Abstract
This article explores power dynamics within participatory communication process among stakeholders in the agricultural sector of northwest Ethiopia. This study underpinning the article used qualitative data collected from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and observations. Concepts from participatory development communication theory, the theory of communicative action, and power typology were used as analytical frameworks. The article underscores how political elites, structural hierarchies, experts, and cultural influence dominate participatory communication platforms, marginalising the voices of smallholder farmers and other stakeholders. These actors not only dominate discussions, but also shape decisions, as their ideas were taken for granted uncritically. This dominance mirrors existing broader political and cultural power structures, which marginalise smallholder farmers and other less powerful stakeholders, limiting inclusivity in decision-making. The findings underscore the need for equitable power redistribution to foster more equitable and inclusive decision -making in participatory platforms.
Introduction
Despite the growing prominence of participatory development communication approaches in addressing development challenges, studies in various Global South countries have shown that a considerable number of participatory development programmes either fail to achieve their goals or do not proceed as anticipated. This is primarily attributed to a lack of genuine and meaningful participation and communication from communities, especially in the decision-making process (Bell and Reed, 2022; Mamokhere and Meyer, 2023; Melkote and Steeves, 2001; Tesfaye, 2011).
Studies conducted in different contexts have also shown that various factors affect the implementation of participatory communication interventions. Van de Fliert (2010) identified mentality, communication skills, and facilitation capacity as individual-level factors, whereas institutional mandates and objectives, leadership, and political climate were organisational-level factors. Tesfaye's (2011) study revealed that, at the operational level, budget constraints, the size and composition of participants, organisers and facilitator's roles, absence of experts, and lack of process evaluation negatively affect participatory communication. Other studies have also shown that organisational culture, communication context, time restrictions, donor-driven nature of project design (Hermann, 2011); bureaucratic requirements, the weak status of communication as a field of study, the institutional predominance of a technical mindset (Waisbord, 2008), and cultural, social, financial, political, governmental, and organisational (Hassan et al., 2022) factors negatively affect the practice of participatory communication interventions.
Although power is a major factor that needs to be considered at the macro level (Mefalopulos, 2008), and power imbalance among actors threatens the integrity of participatory communication (Inagaki, 2007), scant attention has been given to the issue of power and power dynamics in participatory communication approaches, as well as in research. In contrast, some studies subsume the power dynamics issue under political, organisational, and cultural issues; only a handful of studies have profoundly singled out and identified how power dynamics have affected participatory communication approaches, especially from the Global South perspective.
Research conducted by Eidt et al. (2020) found that power dynamics between smallholder farmers and other stakeholders in participatory communication increase the risk of agricultural interventions by further marginalising small-scale farmers. Hickey and Mohan (2005) highlighted that participatory approaches often fail to achieve meaningful social change because of their inability to engage with the problems of power relations and underlying politics.
In the Ethiopian context, much is unknown about whether power dynamics have become a challenge for different actors involved in participatory communication. Only Godana's (2014) study assessed the power dynamics between NGO experts and participant communities and highlighted that NGOs serve as power hubs, set rules, meeting procedures, and conversation language, while marginalised community members often feel powerless due to expert decisions before the start of participatory meetings. Except for this study, a handful of other studies conducted with participatory communication theory as a backdrop have not addressed the issue of power dynamics. Given the complex nature of participatory communication, examining power dynamics is crucial for ensuring equitable participation and sustainable agricultural development, as it is a major determinant of the success or failure of development programmes in multi-stakeholder partnerships.
Research objective
The main objective of this study was to explore the power dynamics in participatory communication within the Ethiopian agricultural context, particularly examining how these dynamics impact the success or failure of development programmes.
Literature review and theoretical underpinnings
Participatory development communication
This study primarily uses participatory development communication as a theoretical framework. The following section highlights the basic principles of this theory. Participation is a process in which individuals, groups, communities, and organisations actively engage in making decisions that impact their lives (Wilcox, 1994). It is about “the involvement and mobilisation of people to give them the power and the right to make decisions and control on planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of development initiatives aimed at improving their living conditions” (Swanepoel and De Beer, 2006: 28–29). It is also defined as a process in which stakeholders are involved in making decisions that affect them, either ‘passively’ through consultation or actively through two-way or multiple-way interaction, where the public is defined as groups of people who are affected by or able to influence decisions, who participate or engage in dialogue about issues that need to be decided on (Reed, 2008).
