No abstract

The study demonstrates the importance of taking the views of young people into account when planning both sex education and the provision of contraceptive services.

This chapter introduces ethnographic action research (EAR). EAR is a project developmentmethodology that was designed specifically for media and information and communication Ethnographic action research is a form of participatory action research (PAR). The ethnographic approach combined with action research means that it builds upon notions of immersion, long term engagement, and understanding local contexts holistically. It was initially designed to help project's develop and adapt to local situations, and in this sense it is a form of developmental evaluation (Patton, 2011). It draws on key ethnographic methods such as participant observation and in-depth interviews, and takes a multi-method approach.A foundational concept of EAR is communicative ecologies, which involves paying attention to wider contexts of information and communication flows and channels, formal and informal, technical and social, to understand communication opportunities and barriers. 2It is important to understand where EAR came from, and the central importance of the communicative ecologies concept. EAR and communicative ecologies responded to (at least) two central organizing concepts or categories in the ICT4D field. First, there is the technological determinist and modernizing ideas that underpin development whereby technology is a key to development itself (see Tacchi, forthcoming and Slater, 2013). Second there is the dominance of measurement and impact, what is now widely known as 'results based management' (see Lennie and Tacchi, 2013). EAR and communicative ecologies challenged both by taking the position that, if we start by considering how people communicate around certain themes, or to accomplish certain tasks, we can start to appreciate which channels and flows are used and why, how this relates to other possible uses, and therefore where there are opportunities and barriers to an ICT4D initiative. In other words, there was, and remains, a need to challenge development assumptions about both development and media and communication technologies and to embed our understandings of both within broader social structures and relationships (see Slater, 2013).In this chapter we describe the key characteristics of EAR and communicative ecologies, and how they have been combined and put into practice through a few specific ICT4D projects, with full recognition and indeed the intention that they might be taken up and adapted by others in various other contexts and combinations for a range of different purposes (as they have been). We first explore the background to the development of EAR through two communication research projects, the first in Sri Lanka (the KCRIP study) and the second in sites across South Asia (the ictPR project). We then outline its core components and explain communicative ecologies. We explore EAR's application and further development through a project in South and South East Asia (the Finding a Voice research project). Next we look at the adaptation of EAR from a project development methodology to a participator...

This article explores the potential role of participatory or open content creation for development. It does so by examining ideas around voice and listening, and their relevance to the field of information and communication technology for development (ICT4D). It first explores participatory development and the idea of open ICT4D before elaborating on issues of voice as process, and as value. Research findings from a project in Asia that experimented with participatory content creation are discussed in relation to notions of voice. The research was concerned with the ways in which processes of voice might lead to wider social action and change. Findings are explored, and discussed in relation to the importance and challenges of ensuring that voice is valued through listening, and the implications of this for ICT4D.

This article makes an argument for connecting old and new technologies in our efforts to create a coherent field that we might call ‘radio studies’. The lack of academic work to date on radio - the ‘secondary medium’ (Lewis, this issue) - has left us with a void in media and cultural studies. Radio’s pervasive nature in everyday lives is less apparent in precisely those settings (the developed world in particular) where it has become a part of the everyday fabric of life. Currently there is a revival of interest in radio studies, which coincides (perhaps not accidentally) with the growth of new digital media technologies. The ‘Radiocracy’ conference at Cardiff demonstrated not only the resurgence of interest in academic studies of radio, but also the many and innovative ways in which radio is used (and sometimes abused) globally. In each location the medium is used differently, demonstrating not only that a global definition of the meanings and uses of ‘radio’ cannot be assigned, but also that new evolutions of ‘radiogenic’ technologies should not be dismissed as being different from ‘radio’ and therefore not a part of the remit of ‘radio studies’. Many net.radio initiatives seek to circumvent governmental restrictions on analogue radio broadcasting by incorporating and developing new ‘radiogenic’ technologies. Examples are given to illustrate the arguments in this article; a small-scale net.radio operation in London is contrasted with a large commercial net.radio company located in the USA, and a development initiative in India is also considered.