linking community, radio, and action research on climate … · 2016. 8. 12. · capacity-building...

1 Understanding Participatory Action Research(PAR) in the context of climate changeAction research, by its most basic definition, is anexercise aimed at investigating reality in order totransform it (Fals-Borda 2006). In its participatoryforms, such as those described elsewhere in thisIDS Bulletin, this involves challenging thetraditional monopoly on who designs, conducts,and ultimately benefits most from research(Kemmis and McTaggart 2007; Fals-Borda andRahman 1991). As such, PAR implies acommitment to effecting transformative socialchange starting from peoples’ own understandingsof their needs, challenges and power relations; aninherently critical, reflexive, educative, andpolitically engaged form of praxis.

Though its origins lie in community-basedapproaches to knowledge creation in the globalSouth (Hall 2005; Fals-Borda 2006), theapplication of action research approaches infields such as health care, social services and

education is well established and has beenstudied extensively. Much more recently, actors inthe field of climate change (itself a relatively newfield for social inquiry) have begun to identifysome initiatives as PAR research. Perhaps the twoareas of climate change which have seen the mostfrequent use of this methodology have beenresearch into people’s motivations for resisting oradhering to ‘climate friendly’ behaviour in high-emitter countries (largely the global North), andin research on strategies for adapting to theimpacts of climate change in vulnerable regions(largely in the global South).

However, there has yet to be analysis of whetheror how these new initiatives differ from the farmore frequently cited ‘community based’,‘cooperative’ or ‘participatory’ researchinitiatives in the field. A rapid review we haveconducted of publications from 12 projectsidentifying themselves as ‘Participatory ActionResearch’ and being implemented in the South

Linking Community, Radio, andAction Research on Climate Change:Reflections on a Systemic Approach

Blane Harvey, Danny Burns and Katy Oswald*

Abstract This article reflects upon the opportunities and challenges of using Participatory Action Research

(PAR) with community radio broadcasters in southern Ghana to investigate the impacts of climate change.

Through a detailed outline of the methodological approach employed in this initiative as well as the findings

that it produced, we consider how action research might serve to reveal the power relations, systemic

drivers of vulnerability, and opportunities for sustainable action for social change related to climate impacts.

As co-facilitators of this process based in a Northern research institution, we reflect upon the challenges,

limitations and benefits of the approach used in order to identify potential areas for improvement and to

understand how the dynamics of this partnership shaped collaboration. We also discuss how employing a

systemic approach to action research helped to provide insights into the interactions between the physical

and environmental impacts of climate change and related systems such as land tenure and agricultural

production. A systemic approach to PAR, we argue, lends itself especially well to analysis of climate change

adaptation and resilience, both of which are embedded within complex systems of institutions, assets,

individuals and structures, and therefore not appropriate for narrow or one-dimensional analyses. Finally, we

consider the specific contributions and challenges that engaging community radio as a research partner may

offer to investigations on climate change.

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 3 May 2012 © 2012 The Authors. IDS Bulletin © 2012 Institute of Development Studies

Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

101

(largely focused on adaptation to climateimpacts) suggests that among those reviewed(see Appendix):

All projects have elements of citizenparticipation, particularly in theimplementation and evaluation of activities;Half of the project publications describecitizen involvement in the planning and/ordesign of the research;Less than half of the publications describe aprocess of collective learning or reflectivepractice within the research;Very few (two) provide a concrete model ordefinition of Participatory Action Research onthe basis of which they are working;Only one project publication discussedownership or dialogue on best use of researchfindings;Discussions of power and political drivers ofchange are largely absent in all cases.

Although these findings are based onpreliminary analysis and warrant furtherresearch, they suggest that while recentinitiatives identifying themselves asParticipatory Action Research on climate changehave frequently adopted certain features of PAR(its approach to participatory implementationand assessment of results, for example), otherfeatures common to PAR have been lessfrequently adopted and may represent missedopportunities (e.g. see McTaggart 1991; Hall2005). Among them include an analysis of poweror politics, an explicit process for shared learningand reflection, and an open dialogue on howcommunity ownership of the findings might bebest used to pursue an agenda for social orpolitical change. These are areas in which PARhas often excelled in other fields, and which havefrequently been cited as essential to fullyunderstanding the social implications of climatechange (Tanner and Allouche 2011; Fazey et al.2007; Jennings 2009). The potential value ofthese aspects of PAR lies particularly in theirability to help people expose how climate changemay interact with existing drivers of people’svulnerability (be it social, economic, cultural, orotherwise) thereby increasing their vulnerability,or constraining their adaptation options.Therefore, by reviewing the principles, designand delivery of PAR initiatives on climatechange, communities and action researchers maybe able to create new spaces for social and

political change to support action which isaligned with community priorities.

Achieving these impacts in any field is notwithout its challenges, but the issue of climatechange presents particular challenges given thedegree of complexity and uncertainty thatcharacterise it. Climate change is also an issuethat was initially subsumed within the scientificdiscourse and, due also to the contentions inpublic debate about the veracity ofanthropogenic climate change, remains quitewed to notions of expert knowledge and scientificmethod (Hulme 2009), which raises furtherchallenges for action researchers. However,despite these difficulties, the emerging emphasison the role of local knowledge in adaptation, thecontext-specific nature of climate impacts, andincreased attention on the failure of policyinterventions to make measurable impacts onimproving local livelihoods should provide amplejustification for adopting new and less orthodoxapproaches to research and action.

In the sections that follow we will look moreclosely at the opportunities and challengesoutlined above, drawing upon the example ofresearch recently undertaken with communityradio broadcasters in southern Ghana. Weoutline the methodological approach employedby participants and facilitators in this initiativeas well as the findings that it produced, tohighlight how action research might serve toreveal the power relations, systemic drivers ofvulnerability, and opportunities for sustainableaction for social change related to the impacts ofclimate change. As co-facilitators of this processbased in a Northern research institution, wereflect upon the challenges, limitations andbenefits of the approach used in order to identifypotential areas for improvement and tounderstand how the dynamics of this partnershipshaped collaboration. We also consider howbuilding upon dominant models of PAR byemploying a systemic approach to actionresearch (as outlined by Burns in this IDSBulletin and in Burns 2007), helped to providevaluable insights into the interactions betweenthe physical and environmental impacts ofclimate change and related systems such as landtenure, agricultural production, etc. A systemicapproach to PAR, we argue, lends itself especiallyto analysis of climate change adaptation andresilience, which are themselves widely seen to

Harvey et al. Linking Community, Radio, and Action Research on Climate Change: Reflections on a Systemic Approach102

be embedded within complex systems ofinstitutions, assets, individuals and structures,and therefore not appropriate for narrow or one-dimensional analyses (Folke 2006; Ospina andHeeks 2010). Finally, we consider the specificcontributions and challenges that engagingcommunity radio as a research partner may offerto investigations on climate change.

