; disseminating and evaluating the impact of advocacy or communication materials. 
 
 The specific objectives were:

·      To gather experiences from a range of development organizations regarding their “good practice” (and we expect many variations therein) both in terms of production and dissemination of information materials. On this same vein, to hear about how they are closing the inevitable gap between that idea, and their “real world experience”.
·      To hear about approaches in the testing stage and /or already in use to track the use of the materials. How are the communication strategy objectives worded? How are outputs, differentiated from outcomes, and form longer term impacts? How is the elusive challenge of limited causality addressed?
·      To gather accounts of successes and failures in the integration of communication objectives and audiences into communication materials.

We introduced the session with the following review of the issue:

While “good practice” in communication strategy development is to involve users in the production of communication materials, and to tailor make communication materials to suit the media channels and preferences of each audience, “real world experience” is characterized by limited resources and trade offs. In the field of advocacy and information dissemination, many development agencies make compromises both in the production stages of materials and in their dissemination. Often times a single communication product or material is adjusted to serve more than one purpose. Furthermore, it is not rare to also then disseminate the materials without a baseline of information about audiences’ current levels of knowledge and skill.  The contrast between the ideal “good practice” (as in the text books) and the “real world experience” is reminiscent of Chris Argyris’ reference to “espoused theory” (what we say we do) vs. “theory in use” (what we actually do). Argyris argues that the narrower the gap, the more coherent our work will be.

During the first week we heard from eight different contributors from different fields (4 in agriculture, 2 in health, 1 in rights based approaches, and 1 in communication for development).  The following is selected references to contributions that responded closest to our question.

Question 1: What is your organizations’ formal methodology in terms of the steps you follow in planning, producing and dissemination information and communication products?  What difficulties have you encountered in sticking to this methodology and how have you managed to keep to it?

More than one contribution contrasted a "fast approach" that is focused on production and dissemination of materials with a "full approach" that begins "...with stakeholder meeting, audience analysis, baseline survey, message design, pre testing, material production, high profile launching, materials distribution, monitoring management survey, post launch survey and finishing with a review workshop. (Heong).  The full approach was reported to yield significantly more benefits, and yet there is often pressure among researchers for the fast option.

This comment was complemented by a health communication practitioner in India who confirmed the tendency to dedicate significantly more time and resources to material production than to dissemination. 

Our colleagues at John Hopkins reminded us of kits that are available for planning and evaluating information products and services in the health field. The Communication Initiative (our forum hosts) reported on how they disseminate information about communication to 68,000 members of the network. Their efforts to track the value through an on-line survey (July 2006) was filled by 2,334 participants. 

We concluded that there are approaches available that work, and while they require a lot more resources than the "fast" alternatives, they yield significant results: "...cultivation of local ownership, local understanding of the issues, actions, objectives and purpose, building commitments across stakeholders from policy makers to implementers, leveraging local support (Heong)." 

During the second and third weeks we turned our attention to the issue of dissemination:

Question 2: Can you share the wording of the communication objectives that you base your dissemination strategy on? What accomplishments can you share in terms of how these objectives help you monitor or track the performance of your dissemination strategy?

We challenged the forum participants to share approaches in the testing stage and / implementation phase to track the use of the materials; we asked: How are the communication strategy objectives worded? How are outputs differentiated from outcomes and from longer term impacts? How is the elusive challenge of limited causality addressed?

During this week we were directed by our CI hosts to the publication "From research to practice: A knowledge transfer planning guide" that proposed 5 key principles for communication planning (determine: messages, target audiences, the messenger, the transfer method, and the expected impact). We then heard from the Filmmakers Trust in Zimbabwe who emphasized the importance of participation in defining messages and producing videos. The Trust sees the actual video’s as output, while the participation by "target audiences" in their own video production and utilization leads to ownership over the process of social change. This is at the heart of what was perceived as the outcome.

We then received the John Hopkins "Conceptual Framework for the provision of information products and services" with a 4-stage approach (reach, usefulness, use, intended long term outcomes) that included a useful summary of indicators with relevant examples. We took special note of the language they chose to signal that the communication effort will at best be a 'contributor' to the long term outcomes - when in the past, practitioners and researchers were so concerned with demonstrating a direct causal relationship.  We felt that this thinking was consistent with the "Outcome Mapping" approach developed by IDRC's evaluation division http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-26586-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html Outcome mapping places more emphasis on documenting short term outcomes, and acknowledges that in the long term, project activities will be contributing to the desired goals along with many other factors that we cannot control.

