Volume 11, No 2.

View Communications Research At The United Nations

This article will provide a brief but broad survey of the UN’s role in current communication and media research and a critical assessment of how this research is implemented in policy, with the goal of promoting program effectiveness and specificity. I will map the structure and goals of the UN’s communication research, exemplified by a case study of UNESCO and its programs. My goal is not to castigate any particular agency or organisation, nor to praise any unquestioningly. The future of communications research at the UN may be better served by judicious review than by placid enthusiasm for the status quo. Certain questions must be asked in order to propose organisational changes to improve the success and evaluation of communications initiatives, and the relationships between these programs, academic research and private enterprise.

As media audiences fragment and contract around the world, the UN may want to consider a shake-up in the organisational structure that addresses contemporary communications concerns, in order to maintain effectiveness and credibility. Another option for the UN would be to focus on specific areas of research, and better identify how this research can aid policy goals. To remain efficient and reflective of current communications policy concerns, the UN should consider sponsoring a new institute devoted to this research, into which the splintered programs of other UN agencies can be folded.

What is ‘communications research’?

The first question we should ask is how communications research is defined both within and outside of the UN, and how results are disseminated. Defining the field of communication is a process that has mystified scholars and policy-makers alike for as long as the discipline has existed. Historically, communication has been considered a one-way process, with a message being transmitted from a sender to a receiver. While this simplistic concept fits interpersonal communication, it is complicated by multiple senders, receivers and messages, which together comprise ‘mass’ communication. Mass communication is also a one-way process, at least on the surface, but usually is mediated through an industrial organisational structure, such as movie studios, television networks or publishing houses. Mass communication is technically possible without electronic means of production and distribution – such as newspapers and periodicals in the 19th century – but is commonly known today to rely upon the instantaneous delivery of messages through satellites, personal computers and cable antennae. It was technology that created the mass communication we use today, and it was the development of regulatory systems in the 1920s which brought the term ‘mass media’ into public use (Braman 2004, p.156). So even the concept of ‘communication’ is complicated, debated by those within and outside of the field.

While the sender-message-receiver model is useful for those studying small groups and effects, it is inadequate to describe the nature of both contemporary mass media in the age of globalisation, and the organisational workings of the UN itself. Mass communication such as broadcasting, movies, music, books, newspapers and magazines all require an industrial infrastructure for effective production and distribution. Even the internet, which can be manipulated on an individual level, requires a technological infrastructure and literacy still unavailable to many.

We also have to be careful to distinguish ‘communication’ from ‘culture’, a distinction that many, including the UN, struggle to make. Culture can take many forms, including that of communication behaviours and products. When discussing communications research here, we are referring to mediated communication through industrial means. It can be argued that, though the relationship between culture and communication is symbiotic, communication helps to create culture, and in turn communication devices and methods are artefacts of that culture. UNESCO separates culture from communication not necessarily in a pragmatic fashion, as we will see.

But where did the idea of international communications policy begin? Cees Hamelink, in his concise history of the politics of global communication, identifies the foundation of the International Telegraphy Union in 1865 and the General Postal Union (soon after renamed the Universal Postal Union) in 1874 as the beginning of ‘global’ communications policy. Prior to electronic and computer-mediated communication, telegraphs, railroads and postal systems formed the basis of ‘telecommunications’ (Hamelink 2002, p.162). The former agency, which was the ancestor of today’s ITU, was primarily concerned with reducing tariffs and liability, as well as more ‘democratic’ goals towards transmission privacy, universal rights to access, and safeguarding the public against immoral or illegal transmissions. In 1884 the framework for today’s copyright and intellectual property rights was institutionalised as the Convention Establishing a General Union for the Protection of the Rights of Authors in Their Literary and Artistic Works (Hamelink 2002, p.163).¹ The impetus behind this treaty was the frustration European publishers felt over a glut of American reprints of literary property without rights, permissions or royalties being paid to the author or original publisher.

