Community Radio as Amplification of Rural Knowledge Sharing

Abstract

Community radio’s relationship with the farming communities has a long history in India. The earliest successful experiments in community broadcasting involved both farmers and agriculture. In terms of development communication, community radio in India represents a confluence of somewhat conflicting paradigms. While community radio is generally presented as a highly democratic, participatory medium, the way it is operationalized in India more closely aligns with the modernization/diffusion paradigm.

In 1976, Joseph Ascroft observed the phenomenon of ‘interpersonal diffusion’ among farmers, whereby for each farmer trained in new techniques, three more would adopt the innovations. While this ‘interpersonal diffusion’ was by no means perfect, it was illustrative of the complex communication networks involved in the diffusion process. It also hints towards the ways in which community radio can act as a facilitator of these processes; as somewhat of an intersection between diffusion and participatory communication.

Drawing on ethnographically inspired qualitative research conducted at a rural community radio station in South India, this article explores the role of community radio at the intersections of participatory development and diffusion. This article argues that community radio facilitates the sharing of technical information and innovations among farmers and contributes to amplifying existing knowledge communication systems. The implications of this article suggest that a focus on existing local knowledge communication and transfer systems could contribute to achieving broader development outcomes and further situating the role of community radio within development and social change initiatives.

Keywords

Community radio development farmers India

Introduction

Diffusion of innovations is one of the earliest, most prominent change models to emerge from contemporary development thought. First articulated by Everett Rogers (1995), the ‘diffusion of innovations’ theory detailed the stages that individuals work through in order to adopt innovations that facilitate development (Waisbord, 2001). Diffusion represented the modernization paradigm in development, which has been critiqued on the basis that it is imperialist and western-centric (Melkote & Steeves, 2001), relies on overly simplistic communication models (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009), and that simply disseminating information is not enough to affect long-term behavioural changes (Dagron & Bleck, 2001; Scott, 2014; Servaes, 2008). The modernization paradigm, however, has proved resilient to critique. As Waisbord (2005) observes, while the diffusion/modernization paradigm is widely regarded as outdated, no single paradigm has replaced it. Indeed, modernization/diffusion continues to influence modern policy and practice (Tacchi, 2013).

Joseph Ascroft was among the first advocates for reimagining the diffusions of innovations to create a more equitable model of knowledge transfer for development. In his work with farmers in Kenya, he explains that the basic tenet of diffusion—that innovations diffuse autonomously to other members of the community from those in contact with external sources of information—implies that there is no need to focus on any more than a small number of farmers (Ascroft, Röling, Kariuki, & Chege, 1973). Such an approach leads extension workers to focus their efforts on progressive, influential farmers to maximize their impact, effectively isolating and further disadvantaging the ‘laggards’: those who may not have the means to adopt innovations or even access diffused information (Ascroft & Agunga, 1994; Röling, Ascroft, & Chege, 1976).

Despite these problems, diffusion is not necessarily incompatible with more equitable, participatory models. Communication between equals is ‘ethically preferable and practically more relevant and useful’ (Melkote, 2012, p. 32). Indeed, Ascroft was an early advocate for what is now termed as ‘hybridity’ (Ascroft & Agunga, 1994). Morris explains that the diffusion and participatory models are not polar opposites: ‘the diffusion model has evolved in a participatory direction since its initial formulation, and participatory projects necessarily involve some element of information transfer’ (2003, p. 227). Community radio represents an intersection of both the diffusion and participatory models in that it has been extensively deployed for information transfer, but still encourages the participation of the broader community in this process.

This article argues that community radio offers a valuable ‘social technology’ that facilitates a reimagination of diffusion through the sharing of knowledge and technology. Social technologies have previously been deployed to facilitate more equitable development than is offered in a standard diffusion of innovations approach (Ascroft et al., 1973). While the meaning of social technologies today is significantly different, the rationale remains sound. Community radio offers a social technology that embodies a ‘hybrid’ approach to diffusion and participation. Drawing on ethnographic research conducted at a rural community radio station in South India, this article argues that community radio facilitates the sharing of technical information and innovations among farmers and contributes to amplifying existing knowledge communication systems.

Radio in India and Its ‘Forgotten’ Farmers

Radio in India has a long history of both social change and agricultural extension activities. Ascroft et al. noted the high rates of mass media penetration into agricultural areas in Kenya and questioned as to ‘why so few efforts are made to reach the rural man through the mass media’ (1973, p. 33). Although that may have been the case in Kenya, India’s mass media, more specifically its radio industry, has been focussed on reaching the ‘rural man’ for development purposes since its outset.