For the last week of the forum we focused on experiences combining communication objectives and multiple audiences, we asked:
Question 3: What is your experience integrating communication objectives and multiple audiences into single or standardized communication materials or packages? What has been your most pleasant surprise and your biggest disappointment?  What recommendations can you share?

Once again we heard from Filmmakers Trust in Zimbabwe who explained how the Trust uses the participatory approach to screen materials that have been produced for multiple audiences.  During the discussions and deliberations the content (or material) that is deemed inappropriate to this particular group of audiences is removed. In other words, the Trust includes a pre-testing stage to make sure a package is suitable for use by multiple audiences.

In addition, the Trust noted that they have been able to integrate “…communication objectives and multiple audiences into single or standardized communication materials…” In their experience such packages can work. They noted how an educational video can been seen from different angles and how it can touch different users in unique ways. This, in turn leads to multiple desirable and unpredictable outcomes. They noted that it is their practice to specify anticipated outcomes at the beginning of the project. At the same time they have discovered that in the process most of the outcomes are unpredictable because of the interaction between the audiences and the media messages that takes place when the participatory approach is used. From this experience they recommend a communication model for social change that is flexible and responsive to the audience. They underlined that the “…participation of the target group is important as it not only makes them identify themselves with the project, but also with the solutions and hence is sustainable.”  We took note that the emphasis on ownership resonated with the comments by Mr. Heong in the Pelican forum.

On a final note, we received a valuable contribution from a person with experience in the Caribbean agricultural research field. This contribution pointed to the familiar problem of the need to educate senior management to the importance of communication first before focusing on any external audience. This thought was answered from Zimbabwe with the comment that it is not the lack of knowledge but lack of will that prevents management from supporting the communication and participatory approach. Both acknowledged that the end result was a lack of proper funding for the communication process.

Observations

In summary, we learned that other organizations have experimented with quick approaches that focus on production in contrast with “full approaches”. The full approaches that include audience research, pre-testing, definition of concrete outcomes and specific dissemination plans, yield significant benefits, among which they emphasized ownership over the process and outcomes.  One participant emphasized the need for audience participation in all of these stages, and that person’s experience with this approach echoed the one referred to as the “full approach” in terms of ownership over the process and outcomes. In both of these cases, the materials were clearly seen as outputs, while the learning and social change was the ultimate impact sought.

With regards to evaluation, we benefited from learning about a “Conceptual Framework for the provision of information products and services" with a 4-stage approach (reach, usefulness, use, intended long term outcomes). We took special note that the short term achievements (reach, usefulness and use) were proposed as the easiest to plan for, while the longer-term outcomes were acknowledged to be more difficult to document. We also noted that the difficulty of attributing a causal relationship between communication materials and impacts was consistent with other evaluation approaches like Outcome Mapping. 

***

If you have received this message because someone has forwarded it to you and you are not registered to the discussion you can register at http://forums.comminit.com/viewforum.php?f=71&style=2

Please note: if you are already registered to The CI forums, simply sign in using your CI Forums username and password, Edit your Profile and click on the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ Discussion to request participation from the moderators.

To unsubscribe sign in and deselect this discussion in your profile or reply to this e-mail with unsubscribe in the subject line.

Should you want to read more on this or other communication related issues visit The Communication Initiative web site at:
http://www.comminit.com/healthecomm/

[awft]

This is a contribution to the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564

***



was out of town, hope you get this response

Hie
Its not a lack of knowlege but of will because much has been said about the importance of using the participatory approach, involvng the beneficiaries at all the stages, knowing there needs and also learning from them and also being informed by them on how they want this information delivered/disseminated.

A friend of mine once said to me, many things in this life we are not very sure of, but what is certain, is change. Whether we like it or not, change will still take place which means that the situations, circumstances, needs and priorities of our target audiences changes all the time. I was amazed during the course of our work that while we were busy diseminating messages on the importance of abstanance, faithfulness and the importance of practicing safe sex, that is the use of condoms, communities we were working with (because we were using the participatory approach) had the opportunity to identify new areas the project had to foucs on........they felt that no counselling services were available for those affected by HIV/AIDs, they expalined how traumatising and painful it is to learn from a close relative, a family member or parents that they are living positively......nothing prepares them on how to accept it, live with it and be supportive to that friend or relative............so when using the participatory approach, you have the opportunity to identify new areas and information required so that you also continously update your materials.