These early communications policy think tanks were concerned about many of the same basic issues that today’s UN agencies and other international or non-governmental organisations are – equalisation, access, freedom, fairness, and the goal to use increasingly sophisticated methods of mediated communication in order to improve society. But as the 20th century progressed and the UN became the locus of global media governance, these goals began to drown in the alphabet soup of invested agencies and suffocate in the grasp of commercial interests. ‘Communications research’ under the auspices of the UN now includes topics ranging from HIV education in sub-Saharan Africa to satellite regulation in Southeast Asia. Initiatives are almost unwieldy in their inclusivity; diversity in this case has created divergent methods and tools of research that sometimes struggle to connect with each other. Is ‘communications research’ research about the technology, economic, social or political impact of communication (particularly mass communication), or is it any research that utilises communication as a methodological tool? In this case we are discussing the former, but there continues to be some confusion at the organisational level on this issue, as I will discuss later.

As the media became institutionalised commercially and as an academic discipline (though under the auspices of social science or humanities research), it remained unclear how communications research would be defined. At the UN there is sometimes a chasm between research that is driven by policy needs versus academic ideals. While UN programs are not intended to replace (or even supplement) scholarly activity, the credibility of communications initiatives relies on the legitimacy of its theoretical foundations. But is it fair to judge UN research programs by academic standards?

The first important issue here is: who asks the questions? Is the research driven by the investigator or the client? And whom do the results ultimately intend to serve? In academia, most research is initiated by the individual scholar. Sometimes the quest for original questions is nearly as elusive as the answers, but for the most part research is instigated at the micro level based on simple curiosity. The institutional infrastructure of grant proposals, research ethics committees and referees all serve to vet this research, but it remains the purview of the investigator, not the institution. In a non-academic environment, such as consulting firms, communications research is prompted by the client. The client asks the questions, but may or may not recommend routes of investigation that will arrive at solutions. In communications consulting contracts, the goal of research is usually to expedite efficiency within the organisation, or pave ways for the organisation to profitably expand. In other words, rewards for successful research tend to be more tangible than the accolades and collegial admiration bestowed upon academics.

Within UN agencies, the impetus for communications research is somewhere in between these two research models. Proposals for initiatives can be made at the micro or macro level, but the research is usually performed at the individual or small group level. Research questions are asked on behalf of developed or developing nations, and the ambition of any program is to improve communications infrastructures in that region. This ‘infrastructure’ may be vague, as I will demonstrate later in this article. Program goals are sometimes subtle and indefinable, which makes their evaluation difficult.

Secondly, how is communications research disseminated? At the level of intergovernmental organisations such as the UN, results of initiatives are interpreted, synthesised and distributed within the organisation, as well as a few select institutions believed to have serious interest in the program (universities and research groups). Rarely do you see the results of UN communications programs heralded by the international press (that honour is reserved for UN programs for development, health, poverty and more ‘humanitarian’ goals).

The form that these results take varies – from a one-page press release to a bound volume produced by an internal publisher (such as UNESCO Publishing). It must be remembered that these research findings are usually compiled and written by program officers who may or may not have an academic background (which may or may not be relevant to the research area). These reports are not usually refereed by academics. Findings may also be in the form of collected proceedings from a UN-sponsored conference or workshop related to communications activities. These are edited, but rely on the integrity of the individuals involved who are submitting their work for consideration. Published proceedings are rarely peer- or blind-reviewed.

So who does hear about these initiatives? To paraphrase the old proverb, if a communications study falls alone in the forest and an interested scholar does not hear about it, does it really matter? As I’ve suggested before, the credibility of these programs relies on their academic legitimacy. If active scholars in the discipline are unaware of these initiatives or their results, it must be asked to whom the conclusions are directed and for what purpose. If research is primarily distributed within the organisation, then to what end? For the education of internal management, positive self-identification, morale boosting, or to stimulate research in related agencies? In any case, it would likely help to clarify the goals of dissemination and the locus of recipients.

Finally, how is this credibility measured? Only a truly global yet non-political organisation such as the UN has the means and willingness to be the world leader in communication research, but it cannot achieve this without demonstrating that its results are valid and trustworthy. In order for the academic and development community to rely on UN-sponsored communications research, more rigorous standards may be needed to vet results. First, however, there needs to be agreement on how goals can be measured. For example, if the goal of a communications program is to ‘promote democracy’ in a region, the program plan should include some form of estimating success or failure in a clear manner that can be communicated to others, such as increased voter registration or election turnout.

It should be remembered, however, that the UN is not an academic institution, nor does it aspire to be one. But in order for its research to have an impact on policy outside of the organisation, it must be held up to stricter standards. At the very least, there should be a clear plan for proposed research and its performance. Research for the sake of investigation may prove more frustrating than fruitful; results-oriented programs will be more rewarding inside and outside the organisation in the long run.