The history of broadcasting in India is deeply rooted in development discourse and colonialism. The first radio broadcasting in India took place as a commercial venture; the Indian Broadcasting Company (IBC) began broadcasting from its first station in Bombay (Mumbai) in 1927 (Kumar, 2003). The IBC lasted just over 2 years before going into liquidation, with the high costs of radio sets, difficulties associated with collecting license fees and ‘Indian conditions and traditions’ blamed for its failure (Kumar, 2003). The Government of India took control after this and introduced the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1933 to deal with the evasion of license fee payment while also effectively making the possession of radio receivers and equipment without a license illegal (Pavarala & Malik, 2007).

While broadcasting in India more broadly was struggling to find its feet, there were some early experiments that could be considered precursors to the community radio. Several public servants working in rural areas made cases for local broadcasting in local dialects with content that was relevant to the everyday lives of the listeners (Page & Crawley, 2001). Experiments were conducted in Lahore, Poona (Pune), Delhi, and Peshawar, though none survived very long with even the successful projects absorbed into the national broadcaster and subsequently losing much of the local focus (Page & Crawley, 2001).

The British investment and interest in Indian broadcasting increased around the second World War with Sir John Reith, Founder and First Director General of the BBC, arguing that central control was essential for efficiency: this structure and Reith’s paternalistic legacy—‘to “improve” the masses by giving them not what they sought to hear, but what they ought to hear’—influenced AIR for many years to come (Kumar, 2003, p. 2174). Indeed, using AIR for development purposes was a logical extension for the central government, for which development was a primary goal with AIR its natural, media partner (Page & Crawley, 2001).

Following India’s independence, from the 1950s through to the 1970s, the dominant paradigm of development saw the mass media deployed to change the mindset of the people in order to enable rapid modernization through the expansion of communication infrastructure, centralized economic planning and widespread industrialization (Kumar, 2003). During this time, AIR has enjoyed some notable successes: the Pune Radio Farm Forum in the 1950s was one of the earliest. Following a successful Canadian model, the Pune Project established a network of farm radio forums in five districts of Maharashtra with the aim of broadcasting agricultural information through a 30-minute programme on AIR and facilitating listener discussions about the content (Page & Crawley, 2001; Singhal & Rogers, 2001). The forums were, however, short-lived, with AIR failing to capitalize on the lessons of the Pune experiment (Singhal & Rogers, 2001). AIR’s local broadcasting also played an important role in popularizing the ‘Green Revolution’—the industrialization of farming—and linking farmers to agricultural extension (Page & Crawley, 2001). AIR’s broadcasting to rural areas though, much like its broader goals, was aimed at furthering development goals through disseminating information. The broadcasts were in local languages and were intended for community, rather than individual listening (Kumar, 2003). This soon proved to work against local broadcasting, as radio sets quickly became cheaper and thus more ubiquitous, leading to a decline in group listening (Singhal & Rogers, 2001). The structure of AIR itself also worked against local broadcasting: while stations were broadcasting in many local languages, the programming objectives were set in Delhi and were often politically motivated (Page & Crawley, 2001). Despite its issues, however, AIR’s local broadcasting, particularly broadcasts aimed at farmers, are still very popular. Echoing, or perhaps explaining, the success of farm radio programs on AIR, Ilboudo and del Castello (2003, p. 39) argued that radio holds particular importance for farmers:

farmers must be able to communicate with peers, local authorities and institutions and have access to relevant knowledge and information, including technical, scientific, economic, social and cultural information. However, to be useful, information must be available to the users in appropriate languages and formats. At the same time, it must also be up-to-date and communicated through appropriate channels.

Indeed, quoting an AIR official, Page and Crawley explained that AIR’s programmes for farmers are ‘perhaps the only service which is fully utilized by listeners because it closely relates to their life’ (2001, p. 328).

Given the history of broadcasting in India, it is easy to see how a focus on development has become so ingrained and pervasive. Even the earliest experiments with community radio, which were subsequently absorbed and dismantled by the national broadcaster, have colonial, development-driven underpinnings. What does this mean for the contemporary community radio environment in India? The nature of AIR’s successful experiments provides a clue as to the role of community radio outside of this overwhelming development discourse. Crucial to the success of these experiments was not an emphasis on aggressive development and modernization, but instead the involvement of local people and the sharing of local knowledge.