Central to the aforementioned definitions are key terminologies or emphasis on “process,” “decision-making,” and “power.” Emphasis was placed on viewing participation as a process that entails a gradual course of action to obtain a particular result. Decision-making occurs when people take control of issues that matter to them. It should be viewed as more than just an action, involving empowerment and power. Empowerment of people can thus be seen as a prerequisite because stakeholders can make informed decisions when they are empowered.
Basic principles of participation
A careful examination of the literature shows that participatory communication approaches are based on some basic principles including the inclusion of all people or representativeness of all groups (including marginalised and grassroots), who will be affected by the results of a decision or a process at the different stages of the development intervention; equal partnership recognising that everyone, regardless of their status, has the ability, competence, initiative and equal right to participate in the development process; transparency- all participants must help create an environment that encourages open communication and building dialogue; sharing power- authority and power must be evenly distributed among all stakeholders to avoid domination of a single party; sharing responsibility- similarly, all stakeholders share equal responsibility for decisions taken, and they have clear responsibilities within each process; empowerment- participants with special skills should be encouraged to take responsibility for tasks with the area of expertise, while also urge others to participate in order to promote mutual learning and empowerment; cooperation- is crucial for effective participation; sharing everyone's strengths reduces everyone's weaknesses (Duraiappah et al., 2005; Tagarirofa and David, 2013). The present study used these interrelated principles to understand the power dynamics among stakeholders.
Concepts of empowerment and Rowlands typology
The term empowerment has been widely used in development discourse, scholarly literature, and policy documents, as has participation, but what constitutes empowerment has still been debated. Leder (2016) pointed out that the term has been used by different bodies, making it vague and contested in terms of conceptualisation and methodology. Empowerment has various dimensions and is viewed from social, economic, and political perspectives. It is frequently used for women and gender issues, but in the present study, empowerment goes beyond gender issues. It also covers the issue of helping stakeholders gain power and make equal contributions to different development efforts.
Despite different understandings, empowerment has been the primary goal of many participatory communication initiatives. According to Rappaport (1987), empowerment is the process by which individuals, groups, organisations, and broader communities gain control and achieve autonomy over social and economic conditions over democratic participation in their societies. Empowerment is also defined as “enhancing the capacity of poor people to influence the state institutions that affect their lives by strengthening their participation in political processes and local decision-making’ (World Bank, 2001: 39). While the economic and political dimensions of empowerment are crucial, the social dimension, which is mainly concerned with a multidimensional social process, is also important for helping people gain control over their own lives. This system allows individuals to gain power or influence in their own lives, communities, and society by enabling them to act on issues they deem essential (Page and Czuba, 1999).
The current study tried to use insights from gender theories, which can help better understand empowerment and power dynamics. Rowlands (1997) divides empowerment into three overlapping dimensions. The first is personal empowerment, which involves developing an individual's consciousness, self-perception, and confidence in challenging oppression. The second is relational empowerment, which emphasises an improved ability to negotiate and influence relational decisions. The third is collective empowerment, which occurs when there is collective action at the local or higher levels to change oppressive social structures based on cooperation. Development initiatives designed to focus on these three categories can help people, especially the disadvantaged parts of the community, to be empowered in different dimensions.
Related to this, Rowlands (1997) further distinguished four categories of power, namely, Power over, Power to, Power with, and Power with, and power from within. Pansardi and Bindi (2021) elaborate on the first three categories in their work. These authors defined
These authors addressed the idea of
Studies in participatory communication initiatives demonstrate the transformative potential of inclusive platforms in agriculture and other sectors. In India, the Self-Employed Women's Association (SEWA) effectively utilised participatory approaches to empower female farmers, developing their bargaining power and enabling them to influence local agricultural policies and improve their access to essential resources (Sushan, 2024). Similarly, in Uganda, the collaboration of farmers and stakeholders has fostered knowledgesharing among smallholder farmers, improving productivity and resilience through collaborative decision-making, which is vital to increasing sustainable food security (Tweheyo et al., 2024). These initiatives highlight the importance of creating spaces where marginalised voices are heard and integrated into decision-making processes. They also underscore the role of participatory platforms in empowering marginalised groups and enhancing agricultural outcomes, offering valuable lessons for similar contexts, including Ethiopia.