The role of research in policy implementation

Historically, the use of communications research in policy implementation is relatively recent.² Communications research at the end of the 19th century at the beginning of the 20th century was primarily concerned with issues of propaganda and citizen persuasion. These questions were largely policy-driven, but research was not overtly invested in policy-making until the 1950s (Owen 1998, p.5). Communications research at the international level of the UN is not performed with the goal of simply appeasing academic curiosity – it serves to influence and shape policy initiatives that will hopefully improve society. Communications research can be used to recommend new policies, prove existing policies worthy of attention or rejection, or sometimes shed new light on policies of the past. Now, international communications policy is driven by a handful of major issues:

1. Public and equal access to communication and information technology

2. Personal and public rights of knowledge producers

3. The impact of advertising and consumer marketing communication

4. Privacy protection

5. Intellectual property rights, including copyright and fair use

6. Media conglomeration and concentration

All of these issues require significant outward research to inform policy objectives.

The intersection between communications research and policy-making is also inward-looking. Governance and policy creation can be analysed as communicative processes, and research can provide important insight into the infrastructure of decision-making at the organisational level (Braman 2003, p.3). Remember, ‘communication’ is disseminated from, to, within and between UN agencies, and may be wholly independent of research results or policy-driven investigation.

There are several ways that organisations such as the UN can develop information that will convert to effective policy. The first is to create and maintain strong linkages with external research agencies, either private or public, and academic institutions. Scholars in the field are the best resource for information gathering – they are usually eager to share knowledge and interested in how their theoretical and methodological background can be applied to real-world problems. Another way is to promote research at the governmental level, to be applied to existing policy management or new policy creation. A crucial positive move would also be to streamline and coordinate communications research at the UN. Currently communications, information, and media research is fragmented and disorganised, and the immense size and diverse nature of the UN bureaucracy sometimes means that the right hand is unaware of the left hand’s activities.

The structure of the UN

Since its inception in 1945, the UN’s central mandate has been to promote peace, security, development and human rights around the world. Despite the UN’s prominence, it remains a mystifying organisation to many. The UN is an octopus, reaching into nearly every country in the world with programs as diverse as the member nations they assist. It is in the unique position of being able to affect international policy without becoming mired in politics. Of course, this is an idealistic view that, while shared by those in the organisation, is generally met with derision and cynicism by those outside the UN. The principal organs of the UN are the Security Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the Economic and Social Council; communications research is located in the latter three. Full taxonomies of the UN are available elsewhere (see www.uncenter.org), but we still need to visualise the locus of communications research at the UN and its related agencies.

Currently, communication research in the General Assembly is limited in the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). In the Secretariat, the Department of Public Information (DPI) is responsible for communication within the UN organisation, including information for staff, media relations and inter-agency correspondence.³

The General Assembly has contributed to diverse communications research, including satellite broadcasting and ethics education in science and technology. In 1959 the General Assembly created the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which was the beginning of international policy interest in satellite broadcasting (Hamelink 2002, p.165). Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the flow of information throughout the world via satellite and cable broadcasting became a touchstone for UN communications research, and forged links between concepts of communication and culture. Academics and policy-makers alike were apprehensive about the power of a ‘one-way flow’ of news and cultural products, from the West to the East (i.e. United States and Western Europe to Asia and Africa). This debate over ‘cultural imperialism’ has evolved in terminology (West became the ‘centre’ then the North, East became the ‘periphery’ then the South) and influence. Those who doubt the power of industrialised entertainment production are accused of being naive, while their more cynical colleagues suffer from Chicken Little syndrome, persistently afraid of the sky falling (or at least all cultural distinction eroding). This argument has moved from UNCTAD to the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the WTO. The WTO’s predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), imploded partly due to member dissent over the inclusion of media and entertainment as cultural versus industrial products.

Under the Economic and Social Council, communications research is the cornerstone of the ITU and WIPO. These organisations are primarily interested in industry regulation and legal policy. Other agencies heavily invested in media and communication research are the World Health Organisation (WHO) (particularly health and risk communication as well as media outreach campaigns) and the Universal Postal Union. The latter’s interest is primarily in communication technologies (e.g. methods of distribution and delivery) rather than content. The main site of research, however, occurs at UNESCO, which I will discuss next.