I also believe that communication is not taken seriously by many funders, hence heavily underfunded as a result communication practitioners are denied an opportunity to convincingly demonstrate the importance and impact of thier efforts to the overall success of these programmes.

Chido

***

If you have received this message because someone has forwarded it to you and you are not registered to the discussion you can register at http://forums.comminit.com/viewforum.php?f=71&style=2

Please note: if you are already registered to The CI forums, simply sign in using your CI Forums username and password, Edit your Profile and click on the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ Discussion to request participation from the moderators.

To unsubscribe sign in and deselect this discussion in your profile or reply to this e-mail with unsubscribe in the subject line.

Should you want to read more on this or other communication related issues visit The Communication Initiative web site at:
http://www.comminit.com/healthecomm/

[awft]

This is a contribution to the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564

***



Ricardo

I hope this information will be of use:

the future title of the book is;

Making OurMedia-Mapping Global Initiatives Toward a Democratic Public Sphere

Hampton Press ....................Nick Jankowski (the series editor for
Hampton Press)

if you want me to remind you once it is out, please let me know.

Chido

***

If you have received this message because someone has forwarded it to you and you are not registered to the discussion you can register at http://forums.comminit.com/viewforum.php?f=71&style=2

Please note: if you are already registered to The CI forums, simply sign in using your CI Forums username and password, Edit your Profile and click on the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ Discussion to request participation from the moderators.

To unsubscribe sign in and deselect this discussion in your profile or reply to this e-mail with unsubscribe in the subject line.

Should you want to read more on this or other communication related issues visit The Communication Initiative web site at:
http://www.comminit.com/healthecomm/

[rramirez]

Childo:
Thanks for this.
Can you share with us the future title of the book?
Ricardo


On 17-Apr-07, at 6:17 PM, awft wrote:

[wquarry]

This is a contribution to the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564

***


Even though my name has been put alongside Ricardo Ramirez as one of the moderators for this discussion, I regret that I am only able to enter the group now that I am finally back at home base -

Chido I feel very lucky to have got on board in time to read your great contribution - I particularly liked your comments around "anticipated outcomes" and the realization that this is almost impossible due to the variety of reactions from different audiences.

It is not often that we get enough feedback on whatever we do to be so clear about this comment.

I am still amazed by the number of really big commuication initiatives that neglect the point and produce tons of material without benefit of audience participation or assessment - do you think it is lack of knowledge or a lack of will?

Wendy Quarry

***

If you have received this message because someone has forwarded it to you and you are not registered to the discussion you can register at http://forums.comminit.com/viewforum.php?f=71&style=2

Please note: if you are already registered to The CI forums, simply sign in using your CI Forums username and password, Edit your Profile and click on the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ Discussion to request participation from the moderators.

To unsubscribe sign in and deselect this discussion in your profile or reply to this e-mail with unsubscribe in the subject line.

Should you want to read more on this or other communication related issues visit The Communication Initiative web site at:
http://www.comminit.com/healthecomm/

[awft]

This is a contribution to the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564

***



Dr K L. Heong

I attach a copy of a chapter of the book which is now being printed Mapping OurMedia, you should look for the book when it is out, I will let you know, for now, I guess it will not do anyone any harm for you to browse through this.

Please let me know what you think about it.
Chido

Editor's Note:

This chapter will not be available until the book is in print.

[awft]

This is a contribution to the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564

***


Hie!

What is your experience integrating communication objectives and multiple audiences into single or standardized communication materials or packages?
 
language and gestures may be appropriate with one group and not with the other but since we produce our materials using the participatory approach, during discussions and deliberations such information/materials which are seen not to be apropriate to all audiences are removed during the process hence ending up with a package that can be used by multiple audiences.

we have observed that integrating communication objectives and multiple audiences into single or standardized communication materials or packages works and what is actually interesting is that, for example, when they look at these educational films we use.....they see the video film from diffferent angles and are touched by different issues or the same issues but in different ways...so each group and individual looks at the video film from a different angle and perspective hence the impact of the process maybe simmillar or different from one audience to the other.......hence multiple desirable and unpredictable outcomes. 
 
E.g. after watching a video film on homebased care, men realised that women are over burdened (hence tackling gender issues), they felt that they wanted, as a group to look at ways they could help the women in caring for the sick, the youths on the other hand wanted training and to be mobilised so that they could also volunteer in caring for the sick the women felt that the video film and disccussions had helped in exposing the reality of their lives making all the different members of the community want to help or contribute in caring for the sick, the youths also realised that abstinance was a better option while the men and women felt that practicing safe sex (using condoms) and faithfulness was important so as to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS.