Power dynamics in participatory communication
One of the important factors that affect participatory communication approaches is power inequalities among the participating actors. As Wilcox (1994) points out, understanding participation involves understanding power, which is the ability of different interests to achieve what they want. This is why scholars emphasise the importance of dealing with power relations among actors in participatory communication (Carpentier, 2011).
Within the context of participatory development communication, power can take on multiple facets functioning as interactional, institutional, and sociocultural across different theoretical frameworks. Interactional power pertains to the influence individuals exert during face-to-face communication and interaction (Fairclough, 1992). Institutional power, as the name suggests, is embedded within formal structures, such as organisations and governments, involving hierarchies and decision-making processes (Ocasio, 2023). Steven Lukes (2012) differentiates this type of power into visible (overt decision-making authority), hidden (shaping and setting agendas and influencing outcomes behind the scenes), and ideological (which controls beliefs, norms and perceptions to maintain the status quo).Socio-cultural power functions at broader societal levels, shaping collective norms, values, and collective behaviour (Chung and Rimal, 2016). Recognising these three categories helps us to understand that power is not monolithic. It also sheds light on how power operates in the context of development.
Participatory communication approaches are expected to address the power imbalance between power holders and people by readjusting the power relationships between those with and without power (Servaes and Malikhao, 2005); and they are also expected to give attention to more equitable sharing of power and rights (Mefalopulos, 2008 & Servaes, 2008). Given that genuine or authentic participation in development necessitates having the opportunity and power to take part in decisions concerning one's well-being, participatory communication models must consider the notion of power and empowerment (Mefalopulos, 2008).
Therefore, addressing power inequalities is essential for development interventions, as the success of participatory communication largely hinges on readjusting power relations. However, this is not as easy as doing so affects some groups of stakeholders. As Servaes and Malikhao (2005) point out, participatory communication may threaten power holders’ interests and decrease certain groups’ advantages. Therefore, those with power and already privileged or advantaged groups may favour the status quo and affect the participatory communication process.
Although it is complex to bring about expected changes in development endeavours, dealing with deep-rooted, visible and invisible power inequalities and transforming repressive structures should be one of the key priorities of interventions. As Servaes and Malikhao (2005) suggested, power inequalities can be addressed by ‘pursuing genuine or authentic participation,’ as it deals directly with societal power distribution and entails a more equitable distribution of political and economic power.
In the Ethiopian context, studies on participatory communication appear to overlook the power dynamics among stakeholders. However, questioning hierarchical approaches and power dynamics that influence the engagement of different stakeholders in participatory communication initiatives is important. Therefore, this study employed the concepts of empowerment and power to assess the power dynamics among stakeholders in the agricultural sector.
Addressing power dynamics is critical for ensuring equitable participation and sustainable agricultural development. Unequal power relations often marginalise smallholder farmers, women, youth, and other vulnerable groups, limiting their ability to influence policies and resource access. By redistributing power and fostering inclusive communication, participatory platforms can enhance social cohesion, improve resource allocation, and drive innovation in agricultural practices. Such interventions are particularly relevant in Ethiopia, where structural hierarchies and political authority heavily influence stakeholder interactions. This study identifies strategies for addressing entrenched power imbalances and fostering equitable stakeholder collaboration by examining power dynamics in participatory communication within the Ethiopian agricultural sector. The findings will contribute to a deeper understanding of how participatory approaches can be adapted to different cultural and political settings, advancing the global discourse on inclusive agricultural development.
Theory of communicative action
This study also draws major concepts from Habermas's theory of communicative action, which deals with the role that communication plays in human action. Habermas (1984) underscored that communication is entirely about understanding. He conceptualised communicative action as communicative versus strategic rationality. The earlier aims to reach a common understanding or a shared sense of meaning, values, and norms, emphasising the building of social relationships using formal or informal communication. This requires collaborative and reciprocal efforts between individuals whose actions or communications are not driven by their desire for success but through understanding. Participants are not solely concerned with their accomplishments; instead, they pursue their targets on the condition that they can harmonise their plans of action based on common or shared scenarios or situation definitions (Habermas, 1984).