2 The Climate Airwaves initiative: SystemicAction Research through community radio inGhana1

In 2010 IDS worked in partnership with theGhana Community Radio Network (GCRN) onan action research project entitled ‘ClimateAirwaves’ funded under a Carleton University/International Development Research Centre(IDRC) programme which aimed to build thebody of research on convergence of radio,Information and Communication Technologies(ICTs) and development in Africa. This projectbuilt on the existing strength of Ghana’scommunity radio stations by piloting systemicaction research to create a space to shareknowledge on the causes, impacts, and responsesto climate change, and to advocate for social andpolitical change in response to these issues. Aswe will discuss below, GCRN has a well-established tradition of using radio to fostercommunity engagement, and action–reflectionprocesses upon which this initiative built. TheClimate Airwaves concept was developed andimplemented through a partnership of networksworking on climate change and community radioin Africa. These were GCRN, the AfricaAdaptKnowledge Sharing Network on adaptation to

climate change, and AMARC (the WorldAssociation of Community Radio Broadcasters).We at IDS led the development of the projectconcept alongside GCRN and AMARC, andplayed a lead role in designing and delivering thecapacity-building activities on systemic actionresearch that are the focus of this article.

2.1 Community radio in Africa and GhanaDespite the exponential growth in access to newICTs in Africa, radio remains the continent’sdominant mass-medium. Radio has the widestgeographical reach and the highest audiences inGhana and across the continent when comparedwith television, printed press, or other ICTs, suchas the internet (see Figure 1). Its value tocommunications in the context of developmenthas been highlighted by a number of authors, whohave noted its affordability (in terms ofproduction and household ownership); versatility;accessibility to rural communities, speakers oflocal languages, and those who are illiterate; themultiplicity of voices from a range of socialbackgrounds heard over the airwaves; and itspotential as a tool for community learning(Gauthier 2005; Myers 2008; AFRRI 2008).

Radio station ownership in Africa tends to fallunder three categories: state-controlled publicradio, privately owned commercial radio, andcommunity-controlled radio, though distinctionsbetween the categories can be somewhat unclearin certain cases. Community radio, in particular,has been recognised as having great potential as atool for popular expression and advocacy, and forthe democratisation of its content. Its abilities to

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 3 May 2012 103

Figure 1 Household ownership of communication tools in Ghana (%)

AudienceScapes national survey of Ghana, July 2009. N=2,051 adults (15+)Source InterMedia (2010).

convene community representatives, ensuredemocratic representation within the community,keep communities appraised of work beingconducted, and collect local testimonies are assetsthat make community radio particularly relevantto research aimed at effecting social change.AMARC (1998) describes community radio’s aimand principles as being: ‘The voice of the voiceless,the mouthpiece of oppressed people (be it onracial, gender, or class grounds) and generally as atool for development […] [and] defined as havingthree aspects: non-profit making, communityownership and control, community participation’.This emphasis on participation, from thedevelopment of a media platform in thecommunity (Opubor 2000) to the sourcing andproduction of content (Tacchi et al. 2009) and thespaces claimed via these processes (Pettit et al.2009) make community radio a powerful resourcefor communities to articulate and assert controlover their own visions of development.

Established in December 1999, the GCRN is theassociation of community radio stations andinitiatives in Ghana. It is a strong, cohesivenetwork that is distinguished by its commitmentto, and consistent application of, participatorycommunication for development. The threeGCRN member stations participating in ClimateAirwaves – Radio Ada, Radio Afram Plains, andRadio Tongu – all lie on the Volta River insouthern Ghana. Radio Ada has been on the airfor 12 years and is the effective forerunner andliving laboratory for many of the participatorymethodologies applied by GCRN. Radio AframPlains went on the air in 2001 following aparticipatory design process facilitated byGCRN. Radio Tongu is the youngest GCRNmember-station, having gone on the air in mid-February 2010, but it has benefited from the fullrange of GCRN participatory trainingprogrammes. The communities of Radio Ada areDangme-speaking, but they feel a kinship to theEwes on the other side of the river. The Tongulanguage is part of Ewe, which is also the nativelanguage of many of the migrants in AframPlains. In all three communities, women bear thebrunt of sustaining the day-to-day economy, andtheir empowerment is a focus of theircommunity radio stations’ programming. Copingwith the impacts of climate change is a part ofeveryday life for the communities served by thesestations, and so programming on this issue also isseen to be of great importance.

2.2 Climate change in GhanaGhana, like many countries in West Africa, facessignificant vulnerability to the projected impactsof climate change, particularly in terms of water-stress, land degradation, and coastal zoneerosion, which are expected to lead to drops inagricultural productivity, power shortages(nearly 80 per cent of Ghana’s electricity is fromhydroelectric generation), and loss of key coastalland, among other impacts (Dazé 2007;McSweeney et al. 2008). There is also concernthat these projected impacts could promptinternal (north-to-south) and cross-bordermigration and conflict (BBC World Service Trust2009; Dazé 2007).

The communities served by the three stationsparticipating in Climate Airwaves have all hadtheir lives and livelihoods significantly diminishedby the damming of the Volta River. The impact ofclimate change on the ebb and flow of the riverhas made them even more vulnerable. The harmis most evident in communities in Ada, at theestuary of the Volta and the Atlantic Ocean,where entire communities are being displaced bythe silting of the river and coastal erosion.Although they are 18km inland from the sea, theother communities are seeing their futuremirrored in Ada, particularly as fishing activitieshave increasingly had to be replaced byalternative livelihoods, such as petty trading.Afram Plains, an island created by the dam, ishost to migrants displaced by the same dam.

2.3 The project designThe choice of action research for the initiativewas suggested by GCRN themselves, as theirown ways of working and indeed the coreprinciples of community radio, are built uponshared principles of the benefits of participationand co-production of knowledge. Members of theGCRN team had worked with IDS onparticipatory methodologies in the past and werekeen to bring this experience to the participatingstations from this initiative. Therefore, actionresearch (and particularly systemic actionresearch, which we describe below) was seen byboth partners as a method that could supportGCRN’s existing ways of working and supporttheir capacity to act as knowledge brokers andadvocates on climate justice among communitymembers, decision-makers, and researchers; andstrengthen their engagement with localcommunities. Ultimately, this also meant that

Harvey et al. Linking Community, Radio, and Action Research on Climate Change: Reflections on a Systemic Approach104

GCRN and the participating stations were themain architects and drivers of action atcommunity scale, with IDS providing supportand tracking outcomes and impacts as theyemerged. There were two levels of actionresearch in the Climate Airwaves project. First,there were the three action researchinvestigations on climate change undertaken byRadio Ada, Radio Afram Plains and Radio Tonguwhich are the main focus of this article; andsecond, there was an overarching action researchprocess to collectively test and validate themethodology for supporting community radiostations to advocate for action on climate changeusing systemic action research.