What has been your most pleasant surprise and your biggest disappointment?

at the begining of the project, we specify the anticipated outcomes, but we have discovered that in the process most of the outcomes are unpredictable because of the interaction between the audiences and the media messages that takes place when the participatory approach is used.

What recommendations can you share?

a communication model for social change should be flexible and responsive to the audience and should be seen as a process participation of the target group is important as it not only makes them identify themselves with the project, but also with the solutions and hence sustainable

Chido

***

If you have received this message because someone has forwarded it to you and you are not registered to the discussion you can register at http://forums.comminit.com/viewforum.php?f=71&style=2

Please note: if you are already registered to The CI forums, simply sign in using your CI Forums username and password, Edit your Profile and click on the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ Discussion to request participation from the moderators.

To unsubscribe sign in and deselect this discussion in your profile or reply to this e-mail with unsubscribe in the subject line.

Should you want to read more on this or other communication related issues visit The Communication Initiative web site at:
http://www.comminit.com/healthecomm/

[rramirez]

This is a contribution to the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564

***


Dear Tara:

Your contribution is very much of interest to our discussion. I reviewed the Conceptual Framework and liked the 4-stage approach (reach, usefulness, use, intended long term outcomes). I took special note of the language you have chosen to signal that the communication effort will at best be a 'contributor' to the long term outcomes (when in the past we were so concerned with demonstrating a direct causal relationship!).

This thinking is consistent with "Outcome Mapping" IDRC's evaluation methodology <http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-26586-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html> that places more emphasis on documenting short term outcomes, and acknowledges that in the long term, project activities will be _contributing_ to desired goals along with many other factors that we cannot control.

I would be interested to hear about your experience convincing the donor community that this is the way to go in the evaluation of communication.

Ricardo

ps Your publication has a wealth of other great contributions, namely the detailed review of indicators and the specific examples in the appendices!

***

If you have received this message because someone has forwarded it to you and you are not registered to the discussion you can register at http://forums.comminit.com/viewforum.php?f=71&style=2

Please note: if you are already registered to The CI forums, simply sign in using your CI Forums username and password, Edit your Profile and click on the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ Discussion to request participation from the moderators.

To unsubscribe sign in and deselect this discussion in your profile or reply to this e-mail with unsubscribe in the subject line.

Should you want to read more on this or other communication related issues visit The Communication Initiative web site at:
http://www.comminit.com/healthecomm/

[Heong]

This is a contribution to the 'Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials' discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564
***

Dr Mateva

Your description of participatory video making is indeed useful. I wonder if you have some documentations that we can use or cite?

KL Heong

Dr K. L. Heong
International Rice Research Institute
DAPO 7777 Metro Manila, Philippines

***

If you have received this message because someone has forwarded it to you and you are not registered to the discussion you can register at http://forums.comminit.com/viewforum.php?f=71&style=2

Please note: if you are already registered to The CI forums, simply sign in using your CI Forums username and password, Edit your Profile and click on the 'Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials' Discussion to request participation from the moderators.

To unsubscribe sign in and deselect this discussion in your profile or reply to this e-mail with unsubscribe in the subject line.

Should you want to read more on this or other communication related issues visit The Communication Initiative web site at:
http://www.comminit.com/healthecomm/

[tsulliva]

This is a contribution to the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564

***



Questions for week 2: Can you share the wording of the communication objectives that you base your dissemination strategy on? What accomplishments can you share in terms of how these objectives help you monitor or track the performance of your dissemination strategy?


We look forward to hearing about approaches in the testing stage and /or already in use to track the use of the materials. How are the communication strategy objectives worded? How are outputs, differentiated from outcomes, and form longer term impacts? How is the elusive challenge of limited causality addressed?
***************************************************************

Greetings all,

Apologies for my late post! The Health Information and Publication Network (HIPNet) continues to wrestle with this issue. The “Conceptual framework for provision of information products and services” is a framework that was created to help better understand the pathways through which health information products and services inform policy and improve programs, practice, training, education, and research. This conceptual model is included in the draft version of the Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Information Products and Services on pages 4-9 (mentioned as part of last week’s question and available at: http://www.hipnet.org/minutes/dec2006/MEGuideReviewDraft12-14-06.doc ). This larger effort was initiated by the Health Information and Publication Network (HIPNet) to better measure and demonstrate the impact of health information programs. It has benefited from input from HIPNet members and experts in monitoring and evaluation and information sciences.