Regarding strategic rationality, Habermas (1984) stated that any action that is not oriented to communicative rationality leads to a strategic action that is oriented to actors’ success through different mechanisms, including manipulation to achieve personal gains using power, intimidation, enticement, coercion, deception, and other similar things. In strategic or instrumental action, receivers of the message are viewed as passive; they are dictated and act upon the interests of the sender. Although dialogue-oriented, it does not value negotiation for collective action; it employs dialogue to extend the speakers’ interests. Therefore, strategic action corresponds to using communication as an instrument or means to an end. It can also be seen as a lower or weaker form of participation or non-participation. Habermas links strategic and instrumental actions with two distinct realities: the life world and the system, which helps to understand how modern society functions. While the former refers to the world in which individuals engage in communicative action involving personal, social, and cultural contexts in our interactions, the latter refers to the structured institutional aspect of society (Baxter, 1987).
Like Freire (1970), Habermas (1984) emphasised the importance of dialogue in reaching consensus and shared understanding. This aligns with the conceptions of participatory communication, where genuine participation is all about dialogue, which helps explore common interests and fosters shared problem-solving and decision-making. Habermas stated that communicators engaged in genuine dialogue or action-oriented understanding must be free of any imposition. They must be free to question and present any proposition and convey their attitudes, desires, or demands. The discussion must have a “symmetrical distribution of opportunities to contribute.” It is important to consider any participant's idea of equal severity. “Outcomes must be determined through “good reasons,” or the “force of the better argument” (Habermas, 1990: 88–89). Although Habermas's theory is somehow old and criticised as it ignores the role of power in communication and utopian and radically democratic Matustik (2024), we believe that the assumptions and concepts of the theory can still be used to analyze participatory communication among agricultural stakeholders. Therefore, the present study combined concepts from participatory communication theory with Haberma'’s (1984) theory of communicative action, as well as Rowland'’s (1997) power typology, as theoretical frameworks and heuristic tools.
Methodology
Research design
This article is based on a larger study that explores participatory development communication in the agricultural sector of northwest Ethiopia. The research design employed in this study was a case study (Creswell and Creswell, 2018; Yin, 2014), which allows for the gathering of data from multiple sources and subsequently conducting a comprehensive analysis or empirical investigation of a specific case or phenomenon. In the context of this study, the case under scrutiny pertains to participatory communication exhibited by agricultural stakeholders.
Research Approach
A qualitative research approach was used to gain a deeper understanding of participatory communication in the agricultural sector (Creswell and Creswell, 2018), as it is a complex subject that is difficult to quantify. The approach allowed for an exploration of the topic from the perspectives and interpretations of stakeholders purposely selected, including the main actors of the sector such as farmers, farmer organisations, and traders, as well as supporters such as financial organisations and enablers or government organisations, including the Bureau of Agriculture, Agricultural Research, Cooperative Promotion Office, and civic service organisations including support projects and NGOs.
Data gathering instruments
Interviews, focus group discussions (FGD), and observations were used to gather data from various stakeholders. Qualitative data was generated from six FGDs drawn from main actors, supporters, and enablers groups at the kebele 1 and woreda 2 levels (2 with farmers, 2 with farmer organisations, and another 2 with a combination of stakeholders including Office of Agriculture, Microfinance Institutions, Cooperative Promotion Office, Trade and Development), 11 key informant interviewees (KIIs), mainly from enablers- various government organisations and NGOs working in the sector at the zone and regional level and observations of five field days 3 , meetings and workshops, all samples were selected purposely. In this study, data related to power dynamics were used. The sample size was determined using the principle of data saturation, ensuring that diverse stakeholder perspectives were captured. While qualitative methods do not rely on statistical power in the traditional sense, efforts were made to include an adequate number of participants from each stakeholder group to ensure a balanced representation.