The project was divided into three phases:

The first phase involved a baseline assessmentof the existing experience and knowledge onclimate change and action researchapproaches within the radio stations and thecommunities they serve, followed by capacity-building activities to address the knowledgegaps identified by participants;The second phase involved the undertaking ofpilot systemic action research investigationsby the three radio stations;The third and final phase involved compilingthe findings and experiences of the threestations, and then sharing them at nationaland international levels.

The overarching aim was to raise awareness of,and prompt responses to, community-levelexperiences of climate change, as well as to sharelessons on the potential of community radio as acatalyst for social and political action on climatechange in Ghana and elsewhere in Africa.

During the first phase, on the basis of a baselineassessment, workshops on Understanding andCommunicating Climate Change, and onConducting and Communicating Community-based Action Research on Climate Change, weredeveloped collaboratively by GCRN, IDS, andGCRN partners based in Ghana. Theseworkshops were implemented over the course ofseveral months by members of IDS alongside in-country partners from international and civilsociety organisations who, wherever possible, hadexisting ties to GCRN. This approach was usedto strengthen the stations’ ties to in-countryresources, networks and allies which will

continue to be available to them beyond the lifeof the Climate Airwaves initiative and may,therefore, continue to contribute to theirinvestigation and interpretation of climateimpacts in the future.

While learning is often understood to be deeplyintertwined with the action research process, theClimate Airwaves initiative’s emphasis on capacitydevelopment led this to be a point of much moredeliberate emphasis. At each stage of the trainingand implementation process, the members of theproject team (broadcasters, trainers, GCRN staff,etc.) both reviewed the impacts and implications ofthe work that they had done, and considered howit might be relevant for them in their dailyactivities. The participatory monitoring andevaluation process developed for this initiative wasalso aimed at embedding learning and reflectioninto the implementation of both training andpiloting the methodology. Station teams usedaudio journaling – an approach selected to matchwell with production practices they already employ– to reflect on their experiences and observationsthroughout the initiative. Some of these audiojournals were subsequently used to producebroadcasts for airing.

2.4 Modelling Systemic Action Research: amethodologyThe workshop on Conducting andCommunicating Community-based ActionResearch, which is the primary focus of thisarticle, was based on an experiential learningapproach that encouraged the participants (theradio broadcasters) to learn how to undertakesystemic action research by collectivelymodelling a facilitated systemic action researchinquiry during the workshop. The aim of theworkshop was for participants to feel confidentthat they could replicate the action researchprocess in their own communities after theworkshop had ended. For Radio Ada, the stationhosting the training event, it also served as thefirst step in their own action research activitiesas a part of Climate Airwaves. The workshop washeld over four days in March/April 2011 andfacilitated by staff from both IDS and GCRN. Anoutline of the workshop agenda in Table 1 showsthe process we followed.

2.5 Day one: introducing the approach An important part of the introductory sessionwas to start by asking the radio broadcasters to

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 3 May 2012 105

explain how they currently work. As explainedearlier, the principles that underlie the way thatGCRN (and community radio more broadly)works share similarities with those on whichaction research is based: the benefits ofparticipation and co-production of knowledge.Therefore, by starting from broadcasters’existing contexts and practices, the workshop’sparticipants could compare their ways of workingwith action research and build action researchmethods into their ways of working where mostappropriate. The next stage of the workshopinvolved introducing some of the principlesunderlying action research and highlighting howit might differ from GCRN’s current ways ofworking. The points we articulated build on thecore principles of activist models of PAR asarticulated, for example, by Hall (2005: 12), withthe additional systemic elements established byBurns (2007). More specifically, these are thatthe investigation: is iterative and ongoing (long-term); is inquiry based – ‘finding stuff out’; hasmultiple strands of inquiry; involves multipleperspectives; tries to understand patterns; andaims to understand power. We also remindedparticipants of the ‘action–reflection’ processcommonly used in action research and the stepsof – planning, acting, observing, and analysing,which formed key components of each trainingand programming stage. We see these not as asingle ‘cyclical’ process, but as multiple, oftenmessy iterations of acting and reflecting whichcontribute to learning, understanding, andchange (c.f. Kemmis and McTaggart 2007).

As noted earlier, an important differencebetween the action research approach used inthis project and other ‘action research’ projectsis the emphasis on ‘systems’. A systemicapproach to action research focuses on how aquestion or problem is always located in relationto other issues within a system. Therefore,rather than trying to answer a straightforwardquestion, systemic action research looks forpatterns and relationships and analyses howproblems are related to the wider system andcontext in which they are located, exploring howsolutions to the problem might be influenced byrelationships in that system. Systemic actionresearch encourages the research team to take astep back from their point of engagement with agiven issue and query how it is being experiencedfrom other perspectives. As this initiative willillustrate, when a problem is viewed as beingpart of a system, this can lead to very differentissues being explored in the action researchprocess, in particular, links can be more easilymade between ‘technical’ issues (such as thephysical impacts of climate change) and politicaldynamics or relations of power.

During the morning of the first day, facilitatorsfrom IDS gave examples from other systemicaction research processes in East Africa which hadlooked at problems associated with HIV andsanitation, to provide examples of how onetechnical health-related problem can be related toother, more political, issues in a system, and howpolitical issues can affect possible solutions to

Harvey et al. Linking Community, Radio, and Action Research on Climate Change: Reflections on a Systemic Approach106

Table 1 Workshop agenda

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

AM Introductions Community inquiry Community inquiry Review of methodology and issues

Radio investigation

How and why change happens

Action inquiry/Action research

Working with systems

PM Issues for investigation Community inquiry Mapping Future – new ways of working and next

Organising our inquiries Mapping Programme planning steps

those technical health problems. The afternoon ofthe first day was spent brainstorming on whatclimate change-related problem or issue should bethe focus of the model systemic action researchinquiry during the workshop. This activity wasinformed by the work that stations had done inprevious project activities aimed at understandinghow climate change was affecting Ghana and onRadio Ada’s already-strong understanding ofissues facing their communities. Participantseventually narrowed this down to two problems(inquiries) that we felt were feasible to exploreover the next two days: coastal erosion and fallingcrop yields. We then broke into two teams (oneper inquiry). The teams consisted of all theworkshop’s participants (all the facilitators andthe radio broadcasters). Each team identified 5–6initial stakeholder groups who they felt theyshould consult, and members of the Radio Adateam contacted the relevant authorities andcommunity representatives to allow communityaccess for the next day.

An important aspect of this session wasemphasising the open-ended nature of the inquiry.In order to gather enough information to begin tounderstand the wider system in which theproblems we were exploring were situated, it wasimportant for us to start off by collecting a widescope of information. The guidance we gave toparticipants was to begin by asking stakeholdersto tell stories related to the problem, rather thanask them direct questions. Participants could thenuse information gained from these stories to askfollow-up questions and identify other people tospeak with. Each team appointed someone forrecording the interviews and someone for takingnotes (verbatim) while others asked questions. Wesuggested that these roles be rotated.