Case study: UNESCO

The agency where most communications research occurs within the UN organisation is UNESCO. There are two sectors within UNESCO that are primarily invested in media research – Communication and Information (CI) and Culture.

The CI sector is organised into three divisions: Communication Development, the Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace, and the Information Society division. All departments share two main goals: to ‘foster equitable access to information and knowledge for development’, and to ‘promote freedom of expression and the development of communication’ (32 C/5, 207). In the most recent biennium plan (32 C/5), two-thirds of resources were allocated to meeting the former goal (up from 55% in 31 C/5) and one-third to the latter. Still, the budget caps out at $42,708,300 for 2004-2005, approximately half of which ($24,043,700) goes straight to activities.

Strategic objectives currently include two ‘cross-cutting’ themes: ‘eradication of poverty, especially extreme poverty, and the contribution of information and communication technologies to the development of education, science and culture, and the construction of a knowledge society’ (32 C/5, 207). While these are lofty goals, the strategies for achieving them remain murky at best. Where the sector is most successful is in creating programs that foster partnerships with organisations (academic and non-academic) that will help them reach these goals in a concrete fashion.

The Culture sector is even more diverse, covering historic and heritage sites, museums, fine art and design, music, dance, writing, and other cultural industries. On the surface, it would appear that the Culture sector is devoted to ‘high culture’ whereas the CI sector is focused more on ‘popular culture’. But the Culture sector houses several programs that would seem to better fit CI’s mandates, such as the Cultural Industries and Copyright departments. In the former, emphasis is placed on understanding the audiovisual and multimedia industries as a ‘source of economic growth and a vital vector for the promotion of cultural diversity’.⁴ Research for this sector hopes to serve to strengthen media industries in developing countries, a goal that again lines up with those of CI.

There are two major weaknesses in communications research in these sectors of UNESCO. Firstly, the confusion over the distinction between using communication and media technology to aid development (economic, political, social) and the development of effective and valuable communication infrastructures. It is the simple difference between using radio public service announcements to foster AIDS awareness in Africa, and founding a community radio station to produce and broadcast such announcements. These are two very different activities, each meeting one of CI’s main goals. The sector and its officers need to be very specific about the meaning and context of ‘communication development’ in order to create effective initiatives.

Secondly, there remains a puzzling overlap between the activities of the CI and Culture sectors, particularly in the Cultural Industries division of the latter. In this case there seems to be a disconnect between what is considered ‘culture’ and ‘communication’ as envisioned by the UN.

Internally, there is an additional challenge – creating tangible goals, the results of which UNESCO program officers can quantify and adequately evaluate. UNESCO values its communication research activities, and is working to make sure that every international UN post includes CI and/or Culture program officers that are in touch with Paris headquarters and each other. The successful development of initiatives, however, depends upon the enthusiasm and conviction of those performing the research and implementing policies. The current biennium plan includes specific performance indicators, which should be required of all programs. Such indicators should be easy to identify and interpret. For example, ‘more Internet’ is not a useful indicator; ‘online access instituted in X number of public buildings’ is better.

Conclusion

The UN occupies a unique and enviable position in communications research. It has both the financial and human resources to investigate and recommend policy, even if it lacks vigour. The tenets of the UN – to promote peace, security, development and human rights – hinge on communication, both mass media and interpersonal contact. Communication research activities at the UN are in the danger of being hindered (if they are not already) by their fragmentation and lack of focus. UNESCO’s strengths are its vision and commitment to diversity and long-term strategy. Communications research programs are an important ingredient to the ongoing utility of the organisation, but UNESCO cannot rest on the laurels of its brand name.

To this end, I propose the restructuring of communications research at the UN into a new, focused institute devoted to electronic media research. This would include study of the internet and other digital technology, radio and television production, electronic newsgathering and publishing, cable and satellite broadcasting, and motion picture production. This research centre could connect academics with policy-makers in an effective and mutually beneficial relationship that allows the UN to further its less tangible goals while remaining in touch with current scholarship.

The main advantage to centralising this research would be to foster positive relationships between academics and policy-makers while reducing the inefficiencies caused by program overlap in the current organisation. The main disadvantage would be the constant struggle to define the boundaries of research as it fits into the institute’s mandate versus other UN agencies. However, this problem already exists.