The FGD was conducted by an assistant, consisting of six to eight participants in groups comprising men, women, and youth participants. The FGD lasted from 2:30 to 3:30 h. Interviews were conducted between 1:20 and 1:45. Guiding questions and points were prepared for all FGD, interviews, and observations. Informed consent was obtained from the participants using the formal consent form. To protect the participants’ identities, codes were used instead of each participant's name. Instead of using real names, codes including KII 1, KII 2…, FGD 1, and FGD 2…were used. Doing so helped protect the participants from any possible harm. All protocols were followed while collecting data using different instruments. After the transcription of the interview data, some of the interviewees were briefly contacted to clarify some of the ideas and concepts they raised.
The participants of the study were mainly from Metema and East Belessa woredas, Western and Central Gondar zones, and Bahir Dar City of the Amhara region. These areas were selected based on the suggestion that the ideal site to obtain easy access is in places where rich mixes of samples are present (Morse, 1998). The researchers’ familiarity and extensive experience with the areas not only facilitated easy access to the required data but also provided some insider perspectives.
Data analysis
Data collected from agricultural stakeholders through KIIs and FGDs, alongside observations of meetings, workshops, and field days, were transcribed and translated from Amharic to English (Amharic is the mother tongue of both the researcher and the assistant). The transcription and translation of the collected data, which were initially verbatim and dense, were carefully sorted to make sense of the qualitative data. After transcribing and translating the data, they were organised and categorised. Subsequently, recurrent remarks were identified and different themes related to power dynamics across stakeholders’ interactions were extracted from the data by analysing these remarks. This helped understand the engagement of the stakeholders involved in participatory communication.
The following section sheds light on the major findings of this study:
Findings
This study attempts to extend the existing literature by providing empirical evidence of how power dynamics manifest in participatory communication platforms within the agricultural sector. In contrast to previous research that focuses predominantly on egalitarian models of participation, these findings underscore the persistent influence of hierarchical structures and political authority, particularly in northwest Ethiopia. This contributes to a deeper understanding of the barriers to equitable stakeholder engagement.
The findings and discussions of this study are based on four major themes that demonstrate the power-holder groups that influence participatory communication in the agricultural sector: the engagement of political elites and the influence of government structure, culture, individual status, and the influence of experts or educational status.
Political elites or government officials’ engagements
Related to the power relationship among agricultural sector stakeholders, one of the findings that come out vividly is that political authorities and party members influence participatory communication in different ways. This influence spans different aspects, including agenda-setting, decision-making, and overall facilitation. Consequently, most participants adopted a submissive attitude towards the idea of those in power. The influence of politicians during meetings, workshops, and field days is evident. KIIs mentioned that people in the area pay much attention to the powerful because they have the potential to influence the masses. Being a politician matters the most to have heard. The chairperson of the kebele is audible when comparing him to an ordinary farmer and other stakeholders in the kebele. Nevertheless, this person may not choose the right technology for farmers (KII 4).
The influence of the government structure
In the Ethiopian agricultural sector, the Ministry of Agriculture at the federal level and bureaus, departments, and offices at different levels are the leading enablers or ‘public’ or government organisations in the sector. Structurally, it is the leader in the sector. Although legitimate, this leadership position is not expected to be exercised in participatory communication, which requires two-way, horizontal, and bottom-up communication and dialogue on an equal basis (Bessette, 2004; Mefalopulos, 2008; Servaes and Malikhao, 2005). In this regard, it appears that those political elites and these organisations misuse ‘power with’ and have exercised ‘power over’ not only stakeholders, including main actors, supporters, and support programmes, but also other government organisations, which are enablers and are on an equal footing in many aspects.
Concerning this, KII 9 delved into the power relationship between the two government organisations. According to this interviewee, “the Cooperative Promotion Agency refrains from expressing negative views on agricultural production matters while the Bureau of Agriculture holds sway.” This is common because there are favourable conditions for this to occur. This could stem from the organisation's political significance, the positions held by its representatives (often politicians), or rarely technical mandate of the organisation. Interestingly, the interviewee perceived occasional dominance as having a positive impact, as it somehow influences stakeholders to pay closer attention to activities.