Background—Community Radio in India

India represents a unique environment for explorations of community radio and social change. Page and Crawley suggested that, in South Asia, community radio ‘is a term which is generally used to describe radio for the benefit of the community rather than radio which the community runs itself’ (2001, p. 327). This is clearly quite different from the ‘voice for the voiceless’, ‘maximalist participation’ interpretations of community radio that seem to dominate global literature (see Carpentier, 2015; Downing, 2000; Harcup, 2015; Kivikuru, 2005; Rennie, 2006; Rodriguez, 2001; Tacchi, 2003; among others). From the very beginning, the odds have been stacked against the establishment of a community radio sector with opposition emerging in the form of the established media, the regulatory environment and disagreements within the movement itself. Pavarala and Malik (2007, p. 243) described the radio landscape in India as ‘dominated by hierarchical, paternalistic public and profit-oriented commercial models of broadcasting.’ Thanks largely to the Indian Telegraph Act (1885) together with the India Wireless Telegraphy Act (1933), which makes the possession of radio equipment without a license illegal, the exclusive rights to establishing, maintaining and operating radio and television broadcasting remain with the Central Government (Kumar, 2003; Pavarala & Malik, 2007).

Indeed, it was not until late 2002 that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting finally released ‘Community Radio Guidelines’ after almost a decade of advocacy from scholars, practitioners and activists. Far from being a victory for the community radio movement, the guidelines restricted licenses to ‘well-established’ educational institutions and banned advertisements and news and current affairs programmes (SANCOM, 2015). Despite the disappointment of such restrictive guidelines, the following years marked a renewed push for community radio with a number of stations exploring alternative methods of distributions including narrowcasting and cablecasting (SANCOM, 2015). Finally, in late 2006, the India Telegraph Act (1885) was amended to include a second phase of guidelines for community radio stations (UNESCO, 2011). Alongside educational institutions, non-government organizations (NGOs) and agricultural science centres or Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) were granted the right to apply for licenses. News was still not permitted but limited advertising was allowed (SANCOM, 2015).

More than 10 years after the updated guidelines were released, community radio in India now finds itself at somewhat of a crossroads. As of May 2018, there were just 217 operational stations (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 2018), as opposed to the 3,000 or 4,000 stations that the country’s size, population and diversity could accommodate (Kumar, 2018). Malik writes that the movement seems to have plateaued: ‘It is neither growing nor prospering. While there is recognition and acceptance of its potential in the upper echelons of administration, it looks as if there is a decline in buy-in from grassroots practitioners and communities in India’ (2016). In summary, establishing a community radio sector in India has been a long and arduous process. The sector is facing a number of internal problems associated with sustainability and independence. In addition, the contemporary regulatory environment in which community radio stations must operate is rigid and tightly controlled.

It is against this backdrop that the research took place. The research site is a rural community radio station located in a small village about 1-hour drive from a large and prosperous town in South India. The area is largely agricultural with farmers growing a variety of crops depending on the season and markets. With funding support from an NGO, a federation of farmers was established to formalize the work of local farmer groups who formed collectives to promote water conservation and management. The federation has since broadened its scope to other community development activities including the provision of technology centres with computer and internet facilities, as well as various enrichment classes. The federation applied for a broadcasting license after a survey of 1,000 households revealed a preference for television and radio over print media, with over half of respondents reporting that they listened to radio regularly. The resulting community radio station has been in operation since 2013 and has a broadcasting range of 15 km, which covers much of the surrounding villages.

Methods

This article draws on research conducted as part of a broader project. This research employed an interpretive framework of cognitive justice to guide enquiry. Cognitive justice offers a way of considering the hegemony of modern western science: considered ‘the best’ and the most dominant form of knowledge, while alternative knowledge sources are either dismissed as folklore, ethnoknowledge or superstition (Visvanathan, 2006, 2009). Visvanathan (2009, para. 7) offered cognitive justice as a practical way of recognizing the value of alternative or traditional knowledges:

Cognitive justice recognises the right of different forms of knowledge to co-exist but adds that this plurality needs to go beyond tolerance or liberalism to an active recognition of the need for diversity. It demands recognition of knowledges, not only as methods but as ways of life.