2.6 Day two: launching the inquiriesOn day two of the workshop we began thesystemic action research inquiries. Each teamconducted their inquiry differently depending onthe context. Team One (investigating coastalerosion) visited Azizanya, a community whoseresidents had already had to move twice becauseof the encroachment of the sea. As a result, all ofits buildings were temporary and communitymembers felt particularly marginalised andexposed. The action research team spoke with arange of community members, with some femaleinvestigators meeting with women from thecommunity and others having one-to-one

discussions with chiefs, local planning officialsand members of the district assembly. The teamwalked and talked to community members asthey were working, and with young people whocongregated in one of the meeting spaces, abouthow they saw things in the past, now and in thefuture. The team also visited a number of sitesthat had been particularly impacted by erosion.

Team Two (investigating reduced crop yields)visited the community of Afiedenyigba and wasmet by a welcoming committee along with manycommunity members. They held discussions witha group of elders, vegetable farmers, and ofwomen asking people to volunteer recount astory about farming and any changes they hadnoticed. They used these stories to promptfurther questions. These were more like focusgroups and at one point, when the conversationwith the women’s group touched on the issue ofmigration, it was obvious that one of the womenfelt uncomfortable talking in front of the group.Two of the participants took her aside and talkedwith her separately.

It was interesting to note how openly communitymembers spoke with the broadcasters. There wasclearly a high level of trust in members of RadioAda which enabled participants to quickly accesscommunities and to speak with a wide range ofstakeholders with relative ease, a clear evidence ofthe benefits that their regular interaction withcommunities brings to the inquiry process.However, this also raised an issue of trust andvulnerability. At one point Team One met with atraditional authority where they articulated someof the concerns raised by community members. Asthey talked they began to pick up from theauthority’s body language that he didn’t like theseissues being raised. Power became manifestaround the table. He began responding tostatements with: ‘Who told you that?’. The teamrealised in that moment that we were potentiallyabout to expose those who had raised the issuesand had to react quickly to protect theiranonymity. So, on the one hand, in the interactionthe team had exposed a complex economicdynamic about how coastlands were beingdeveloped for tourism – to support vested interests– rather than to enable climate change adaption asmany community members had presumed. But onthe other hand, this form of investigation raisedpotential risks for both the broadcasters andcommunity members who collaborated with them.

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 3 May 2012 107

Both teams then returned to the workshoplocation in the afternoon and began to documentour inquiry findings to date. We wanted to firstcollect all the information we had without doingany real analysis, which we could then use tohelp us identify patterns and relationships laterin order to help us see the ‘system’ in which theproblem was embedded. On a large set ofbulletin boards we listed all the stakeholderswith whom we had spoken, the issues they hadidentified, the facts we had observed ordiscovered, and the questions the findingsgenerated (see Image 1). Both teams did this indifferent ways. Team One began to makeconnections between stakeholders, issues, factsand questions as they worked, whereas Team Twowaited until they had written everything upbefore doing so. As the teams worked they alsoidentified other stakeholders that they needed tospeak with, facts they needed to verify based onthe findings that were beginning to emerge, andthe interconnections between the issue and therange of stakeholders connected to that issue.They used this information to plan theirinquiries for the next day.

2.7 Day three: continuing the inquiriesOn day three we continued our inquiries on theground. We had started to do some simplemapping of information as it related to differentactors and were beginning to see patterns in ourinquiries, which suggested new people toapproach. Team Two met with an agricultural

extension worker, a District Assembly memberand a women’s rights representative. Onceagain, they started by asking them to tell us astory related to farming/agriculture, but theyalso had some more specific questions based onwhat the inquiry findings had revealed so far.Both teams had started out asking questions thatwere primarily about the environment, but theinquiries were gradually moving towardsquestions about politics and power. Team Onelearned that land tenure issues were of criticalimportance to the issue of coastal erosion, aswere the plans to develop the coastal area fortourism. Team Two identified that the power of‘market queens’ (women who serve as bothbuyers and creditors for small-scale farmers, alsoreferred to as ‘Magadzias’) in keeping purchaseprices low, and had learned how party politicswas interfering with agricultural policyprioritisation and implementation.

This again brought up some critical ethicalissues. GCRN stations seek to remain neutral inparty politics in Ghana, so it was important thatthis inquiry didn’t make GCRN stations appearpartisan. This led to an important discussionabout whether or not teams should speak withcertain stakeholders in case we were puttingpeople at risk by reporting their comments, andthe broadcasters considered whether or not theyshould be keeping some of their sourcesanonymous. Due to the nature of communityradio, the broadcasters have past experience of

Harvey et al. Linking Community, Radio, and Action Research on Climate Change: Reflections on a Systemic Approach108

Image 1 Participants document their findings on boards

Photo N. Quarmyne

dealing with sources sensitively, but we notedthat it was important to be constantly awarethat, especially when addressing politicallycharged issues, the radio stations needed to thinkcarefully about how they approach particularmembers of the community, and how they reportwhat has been said. We also discussed whatGCRN’s role was and what it could realisticallydo about some of the issues that had been raised,especially those of a more political nature. Justbecause an issue had been raised did not meanthat GCRN was best placed to address it, butthey could have a valuable role to play asintermediaries between the community membersand duty-bearers who could and should addresssuch issues.

In the afternoon of day three we completeddocumenting the findings from our inquiries. Bynow, we had two very large bodies of ‘raw’ datathat could be used to identify patterns andrelationships and eventually create a systemsmap. The systems map is the critical stage insystemic action research. It provides avisualisation of relationships andinterconnections which can help in determiningwhat actions might be taken to address problemsthat have been identified. By using the data tocreate this systems map, interconnected issuescome up that may not have emerged unless welooked at the problem in relation to the wider

system. However, as none of the participants hadcreated a systems map before, the facilitatorsdemonstrated how to develop one based on thecoastal erosion inquiry. One facilitator, who hadtaken part in this inquiry, spent some timeplanning one and then created it, talkingthrough how he had made the connections andrelationships between different issues andhighlighting patterns that were appearing,asking for questions or comments as he went.

2.8 Day four: mapping the inquiriesIn the morning of the fourth and final day,participants created their own system map forthe reduced crop yield inquiry. After providing arecap of the systems map we had created the daybefore, the facilitators left all the participants tocreate a new systems map together. We gavethem approximately two hours to do this andchecked in with them once to answer anyquestions they had. We returned and theparticipants presented their systems map. Theyhad actually created two, one large systems mapof the overall inquiry and one of a specificproblem within that inquiry about access tocredit. In both maps they had identified ‘marketqueens’ as being important actors who hadcontrol over access to credit and access to crops.This prompted a long discussion about the issuesassociated with the power of the ‘market queens’and their links to other powerful actors and

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 3 May 2012 109

Image 2 A completed system map (first iteration)

processes. Because the broadcasters had used allthe information collected about low crop yield toidentify patterns and relationships, and then putthose relationships into a map of a ‘system’, theyhad been able to quickly see how the problem ofreduced crop yields as a result of climate changewas further exacerbated by the political power ofthe ‘market queens’.

