How information is used

The electronic surveys to gather information about how stakeholders use information on transport and rural infrastructure have not yet been implemented, so it is not possible to say much about how information is used at this stage.  However, we do know that the way they plan to use the information has some bearing on the content and scope of the information that they are looking for.  The literature provides some insights. 

David Webber’s Seven Meanings of Use [i] describes seven different ways that policy makers use social science information.  These are:

The literature on marketing provides three important insights. The first is that people buy products to solve immediate problems. [ii]   Policymakers will be more likely to take note of and remember pieces of evidence if they are convinced that the evidence is actually addressing a specific problem.  Secondly, people’s reaction to new products or ideas is often determined by explicit or hidden images and associations on, or evoked by the packaging rather than the product or idea itself. [iii]   This highlights the need to know your audience, in order to find the right packaging so that the idea can be taken note of and remembered. Thirdly, if people can be encouraged to think about a product or idea, they are far more likely to remember and buy it. Kotler et al [iv] have identified several mechanisms to encourage this including rational arguments (putting forward a cost/benefit analysis), emotional factors (stirring up positive or negative emotions), and moral dimensions (appealing to a sense of right and wrong). Advertisers have developed skill in drawing on these three types of appeals while tapping on the motivations that drive human consumption: functional, pleasure, self-identity, image, admiration, and altruism. If these are invoked in the right way the target audience will respond, and following on from a response they may start identifying with and using the new product/idea.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s work on Communication for Social Change (CFSC) examines how communication processes might be used at a community level to bring about social change. [v] Communication in this respect is defined as the act of people coming together to decide who they are, what they want, and how they will obtain what they want. The rationale behind CFSC is that social change will be more sustainable if the affected community owns not just the physical inputs and outputs, but also owns the process and content of the communication involved. The paper argues that if any external agents wish to contribute to the process of communication and social change, they should shift their approach away from persuasion and one-way transmission of information, and instead engage in dialogue and discussion with members of the community.

The FAO/DFID/ODI Study: Livelihoods Approaches to Information and Communication in support of Rural Poverty Elimination and Food Security²⁷ found that the most effective mechanisms to deliver information to poor rural households were through systems which integrated new internet-based information systems with existing mass media systems including rural radio and newspapers.