Cognitive justice offers a framework for understanding and actively recognizing local knowledge, grounded in its own cultural, political and historical environment. Cognitive justice suggests that western and ‘alternative’ knowledge can co-exist as equal contributors to understanding and provide equal platforms from which to launch inquiry.

Drawing on this framework, this article employed ethnography both for a methodological influence and an overarching commitment to understanding participants’ ‘lived lives and practices… through their own unique complexity’ (Slater, 2013, p. 11). This ethnographically inspired qualitative research utilized methods traditionally associated with ethnography as well as some emergent tools. Data were collected through participant observation, focus group discussions with listeners and interviews with radio station staff. The data were analyzed using a combination of narrative analysis and constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014).

Results and Discussion

A primary recurring theme throughout the data collection, and one that was reflected in the results, was the role of community radio in facilitating knowledge sharing. The best work of the community radio station, as recognized by both listeners and broadcasters, occurred when the station was acting as a way of amplifying existing knowledge communication systems. This form of symmetric knowledge transfer between equals contrasts starkly with the top-down, external expert models of knowledge transfer (Ascroft, Agunga, Gratama & Masilela, 1987). As such, indigenous knowledge communication systems (IKCS) emerged as a valuable way of interpreting the research results. Manyozo (2012, p. 95) defines IKCS as:

media and communications that are rooted in local and indigenous epistemology, prior to being co-opted by external organisations and institutions. Such indigenous knowledge has always had educational elements that catalyse communities to adopt knowledge and practice that could strengthen communities.

In addition to sharing local knowledge, there is an important cultural dimension to IKCS as it represents a repository of a community’s history, culture and identity (Shukla, 2014). IKCS are particularly relevant in the context of community radio in India because they have the potential to offer horizontal forms of listening and dissemination of ideas, despite and sometimes within the pervasive influence of development and modernization discourse (Manyozo, 2017). The results of this article can be broadly divided into two facets of IKCS: the sharing of technical knowledge and the role of community radio in facilitating social connections.

Technical Knowledge

They asked me to speak about agriculture in the radio. For the past six or seven years, I am doing organic farming without the use of pesticides and insecticides. My father learnt this technique from Burma. We usually need 30kg of seed per hectare but through this method 3kg is enough for a hectare and we could save 27kg. Instead of planting five or six paddy saplings together, in this method we can plant just one sapling. I attended a meeting where 55-year-old man told that we can avoid use of insecticides if we plant the saplings in a row such that sunlight directly falls on them. Sunlight prevents the saplings from the attack of insects and other pests. After learning this technique, I have been doing agriculture without the use of insecticides. Initially, people in my community discouraged me that this technique won’t work out and scolded me for spoiling the agricultural land. This method won’t look good for the initial 15 to 20 days but later, only after the crop’s development, they believed in me. This method is very fruitful as it gives good yield, chemical-free food crop to the people, and less expenditure. It is problem-free yield as it never gets affected even if the cows graze. It is not that every people knew everything. Only through radio, I came to know about organic farming. … I’ve gained a lot of profit through the information told in the radio.

—Community radio listener

The first primary area of results relates to the sharing of technical knowledge. Technical IKCS was noticeably observable throughout the data, particularly given the agricultural focus of the community radio station and the composition of its parent body (a farmers’ federation). Communication of knowledge and skills is critical to farmers successfully adopting innovations (Melkote & Steeves, 2001). Recalling the earlier discussions of AIR, farm radio has a strong tradition in Indian media, which was clearly articulated by listeners and broadcasters at the community radio station.

Farmers have habit of copying other farmers. They copy the same crop that the farmers are planting. If a farmer plants Basmati paddy and gets 20 sacks per hectare, the other farmers also do that. If any other farmer plants IR20 and faces loss, the other farmers desist from doing that. We learn from experiences and caution ourselves. We know all this as we are doing agriculture from very young age. Many other farmers listen to me in the radio and do cultivation. … If I am always in my farm without contact with the outer world. I won’t know all this. And even if I come to know, I should tell it to other farmers also. … Let it be a youngster or let it be an elderly person, we should take whatever is productive. We should also take scientists words and even thief’s words. Even they’ll have some stuff to tell us.