In the afternoon of the final day, participantsreflected on the benefits that the approach wehad piloted could bring community radio, andalso how community radio could contribute to anaction research process. One participantcommented that action research (and theprinciples underlying it) had reminded him howcommunity radio should be working. Anotherparticipant commented that community radiohas the trust of the community that makesundertaking action research possible.

Participants also began to reflect on ways thatthey could appropriate the methodology to betterfit their own context, for example by usingsymbols and objects in the place of words for themapping process so that all community memberscould take part, and by integrating the use ofproverbs, an important way that stations aim toconnect with their communities. Thesehighlighted some of the early lessons emergingfrom the process, which we will discuss in greaterdepth in section 3.

2.9 Next steps in the Systemic Action ResearchinquiriesThe workshop was the first step in the systemicaction research process for each of the three radiostations. After the workshop, the stations fromAfram Plains and Tongu repeated the sameprocess in their own broadcasting areas to identifykey areas of focus. Table 2 outlines the final areas

Harvey et al. Linking Community, Radio, and Action Research on Climate Change: Reflections on a Systemic Approach110

Table 2 Summary of research focus at each participating station (GCRN Interim report, April 2011)

Station Afram Plains Tongu Ada

Theme Low crop yield Drought and floods CC > coastal erosion > land In-migration from Volta Displaced by Akosombo tenure and community rights

Region for rich cocoa damfarming Drought a constant issue

Akosombo dam + CC Spillage from Akosombo No cocoa/no crops > relocation – returnedOut-migration > ‘Ghost Spillage expected to be

town’ worse/more frequentOut-migration

Community Bethel Avadiwoe-kome Azizanya(island community)

People (discussants Chief; Ministry of Assembly members; Azizanya chief; 1 female and interviewees) Agriculture (MOFA); headmen; farmers and youth; elderly fishmonger;

women; men; children; fishermen’s groups; youth girl, 10–15 yrs; Ada Foah youth and children; elderly chief; District ChiefD.A.; NGOs; assembly women/men; market Executive; MPmembers women; agricultural

extension officer; District Chief Executive; District Planning Officer

Broadcast language Ewe Tongu Dangme

Key questions and notes How, in the process of the research/inquiry, can we deepen reflection and expression by using such ‘tools’ as proverbs/songs, etc.?

How, based on our rich experience, can we involve the community in developing the system map? (Use of the ground, stick and symbols.)

How can the process lead to dialogue and negotiation toward community-driven change?

Note potential implications of any legal issues (may need legal advice /draw on legal allies).

of focus for the investigations that weredetermined by each of the stations through theirpreliminary systemic action research inquiriesand mapping. In Ada, the team decided that theywould focus the rest of their investigation of thecoastal erosion issue, which was the source of agreat deal of concern within communities.

After these themes of investigation had beendetermined, broadcasters were put in contactwith climate researchers working on similarissues within their region and compared theevidence they were finding with past research.The strong correlation between the broadcasters’investigations and evidence produced by otherslent credibility to their arguments among outsideactors. This step also highlighted an importantchallenge, however, which was that manybroadcasters did not feel comfortable initiatingcontact with researchers and were unsure how toproceed, even after an initial connection hadbeen made for them. This highlights the ongoinggap between researchers and community mediain Africa, which remains a barrier tocoordinating community-scale action.

After all the stations had completed their initialinvestigations they held community forums – ordurbars – to bring together community members,elders, chiefs, and district representatives to re-listen to the broadcasts, discuss the findings, andraise questions for leaders and duty-bearers.These discussions were then broadcast out to thebroader listening community, so as to ensure thatthose who were not present could also provideinput. The durbars provided an important spacewhere community members could articulatetheir concerns and get commitments from theirrepresentatives on issues such as disaster relief,alternative livelihoods projects, and theintroduction of new policies. They representedthe next step in moving from collective inquiryand dialogue toward action aimed at influencinglocal politics and power.

Finally, a national-level forum was organised byGCRN in Accra, the national capital, wherestations and community members reportedcollectively on their experience and the results ofthese investigations to approximately 130national and international participants. Theyhighlighted common concerns from across thedifferent broadcast areas and sought to gainnational political support for the needs

articulated at district levels and to createadditional advocacy pressure on district leveldecision-makers to take action.

2.10 Outcomes and broadcaster plans for takinginvestigations forwardWhile the long-term impacts of this research arestill emerging (the project concluded in August2011) there are already concrete outcomesbeginning to emerge from the process at the levelof the communities themselves. Among the moremarked outcomes to date has been the initiationof new dialogue between community membersfrom Azizanya (Ada), and local and traditionalauthorities from the area. Azizanya, asmentioned above, is a community facing rapidcoastal erosion and a tense related conflict overland tenure rights between fishing communitiesand authorities looking to develop coastal landfor tourism. Broadcasters report that thecommunity durbar helped to renew an open (andbroadened) dialogue on these issues, which havebeen the source of significant conflict and secrecyto date. Further, upon hearing the broadcastdialogues about these issues, neighbouringcommunities facing similar challengesapproached the broadcasters requesting to bebrought into the investigation as well.

In Afram Plains, the durbar organised bybroadcasters brought district authorities intodirect contact with island-dwelling communitiesfor the first time outside of an election drive.The exchange highlighted the great disconnectbetween authorities and the community’s needs,and prompted commitments of support from theDistrict Chief Executive, who later attended theNational Forum and reiterated this commitmentin plenary discussion. This has providedbroadcasters with concrete issues to monitor inthe community and pursue with duty-bearersshould progress not be forthcoming.

At the close of the National Forum (the finalscheduled project team gathering) broadcastersfrom the three stations reflected on where theythought they should go next with the work theyhad achieved to date. Among the ideas wereexpanding and sustaining their investigationsand programming within the communities,engaging politically with relevant duty-bearers tocreate dialogue and push for change, awareness-raising and capacity-building in communities,and identifying new resources for building up

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 3 May 2012 111

this programming. Given the stations’ interest inexpanding and deepening their use of the researchmethodology that we piloted, there appears to bestrong demand for continued use of theseapproaches. In the final section of this article wereflect on the lessons learned from this case on theuse of systemic action research on climate change.