When the UN was founded, the integral role that communication, particularly mass communication technology, would play in our contemporary lives was foreseen by few people other than George Orwell. Because of the increasingly connected nature of modern society, electronic media are inextricably linked to the success and failure of all organisations, including the UN, and not just in programs related to communications research. The impact that information technology and media have on our everyday lives, politics and economics necessitates a revision of how related research is performed at the international level.

Nicola Simpson Khullar is a PhD student in the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, specialising in global media issues, including industrial, economic and trade policy. In addition to a busy publication schedule, she is currently an editor of the International Journal of Communication Law and Policy. She interned in the Communication and Information sector of UNESCO in 2004.

Notes

1. This multilateral treaty was the only one of its kind in existence until 1952, and has been revised six times, most recently in 1971.

2. For a good history of this relationship see S. Braman (ed) (2001) Communication Research and Policy: A Critical View, Vol. I: 1887-1991, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama.

3. Tangential communications research does occur in other specialised agencies not discussed here, such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which respectively regulate aircraft and marine communications systems.

4. http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=7333&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html, accessed 10 December 2004.

Bibliography

Bradford, G., Gary, M. & Wallach, G. (eds) (2000) The Politics of Culture: Policy Perspectives for Individuals, Institutions, and Communities, New York, NY: The New Press.

Braman, S. (2003) Communication Research and Policy Making, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Braman, S. (2004) ‘Where has media policy gone? Defining the field in the twenty-first century’, Communication Law and Policy, 9(2), pp.154-182.

Bullen, D. (1983) UNESCO and the Right to Communicate, Medford, MA: Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts University.

Dutton, W.H., Blumler, J.G., Garnham, N., Mansell, R., Cornford, J. & Peltu, M. (1996) ‘The politics of information and communication policy: The information superhighway’, in W.H. Dutton (ed) Information and Communication Technologies: Visions and Realities, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.387-405.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L.P. & Melody, W.H. (eds) (1973) Communication Technology and Social Policy: Understanding the New ‘Cultural Revolution’, New York, NY: Wiley.

Gher, L.A. (2002) ‘Patterns in global communication: Prospects and concerns’, in Y.R. Kamalipour (ed) Global Communication, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, pp.247-263.

Giffard, C.A. (1989) UNESCO and the Media, London: Longman Group.

Hamelink, C.J. (2002) ‘The politics of global communication’, in Y.R. Kamalipour (ed) Global Communication, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, pp.161-187.

Mansell, R. (1996) ‘Innovation in telecommunication regulation: Realizing national policy goals in a global marketplace’, in W.H. Dutton (ed) Information and Communication Technologies: Visions and Realities, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.371-386.

Mayor, F. & Tanguiane, S. (1997) UNESCO – An Ideal in Action: The Continuing Relevance of a Visionary Text, Paris: UNESCO.

McGuigan, J. (2004) Rethinking Cultural Policy, Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Noam, E.M. (1993) ‘Reconnecting communication studies with communications policy’, Journal of Communication, 43(3), pp.199-206.

Nordenstreng, K. (1984) The Mass Media Declaration of UNESCO, Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.

Owen, B.M. (1998) ‘A novel conference: The origins of TPRC’, in J.K. MacKie-Mason &
D. Waterman (eds) Telephony, the Internet, and the Media: Selected Papers from the 1997 Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.1-11.

Peters, J.D. (1986) ‘Institutional sources of intellectual poverty in communication research’, Communication Research, 13(4), pp.527-59.

Price, M.E. (2002) Media and Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution and its Challenge to State Power, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Raboy, M. (2003) Global Media Policy in the New Millennium, Luton, UK: University of Luton Press.

Siochru, S.O., Girard, B. & Mahan, A. (2002) Global Media Governance: A Beginner’s Guide, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Thussu, D.K. (2001) International Communication: Continuity and Change, London: Arnold Publishing.

UNESCO (2003) Major Programme V: Communication and Information, available online at
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=8873&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html, last accessed 31 December 2004.

Weiss, C. (1994) ‘The many meanings of research utilization’, in M. Bulmer (ed) Social Science and Social Policy, London: Allen & Unwin, pp.31-40.

Winseck, D. & Cuthbert, M. (1997) ‘From communication to democratic norms: Reflections on the normative dimensions of international communication policy’, in A. Sreberny-Mohammadi, D. Winseck, J. McKenna & O. Boyd-Barrett (eds) Media in Global Context, London: Edward Arnold, pp.162-176.