—Community radio listener

Such a testimony says a lot about the knowledge sharing tradition of local farmers and the relatively progressive attitudes in terms of new approaches to agriculture. This contrasts with the diffusion of innovations approach, as researched by Ascroft, who examined interventions guided by the ‘progressive farmer strategy’ whereby extension workers focussed their efforts on those who were more receptive and able to implement their suggested innovations (Ascroft et al., 1973). However, these broadly progressive attitudes towards agricultural innovations aligned more with the findings of Ilboudo and del Castello (2003) who noted that, when introduced by familiar, trusted sources of information, rural populations are receptive to innovation and creative application of technology. Critical within this statement though is the importance placed on communication and knowledge sharing between farmers, as opposed to external parties. This was recognized in the station’s approach to agricultural broadcasting and their use of ‘resource’ people from the community as opposed to external ‘experts’:

We do not have many resource person from our side in the community radio. People are our resource persons. Only their experience helps us. In regard to agriculture, it is traditional and inherited through generations. They will like to go according to what experienced farmers do. Even if we bring agricultural officials to guide them, they wouldn’t listen. They will follow only what successful farmers have done. If a farmer has took high yield in brinjal or paddy, they wish to follow the same. Agriculture is a thing that is inherited through generations and hence experienced farmers are our resource persons. In our radio, people are our contributors.

—Community radio broadcaster

Technical IKCS was not restricted to just agricultural information. Health and medicine also represented key areas of technical knowledge sharing, particularly among the female listeners:

I have spoken about pregnancy. I have given suggestions about the diet of pregnant women. What all they can eat and what should be avoided. Also, I have suggested about food habits for each trimester and how we should take care of ourselves in the time of delivery. The radio people and I were mutually happy for this programme. And importantly, I told from what I know very well and that made me content.

—Community radio listener

The value of such knowledge sharing is intrinsically related to the local contexts. Many listeners were unwilling to seek professional medical help unless it was absolutely necessary due to the prohibitive costs and travel distances to health services. As such, technical IKCS focussing on local remedies to common problems were popular among the listeners.

Social Connections

As most of our listeners are farming communities, it builds a sense of oneness among them. They appreciate the programs that were good. … Even people who haven’t met face-to-face appreciate if some content in radio is good. Also, they are very affectionate towards the radio staff and develop friendship with us. So, I hope in this way we built a sense of community.

—Community radio broadcaster.

The second major area of findings is related to the role of social connections in community radio knowledge sharing. The role of the social connections is a basic assumption of IKCS, which sees individuals, not as socially isolated, but as members of social groups. These social relationships affect how media messages are received, with information often shared with friends and family before the individuals themselves react to it (Adjaye, 2008). Indeed, for Manyozo, a key purpose of common knowledge in IKCS is increasing levels of social capital and ‘giving community members a sense of identity and citizenship’ (Manyozo, 2018, pp. 401–402). In terms of participatory diffusion and knowledge sharing, social connections are an essential part of the process of ‘interpersonal diffusion’ (Röling et al., 1976). The social relationships facilitated by the community radio station were a major recurring theme throughout the article, with listeners and broadcasters at both stations discussing the importance of interpersonal relationships for the station’s broadcasting and other activities.

Establishing and maintaining social relationships emerged as a critical factor in enabling the radio station staff to do their jobs. The importance placed on local knowledge at both stations meant that strong social networks within the community are essential.

It’s not easy if we don’t connect with them personally. They won’t immediately talk to us if we give them the mic. First, we try to make them understand that we are no strangers and we come from radio that is within their geographical region that is broadcasted one and only for them. Next, we explain them that if they knew something and if they share it in the radio then 10 other people will benefit from that. … We should make them comfortable and we should make them feel that we are one among them and only then they will talk. We should also convince the people to make use of opportunity to talk in a radio which is otherwise quite impossible for the people to go to other radio stations and talk.

—Community radio broadcaster.

The social nature of interactions between broadcasters and their listeners often led to unexpected discussions and interview topics:

People do share their personal experiences. We actually go for some other interview, but they start interacting with us about their personal experiences.

Whenever we go for interview we become one among them. Even today we went for an interview for snake awareness. But they invited us to their home and served tea and got us some fresh merakkaai (vegetable pear). All this happens when we go for field work. We become their friends while we go for any recording.

—Broadcaster group interview

It is clear that the broadcasters’ investments in building relationships with their listeners is worthwhile. A number of listeners also discussed their relationships with the broadcasters as individuals as key motivators for their engagement and participation in the radio.

The workers in radio are in regular contact and they became my friends. I participate in all the events organised by the radio. I also follow the programmes in the radio. We spend time for radio out of our busy schedule as it is useful for us in many ways.