3 Discussion and conclusions3.1 Contribution of PAR to investigating climate impactsIn drawing some of the lessons and conclusionsfrom this case, we first return to the observationsdrawn at the outset of this article on the potentialvalue of PAR approaches to investigating thesocial impacts of climate change. Much like theother PAR initiatives we surveyed, the researchconducted in Ghana focused on participatoryplanning and implementation of theinvestigation, with the station broadcasters andcommunity members identifying issues that wereof greatest concern, and collectively producing ananalysis of the inquiry. As discussed above, thefact that this case was at once a capacity-buildingexercise and an inquiry placed some limitationson the degree of independence of theinvestigation teams (particularly in the initialmapping process, which was modelled byfacilitators), but future applications of themethodology – once broadcasters are comfortablewith it – would give participants greater controlof the implementation process. Where thisprocess distinguishes itself is in the ways itaddressed areas that did not appear to be coveredin other PAR initiatives reviewed, particularly itsanalysis of power and politics, its focus onintegrating the research results into the ongoingwork of the participating stations and the GCRNnetwork more broadly, and the systemic approachit brought to the inquiry (which will be discussedin more detail in the following section).

3.2 Politics and power in systemsWhile our research activities could have startedfrom a linear assumption that the impacts ofcoastal erosion were due to rising sea levels andgrowing severity of tides in the Ada region (andAzizanya in particular), this would have likely ledus to a remarkably different locus ofinvestigation than the one that emerged in thesystemic action research inquiry we conducted.The teams’ starting point: the challengesarticulated by community members (as opposedto the direct impacts attributed to climatechange such as reduced rainfall or coastal

erosion); and the investigative approach ofmapping out the full range of actors andprocesses that influence how a particular changeis experienced by a community, brought aholistic analysis attentive to the role of power inshaping people’s vulnerability or resilience toclimatic impacts. Without a systemic approach,the focus may have been on the establishment ofa seawall defence in Azizanya for example,which, the investigation revealed, may notactually be designed to address the community’svulnerability or the impacts of climate change ontheir primary livelihood activity (fishing), andwould do little to address the underlyingquestion of land tenure which restricts people’sability to relocate in cases of need.

Similarly, in the case of Afiedenyigba, the team’sinvestigation revealed that reduced yield as aresult of erratic rainfall patterns and soildegradation is not the sole driver of farmers’vulnerability. On top of this, their ability to adoptbetter cultivation practices (through appropriateuse of fertilisers supported by extension services)are complicated by the use of farming inputs astools for political patronage, while their access tocredit (a key to diversification) hinges onaccepting whatever market prices they areoffered by ‘market queens’. Thus, one avenue foraction for the broadcasters emerging from thisanalysis lies in tackling the ‘market queen’ issue,and here again there may be multiple possibleavenues. A systemic action research groupexploring this issue might then explore strategiesfor engaging directly with the ‘market queens’ ontheir practices (through dialogues, a series ofbroadcasts, etc.) or how new forms of socialprotection for farmers might undermine thepower of the ‘market queens’ within the system.

Underlying this process was a belief that thequestions emerging from the evidence collected,and the co-creation of system maps which visuallyinterpret these social dynamics, would lead to adeepening of the inquiries and the development ofnew theories of change. These, in turn, could leadto new courses of action decided upon. Once theaction is taken, its impact has to be observed anddocumented and its consequences dealt with. Hereonce again we can see that the assessment of howto engage with power is as important as thesolution itself, much as the process of investigationand deliberation in mapping a system is as (ormore) important as the final product.

Harvey et al. Linking Community, Radio, and Action Research on Climate Change: Reflections on a Systemic Approach112

This approach brings important contributions tothe value of the action element of action researchon climate change, particularly in the context ofworking with community radio and othergrassroots organisations. Earlier analysis fromthis initiative (Harvey 2011) suggests thatframing investigations of climate changeintersects in the contexts of rights, power andjustice across scales (from local to national andupward to global) offers community-level actionresearchers avenues for engagement andadvocacy that they can meaningfully act upon,while focus on climate change as a ‘scientific’phenomenon has tended to make manybroadcasters feel unqualified to investigate ordiscuss the issue. This does not preclude theneed for a clearer understanding of the technicaland scientific dimensions of climate change (andthus the need to engage with the climateresearch community), but rather, reinforces thevalue of taking a holistic and systems-orientedview of responding to the impacts of climatechange. In the case of GCRN in Ghana it alsoprovided scope for strong ownership of anongoing action research agenda which can beintegrated into their existing practices andcarried forward by the participating stationsthemselves as we will discuss below.

Engaging with power and system dynamics is ofcourse not unproblematic, as broadcasters arethemselves embedded in the local power relationsunder scrutiny, and must think carefully aboutthe potential political implications of the findingsthey are uncovering. In participatory actionresearch power inquiry not only takes place toidentify issues and find solutions, but inquiry isalso made into the power dynamics that maintainthe status quo and prevent either immediatechange or sustainable change. In contexts wherepolitical allegiances are particularly stratified andhave been the source of conflict (as is the case inGhana) investigators wishing to be identified asneutral face a challenging task. This is anongoing challenge for stations in the GCRNnetwork, but one for which they haveconsiderable experience to draw upon.

3.3 Ownership of the process and findingsWorking with radio broadcasters whose long-termmandate is to investigate and engage with theneeds and interests of those who have least voicein their communities brought great benefits tothe action research process. GCRN’s mission of

helping Ghanaian radio stations supportmarginalised communities to ‘generate and sharetheir knowledge and experience, to participate indiscourse and decision-making at every level,develop the richness of their culture, and tostrengthen their communities’ (White 2007)provided a natural fit for the systemic focus thatthis methodology applied. Indeed, one of theoutcomes of this initiative at the level of the radiostations was the desire to apply systemic actionresearch to other inquiries in the future, taking itbeyond application to the issue of climate change.The themes of investigation that emerged fromeach of the stations’ inquiries offered clearoverlaps with issues of governance, livelihoods,agriculture, etc. that stations cover on a regularbasis (not surprising given the cross-cuttingnature of climate change), therefore making theintegration of these themes into a longer-termagenda easier and more likely. Finally, andimportantly for the question of ownership of bothprocess and findings, broadcasters are themselvescommunity members, with friends and familyfacing the very challenges they identify, makingthe value of taking a sustained and action-oriented approach to addressing these issues allthe more essential to them.

These strengths, however, are complicated by thepersistent challenge of insufficient financial andhuman resources within community radiostations to continue their investigations and acton findings. The expenses incurred and timerequired for doing community-based fieldworksuch as systemic action research is considerablyhigher than those of standard formatbroadcasting, and with relatively high turnoverrates among many stations, capacity levels canbe uneven and difficult to sustain. Therefore,without additional sources of financing, stationscould face the prospect of being unable to sustainthe forms of engagement that would allow themto pursue long-term change (Harvey 2011).