The model relates key areas for measurement of information programs (reach, usefulness, use and outcomes of use) to standard logic model components: inputs, processes, outputs and initial, intermediate, and long-term outcomes. A unique aspect of this model is that it includes audiences, emphasizing the de to target and tailor information programs to meet a variety of professional health information needs.

In the model, reach is defined as the breadth and depth of strategic dissemination efforts to audiences working in areas such as policy and advocacy, program implementation, teaching and research. Once reached, these audiences judge the usefulness of information products and services in terms of satisfaction with content, presentation, and delivery mechanisms and the perceived quality of these products or services. In turn, usefulness can facilitate and increase use of evidence-based information and translate into outcomes (at multiple levels) such as improved programs and practice.

If you have any feedback on the Guide or Conceptual framework, please send it along (tsulliva@jhuccp.org!

Best regards,

Tara

***

If you have received this message because someone has forwarded it to you and you are not registered to the discussion you can register at http://forums.comminit.com/viewforum.php?f=71&style=2

Please note: if you are already registered to The CI forums, simply sign in using your CI Forums username and password, Edit your Profile and click on the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ Discussion to request participation from the moderators.

To unsubscribe sign in and deselect this discussion in your profile or reply to this e-mail with unsubscribe in the subject line.

Should you want to read more on this or other communication related issues visit The Communication Initiative web site at:
http://www.comminit.com/healthecomm/

[rramirez]

This is a contribution to the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564

***



Dear Chido Matewa:

Your input is very useful and most stimulating, thank-you!

You differentiate outputs from outcomes and you make a compelling case for the involvement of the partners in the production process.

We look forward to more examples like yours.

Ricardo


On 5-Apr-07, at 11:12 AM, awft wrote:

[awft]

This is a contribution to the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ discussion forum. The forum is hosted by The Communication Initiative and moderated by evaluation and communication consultants Ricardo Ramirez and Wendy Quarry. For more details see:
http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p=186564

***


Hi!

Sorry for coming in a bit late. Before I tackle the second question I think you will forgive me for taking you back first to question one …

I work for Africa Women Filmmakers Trust, and in terms of the methodology, we use the participatory approach in both the production and disseminating of educational, informative video films.
 
The emphasis of this project is on the methodology and its impact on the participants. How does the participatory approach work? Our approach involves going to the people/participants, giving them an opportunity to determine issues they consider to be important to them, they deliberate as a community how production of a video film on this subject will benefit them and others and what would be the key messages. While we are interested in the product that comes out at the end, that is the video, we also place equal importance to the process of the video production because it enables us to meet some of our objectives. The video films produced are shown, to the participants and other communities….using again the participatory approach, communities at this stage are involved in planning the video screening workshops, mobilizing participants at their local level. After the video screenings we have facilitated group discussions.
 
 
Question 2 response

Our objectives are :
-to use video to empower the marginalized, particularly women,
-to use video to trigger both individual and collective change,
-use video to open spaces that invite citizens to interact among themselves,
0promote its use(video) since it is believable and effective for attitude change,
-use video to promote both vertical and horizontal learning to take place.
 
The video film in this case is considered as the output while the outcomes is what takes place during the production process and video screening workshops. Participants feel a sense of empowerment hence their participation in other fora improved/enhanced, a sense of collective and community responsibility is cultivated, process creates an opportunity for participants to debate sensitive issues and knowledge transfer takes place. Social change takes place during all the different stages of the project implementation that is, from the production process to the video screening workshops and discussions.
 
In terms of monitoring, we place emphasis on the level and degree of participation since the project believes that change takes place through participation in the process.
 
 
Chido Matewa (PhD)
Africa Women Filmmakers Trust
Box GD 898
Grendale, Harare,
Zimbabwe
mobile phone: 00-263 (011 729922)
landline: 00 263 4 (498272)

***

If you have received this message because someone has forwarded it to you and you are not registered to the discussion you can register at http://forums.comminit.com/viewforum.php?f=71&style=2

Please note: if you are already registered to The CI forums, simply sign in using your CI Forums username and password, Edit your Profile and click on the ‘Impact of Disseminating Advocacy and Communication Materials’ Discussion to request participation from the moderators.

To unsubscribe sign in and deselect this discussion in your profile or reply to this e-mail with unsubscribe in the subject line.

Should you want to read more on this or other communication related issues visit The Communication Initiative web site at:
http://www.comminit.com/healthecomm/