—Community radio listener

A further aspect of the role of community radio as amplifying IKCS is the way in which the stations facilitated social linkages between disparate groups of listeners. This was observed and discussed most frequently at Enkal Vanoli, possibly given the larger body of volunteers that the station engaged.

We haven’t socialised much before. But now we go to the radio and do programmes. We ourselves are surprised listening to our voices in the radio. We cannot believe it is our work. Likewise, we got many friends outside our village. We meet them once or twice in any events but later become thick friends. We even invite them over to our houses while they come here. We have got many friends.

Apart from this radio workers, we also maintain a good friendship with the volunteers from other villages. We all are in volunteering team and hence we know each other. We are in regular contact and maintain a good friendship with them.

—Community radio listener/volunteer focus group

Relevant to this aspect of social connections in IKCS is the role of community radio in the construction and maintenance of communities. Community radio audiences may actively engage in the construction of meaning and communities, but these articulations operate within and are partially influenced by shifting temporal, cultural, environmental, historical, and sociopolitical structures, including IKCS (Gibson, 2000). Viewing community radio as a process of articulating community through the linking of separate entities enables one to consider the complex role that stations play within their communities, particularly in a development context, and the role that listeners play in contributing to this process. Manyozo writes that IKCS have ‘always had educational elements that catalyse communities to adopt knowledge and practice that could strengthen communities’ (2012, p. 95). Employing the social aspects of IKCS provides a way of understanding how community radio facilitates what Howley describes as ‘an ongoing process of community building and maintenance’ (2009, p. 64).

Conclusion

In conclusion, community radio represents an important confluence of paradigms. The participatory potential of diffusion was recognized by Ascroft more than 20 years ago and has only relatively recently been explored under the term ‘hybridization’. Community radio represents an intersection of both the diffusion and participatory models in that it has been extensively deployed for information transfer, but still encourages the participation of the broader community in this process through community knowledge sharing.

Drawing on ethnographically inspired qualitative research conducted at a rural community radio station in South India, this article explored the role of community radio at the intersections of participatory development and diffusion. This article argues that community radio’s potential in this capacity is best realized when it amplifies existing systems of knowledge communication and transfer. Borrowing Manyozo’s phrase ‘indigenous knowledge communication systems’ in order to frame these processes, this article found that technical knowledge and social connection were two key aspects involved in this process. The sharing of technical agricultural knowledge among farmers was observed as a critical role of community radio throughout the article. Furthermore, the community radio station was found to amplify this transfer by reinforcing existing and creating new relationships within and amongst the community it served. The implications of this article suggest that a focus on existing local knowledge communication and transfer systems could contribute to achieving broader development outcomes and further situating the role of community radio within development and social change initiatives.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-ship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Adjaye

J. K.

(2008). The technology of the human voice: Oral systems of information dissemination and retrieval among the Akan of Ghana. The International Information & Library Review, 40(4), 236–242.

Ascroft

, Agunga

, Gratama

, & Masilela

(1987). Communication in support of development: Lessons from theory and practice. Paper presented at the Seminar on Communication and Change. Honolulu, Hawaii: East-West Center.

Ascroft

, & Agunga

(1994). Diffusion theory and participatory decision making. In White

S. A.

, Nair

K. S.

, & Ascroft

(Eds.), Participatory communication. Working for change and development (pp. 295–313). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Ascroft

, Röling

, Kariuki

, & Chege

F. W.

(1973). Extension and the forgotten farmer. Bulletin van de Afdelingen Sociale Wetenschappen (Vol. 37). Wageningen: Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen.

Carpentier

(2015). Differentiating between access, interaction and participation. Conjunctions. Transdisciplinary Journal of Cultural Participation, 2(2), 7–28.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Dagron

A. G.

, & Bleck

(2001). Making waves. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation.

Downing

J. D. H.

(2000). Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Gibson

T. A.

(2000). Beyond cultural populism: Notes toward the critical ethnography of media audiences. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 24(3), 253–273.

10.

Harcup

(2015). Listening to the voiceless: The practices and ethics of alternative journalism. In Atton

(Ed.), The Routledge companion to alternative and community media (pp. 313–323). New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Howley

(2009). Notes on a theory of community radio. In Howley

(Ed.), Understanding community media (pp. 63–70). London, UK: SAGE Publications.