A further nuance to bring to the question ofownership of findings in an initiative whichfeatured a diverse and multiscalar partnership(from community to global institutions) is thatparticular processes, findings and outcomes werevalued differently by different partners. While allpartners shared a desire to strengthenbroadcasters’ capacity to articulate communityexperiences of climate change in ways that createdsocial change, we at IDS, for example, aimed to

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 3 May 2012 113

contribute to research evidence on how radio coulddraw on action research to contribute to ‘bottom-up’ policy influence. Meanwhile, GCRN’s incentiveto provide robust contributions to developmentresearch is understandably secondary to ensuringthat stations’ broadcasting is addressing the mostpressing needs of communities. Acknowledgingand leaving space for these different emphasesdemands flexibility in participation in particularaspects of the partnership, paired with a mutualtrust that partners will act in one another’s bestinterests even where there is no directcollaboration. It also demands that more‘powerful’ actors (academic researchers, in aparticipatory research initiative for example) beaware of how they may undermine the impactsought by imposing their priorities on to partners.

3.4 The contribution of radio to action researchBeyond the development dividends that radiomay offer communities – outlined earlier in thisarticle – it also offers significant possibilities foraction research processes which other vehiclesfor inquiry might not. Most conventional radio ischaracterised by series of products (broadcasts)which are the output of one-off investigations, itcan be developed in other ways which are morecongruent with the action research process.Broadcasts cannot only be seen as an output butalso as an essential ingredient of future inquiry.A piece might be broadcast and stimulate aphone-in response from listeners, which mightdevelop some themes and amplify others. Thephone-in might also articulate further questionsor areas for inquiry and investigation. This couldlead to further programming and so on. Theproduct is thus a catalyst for sense-making, andthe sense-making underpins further inquirywhich in turn leads to further broadcasts.

Another aspect of radio as a vehicle for action-oriented inquiry relates to the different kinds ofknowing as articulated by (Heron and Reason2008). Meaning is not just conveyed through thetext of the words or other visual representations,but also in the texture of what is said – theemotion, the energy, the pace, the pauses, theuse of language. Radio can have the effect ofdistilling the emotion through voices, much as ablack and white photograph can distil themeaning in a photograph (when colourphotography often cannot). Emotion is not justan expression of individual feeling; it is also avehicle for connection and resonance. In Systemic

Action Research (2007) Burns argued thatresonance was as important as representation.Where we find powerful resonances is where wefind the energy for, commitment to, andpossibilities for action. In a typical actionresearch process we can test the resonance ingroup process. That group process may comprisepeople who hold a wide variety of perspectives,but it is necessarily limited in scope (whichpeople are involved) and in numbers (how manypeople). Radio offers the possibility of identifyingthose with whom issues resonate because itengages with a wider public and a broader crosssection of society (as was the case withcommunities neighbouring Azizanya). It alsoopens up the process to a wider pool ofendogenous expertise enabling the dynamics ofissues to be understood better and where thepotential for action might lie. What also flowsfrom this is an increased potential for buildingdistributed leadership for action.

Finally, radio increases the potential to drawtogether stories as evidence well beyond thescope of an individual or small team ofresearchers. Through this it is able to move fromanecdote to significant numbers of resonantstories which triangulate and strengthen the‘validity’ of a particular claim.

3.5 What does Systemic Action Research offer radio?One of the key motivations for using an actionresearch approach to this climate change work isthat it offers a way of investigating, developing andcommunicating climate change issues that carriesmore impact than simple reporting of information.Systemic action research offers a different modelfor radio broadcasters to engage with theircommunities: reporting shifts from being‘newsworthy’, to being more investigative, inquiry-oriented and long term. Broadcasters arecompelled to treat things as more than news asthis approach demands that they ask themselvesthe question – what next? As noted by participantsin this initiative, this is resonant for many with theway community radio should be working. Indeed, aswe have noted above, this approach is already wellaligned with the models of inquiry andbroadcasting already advocated by GCRN, butconsistent and effective use of the approach isoften complicated by financial, capacity, and timeconstraints highlighted above. For many othercommunity radio stations which do not benefitfrom the support of a strong national network and

Harvey et al. Linking Community, Radio, and Action Research on Climate Change: Reflections on a Systemic Approach114

rich collection of methodologies such as thosefound in Ghana, this approach may serve as anentry point for developing a strategy forparticipatory community engagement.

We have noted that radio is not necessarily astraightforward solution to local engagement onaction research. Like many other media thereare dangers that need to be carefully andcritically assessed, and like action research itself,radio can become co-opted by forces in societythat are not benevolent (Myers 2008). Further,for community radio stations engaging withpolitical processes from the perspective of themarginalised within a community, there is alsoan ongoing challenge of maintaining theirstanding and reputation across the communitywhen their investigations challenge not justcorporate or ‘outside’ interests but aspects oftraditional community life, and the interests of

those in some parts of the community whichimpact negatively on others. However, these aredilemmas consistently faced by socially engagedcommunity radio stations; ones upon which theirsustainability depends.

Despite these concerns, it is crucial to recognisethat in every situation where people have toovercome the challenges of severe poverty, threatsto liberty and security, environmental threats andso on – the issues (and potential solutions) areembedded in a set of complex social, political andeconomic relationships. If proposed solutions donot engage explicitly with these inter-relationships then they will likely be limited andineffective. Here, the spaces, lenses of analysis,and opportunities for collective learning affordedby a convergence of action research andcommunity radio appear to offer a valuable toolfor engaging in action for social change.

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 3 May 2012 115

AppendixResources reviewed in rapid assessment of PARinitiatives on climate change adaptation:

Alizany, N.; Rakotondravelo, J.C. et al. (2010)‘Adaptation Options for Growing Atriary Ricein the Context of Climate Change: The Caseof Marovoay’, Adaptation Insights: AddressingClimate Change in Africa through ParticipatoryAction Research: Vol 5, Centre for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC)

Alizany, N., Rakotondravelo, J.C. et al. (2010)‘Adapting to Cyclones in Madagascar’sAnalanjirofo Region’, Adaptation Insights:Addressing Climate Change in Africa throughParticipatory Action Research: Vol 7, Centre forInternational Forestry Research (CIFOR),International Development Research Centre(IDRC)

ARCAB (n.d.) Action Research for CommunityAdaptation in Bangladesh (ARCAB), BangladeshCentre for Advanced Studies (BCAS) andInternational Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED)

ARCAB (n.d.) Action Research for CommunityAdaptation in Bangladesh (ARCAB): A Long-termAction-Research Programme on Community BasedAdaptation in Five Ecosystems in the Delta of theGanges–Brahmaputra Rivers

Bele, Y.; Mulotwa, E. et al. (2010) ‘The Effects ofClimate Change in the Congo Basin: TheNeed to Support Local Adaptive Capacity’,

Adaptation Insights: Addressing Climate ChangeAdaptation through Participatory Action Research:Vol 3, Centre for International ForestryResearch (CIFOR), InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC)

Beye, G.; Sall, A. et al. (2010) ‘A RegionalObservatory for Producers’ Climate ChangeAdaptation in Thies, Senegal’, AdaptationInsights: Addressing Climate Change in Africathrough Participatory Action Research: Vol 9,Centre for International Forestry Research(CIFOR), International DevelopmentResearch Centre (IDRC)

Bonkoungou, J.; Kovyagda, I. et al. (2010) ‘UsingParticipatory Testing to Build Capacity forClimate Change Adaptation in Burkina Faso’,Adaptation Insights: Addressing Climate ChangeAdaptation in Africa through Participatory ActionResearch: Vol 2, Centre for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC)

Geoghegan, T. (2010) Building a CollaborativePlatform for Climate Change: An Action ResearchApproach, London: UK Collaborative onDevelopment Sciences (UKCDS),International Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED)

Hounkponou, S.; Ahounou, M. et al. (2010) ‘Agro-meteorological Early Warning to ReduceAgricultural Vulnerability to Climate Change:The Experiences of PARBCC in Benin’,Adaptation Insights: Addressing Climate ChangeAdaptation in Africa through Participatory Action

Research: Vol 10, Centre for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC)

Hounkponou, S.; Houssou-Goe, S. et al. (2010)‘How can Political and AdministrativeAuthorities Contribute to Local CommunityAdaptation to Climate Change in Benin?’,Adaptation Insights: Addressing Climate ChangeAdaptation in Africa through Participatory ActionResearch: Vol 8, Centre for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC)

Koelle, B. and Oettle, N.M. (2010) Adapting withEnthusiasm: Climate Change Adaptation in theContext of Participatory Action Research, Indigo

Mapfumo, P.; Mtambanegwe, F. et al. (2010)‘Mobilizing Local Safety Nets for Enhanced

Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change andVariability in Zimbabwe’, Adaptation Insights:Addressing Climate Change in Africa throughParticipatory Action Research: Vol 1, Centre forInternational Forestry Research (CIFOR),International Development Research Centre(IDRC)

Ndegwa, W.; Rao, K.P.C. et al. (2010) ‘ImprovingFarmer Adaptive Capacity by IntegratingLocal and Indigenous Knowledge in ClimateForecasting and Adaptive Response’,Adaptation Insights: Addressing Climate ChangeAdaptation in Africa through Participatory ActionResearch: Vol 4, Centre for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC)

Harvey et al. Linking Community, Radio, and Action Research on Climate Change: Reflections on a Systemic Approach116

Notes* This work was supported by the Carleton

University/IDRC Radio Convergence andDevelopment in Africa Research Program(grant number RCDA.C89). Thanks toJonathan Langdon and the members ofGCRN for their important contributions tothis article.

1 This section draws upon a recent publicationin the International Journal of Communication(Harvey 2011).

ReferencesAFRRI (African Farm Radio Research Initiative)

(2008) Communicating with Radio: What do weKnow? Ottawa: Farm Radio International

AMARC Africa and Panos Southern Africa(1998) What is Community Radio? A ResourceGuide, World Association of Community RadioBroadcasters, www.amarc.org/documents/manuals/What_is_CR_english.pdf (accessed23 March 2012)

BBC World Service Trust (2009) Africa TalksClimate Research Briefing: Ghana, London: BBCWorld Service Trust

Burns, D. (2007) Systemic Action Research: A Strategyfor Whole System Change, Bristol: Policy Press

Dazé, A. (2007) Climate Change and Poverty inGhana, Accra: CARE International

Fals-Borda, O. (2006) ‘The North–SouthConvergence: A 30-year First-personAssessment of PAR’, Action Research 4.3: 351–58

Fals-Borda, O. and Rahman, M.A. (eds) (1991)Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly withParticipatory Action Research, New York: ApexPress

Fazey, I.; Fazey, J.; Fischer, J.; Sherren, K.;Warren, J.M.; Noss, R. and Dovers, S. (2007)‘Adaptive Capacity and Learning to Learn as

Leverage for Social–Ecological Resilience’,Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 375–80

Folke, C. (2006) ‘Resilience: The Emergence of aPerspective for Socio-Ecological SystemsAnalyses’, Global Environmental Change 16: 253–67

Gauthier, J. (2005) Popularize, Produce, Disseminate!Reference Sheets for Field Researchers, Ottawa:International Development Research Centre(IDRC)

Hall, B. (2005) ‘In from the Cold? Reflections onParticipatory Research from 1970–2005’,Convergence 38.1: 5–24

Harvey, B. (2011) ‘Climate Airwaves: CommunityRadio, Action Research, and Advocacy forClimate Justice in Ghana’, International Journalof Communication 5: 2035–58

Heron, John and Reason, Peter (2008) ‘ExtendingEpistemology within a Co-operative Inquiry’,in Peter Reason and Hillary Bradbury, The SageHandbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiryand Practice, 2nd edition, London: Sage: 366–80

Hulme, M. (2009) Why We Disagree about ClimateChange: Understanding Controversy, Inaction andOpportunity, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress

InterMedia (2010) Media and Communication inGhana – An Overview, www.audiencescapes.org/

country-profiles-ghana-media-communication-overview-television-radio-internet-mobile%20phones-newspapers-word-of-mouth-opinion(accessed 1 March 2012)

Jennings, T.L. (2009) ‘Exploring the Invisibilityof Local Knowledge in Decision-making: TheBoscastle Harbour Flood Disaster’, in W.N.Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K. O’Brien, Adaptingto Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:240–54

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2007)‘Participatory Action Research:Communicative Action and the PublicSphere’, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, Strategiesof Qualitative Inquiry, 3rd edition, London: SagePublishers: 271–330

McSweeney, C.; New, M. and Lizcano, G. (2008)UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles: Ghana,Oxford University, http://country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk (accessed 23 February 2012)

McTaggart, R. (1991) ‘Principles forParticipatory Action Research’, Adult EducationQuarterly 41.3: 168–87

Myers, M. (2008) Radio and Development in Africa:A Concept Paper, Ottawa: InternationalDevelopment Research Centre: 58

Opubor, A.E. (2000) ‘If Community Media is theAnswer, What is the Question?’, in S.T. KwameBaofo (ed.), Promoting Community Media in Africa,Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)

Ospina, A. and Heeks, R. (2010) ChangeAdaptation: A Conceptual Framework for eResilienceand eAdaptation, Manchester: Centre forDevelopment Informatics, Institute forDevelopment Policy and Management,University of Manchester

Pettit, J.; Salazar, J.F. and Gumicio Dagron, A.(2009) ‘Citizens’ Media and Communication’,Development in Practice 19.4: 443–52

Tacchi, J.; Watkins, J. and Keerthirathne, K.(2009) ‘Participatory Content Creation: Voice,Communication, and Development’,Development in Practice 19.4: 573–84

Tanner, T. and Allouche, J. (2011) ‘Towards aNew Political Economy of Climate Changeand Development’, IDS Bulletin 42.3,Brighton: IDS

White, G. (2007) Community Radio in Ghana: ThePower of Engagement, www.c3.ucla.edu/research-reports/reports-archive/editors-perspective/community-radio-in-ghana (accessed12 February 2012)

IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 3 May 2012 117