12.

Ilboudo

J.-P.

, & del Castello

(2003). Linking rural radio to new ICTs in Africa: Bridging the rural digital divide. In Girard

(Ed.), The one to watch radio, new ICTs and interactivity (pp. 45–61). Rome: FAO.

13.

Kivikuru

(2005). The citizen, media and social change in Namibia. In Hemer

, Tufte

, & Eriksen

T. H.

(Eds.), Media and glocal change. Rethinking communication for development (pp. 325–333). Nordicom.

14.

Kumar

(2003). Mixed signals: Radio broadcasting policy in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(22), 2173–2182.

15.

Kumar

(2018, June 19). Unused funds choke India’s struggling community radios. Asia Times. Retrieved from http://www.atimes.com/article/unused-funds-choke-indias-struggling-community-radios/

16.

Malik

K. K.

(2016). Time for a reboot. CR News. Retrieved from http://uccommedia.in/news/time-for-a-reboot/

17.

Manyozo

(2012). Media, communication and development: Three approaches. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications.

18.

Manyozo

(2017). Communicating development with communities. London and New York, NY: Routledge.

19.

Manyozo

(2018). The context is the message: Theory of indigenous knowledge communication systems. Javnost-The Public, 25(4), 1–17.

20.

Melkote

S. R.

(2012). Development support communication for social justice: An analysis of the role of media and communication in directed social change. In Melkote

S. R.

(Ed.), Development communication in directed social change: A reappraisal of theory and practice (pp. 15–38). Singapore: AMIC.

21.

Melkote

S. R.

, & Steeves

H. L.

(2001). Communication for development in the third world: Theory and practice for empowerment. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

22.

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (2018). Operational CR stations. Retrieved from https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/OperationalCRS.pdf

23.

Morris

(2003). A comparative analysis of the diffusion and participatory models in development communication. Communication Theory, 13(2), 225–248.

24.

Page

, & Crawley

(2001). Satellites over South Asia: Broadcasting, culture, and the public interest. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

25.

Pavarala

, & Malik

K. K.

(2007). Other voices: The struggle for community radio in India. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

26.

Rennie

(2006). Community media: A global introduction. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

27.

Rodriguez

(2001). Fissures in the mediascape: An international study of citizens’ media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

28.

Rogers

E. M.

(1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.

29.

Röling

N. G.

, Ascroft

, & Chege

F. W.

(1976). The diffusion of innovations and the issue of equity in rural development. Communication Research, 3(2), 155–170.

30.

SANCOM (2015). The community radio movement in India—A chronology of events. SANCOM. Retrieved from http://www.sancomonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-CR-Movement-in-India.pdf

31.

Scott

(2014). Media and development: Development matters. London and New York, NY: Zed Books.

32.

Servaes

(2008). Communication for development and social change. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=278236&site=ehost-live&scope=site

33.

Shukla

(2014). Democratizing information in India: Role of community radios as a developmental intervention. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 18(4), 349–352.

34.

Singhal

, & Rogers

E. M.

(2001). India’s communication revolution: From bullock carts to cyber marts. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

35.

Slater

(2013). New media, development and globalization: Making connections in the global South. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Tacchi

(2003). Promise of citizens’ media: Lessons from community radio in Australia and South Africa. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(22), 2183–2187.

37.

Tacchi

(2013). Digital engagement: Voice and participation in development. In Horst

& Miller

(Eds.), Digital anthropology (pp. 225–241). London, UK: Berg.

38.

Tufte

, & Mefalopulos

(2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

39.

UNESCO (2011). Ground realities: Community radio in India. (E. M. and R. Bhat, Ed.). Bangalore: Communication and Information SectorUnited Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002173/217381e.pdf

40.

Visvanathan

(2006). Alternative science. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3), 164–169.

41.

Visvanathan

(2009). The search for cognitive justice. Paper presented at Knowledge in Question: A symposium on interrogating knowledge and questioning science. Retrieved from https://www.india-seminar.com/2009/597/597_shiv_visvanathan.htm

42.

Waisbord

(2001). Family tree of theories, methodologies and strategies in development communication (p. 99). New York, NY: Rockefeller Foundation.

43.

Waisbord

(2005). Five key ideas: Coincidences and challenges in development communication. In Hemer

& Tufte

(Eds.), Media and glocal change. Rethinking communication for development (pp. 77–90). Buenos Aires: CLACSO.