What KII 10 elucidated also confirms that there is a different power relationship between enablers and government organisations. On most participatory communication platforms, what those in the agricultural office have said is the final word. Compared with the Bureau of Agriculture, Agricultural Research, which has research evidence, seems less effective in influencing stakeholders. As things are politically motivated, what politicians usually say is the last word. Most participants in agricultural research and other government organisations accept the decisions of the Bureau of Agriculture, making the participation of farmers, dealers, and other stakeholders in the private sector somewhat nominal (KII, 10).
Of the four major stakeholder groups in the agricultural sector raised in this study, the main actors, supporters, enablers, civic organisations, enablers, and government organisations appear to be the main influencers in participatory communication platforms. Of the enablers, the Bureau of Agriculture has significant influence and power over the others. Projects also have some power as they usually come with a budget. Although some may have legitimate power structurally, it should not be translated into relational power. Hence, it can be surmised that participatory communication in the agricultural sector is highly influenced by people possessing power in the government structure.
Observations showed participants’ discontent during workshops, particularly when influential individuals monopolised the discussion, suppressing active participation. These individuals ignored those who had eagerly raised their hands to contribute to their ideas. Consequently, many participants, including those with higher positions in other organisations, murmured and engaged in side talks, while others left such meetings dissatisfied. These findings confirm the misuse of ‘power with’ by some organisations and politicians, who wield ‘power over’ others. ‘ Moreover, the study revealed that both organisational and individual political positions significantly shape the nature and trajectory of participatory communication.
Although government officials hold recognised authority within their organisations, their legitimacy can be questionable. While it is true that such individuals may possess recognised authority within their respective organisations in the context of participatory communication, this power should not dictate outcomes for other stakeholders or sway over the destiny of other common issues. These leaders may lack the technicalities of the issues raised, but they need to use participatory communication to learn from experts and the experiences of others. Power dynamics are not evident in the relationships and interactions established through participatory communication.
Participatory communication is set up not merely for participation, but for sharing and exchanging information, ideas, and viewpoints to address the complex challenges of the agricultural sector by exercising collective and participatory decision-making. Unlike participatory communication theory, this study showed that political elites and/or government authorities have power not only over other stakeholders but also over other government authorities at the lower levels of individual organisations’ hierarchy or hierarchy among government organisations.
Culture
This study examined the influence of culture on participatory communication. In the culture of the study area, as in the case of numerous cultures in Ethiopia, people learn to respect their elders to such an extent that they can curtail freedom of speech. One way to show respect is to give the first opportunity to speak to older people and people with authority and not to refute their ideas. During the observations, participants were seen when they waited for the elderly participants to speak first. From a cultural standpoint, it was hard for the other participants, who were specifically young, to reflect on their views, especially when they had antagonistic views. Observations showed that some participants tended to be hesitant to express disagreement on issues reflected by the elderly.
Pertinent to this point, FGD participants were asked whether they remembered occasions where they wanted to talk but did not make it due to either the structure or the presence of someone culturally respected personalities. The majority of participants in the FGD indicated that they remained silent on some crucial issues, regardless of what the elders and some authorities think and reflect on. A participant from FGD 5 said, I sometimes hold my tongue if there are esteemed seniors around whom I hold high regard. I am afraid to speak, while respected seniors are there to speak. When we gather to mediate disputes and conflicts, we adhere to the norms and traditions of allowing seniors to speak. However, cultural bottlenecks remain. If I speak first, I am concerned about the spread of backbiting and criticism from my peers (FGD 5, Kokit). The issue of power dynamics is deeply rooted in our past cultural norms and development. From a young age, we find it challenging to freely express ourselves in the presence of our elders. Even when we possess knowledge or insight, we often hesitate to voice our thoughts. Our behaviour is significantly influenced by the environment and cultural norms. Consequently, even if we have the best ideas or come up with something out of the ordinary, we tend to refrain from speaking in front of those leaders (KII,6).
From these reflections, it can be inferred that culture plays a consequential role not only in inflicting communication but also in impeding the freedom of expression of ideas.
Individual status and personalities
The responses of some participants showed that some individuals gave up the cultural practice of not speaking in front of elders or educated individuals, and instead, they created their own status through interaction and cooperation with others. These individuals have a good sense of connection and ties to others and are active enough to observe the environment and relate to others. These people also have power that may come from charisma, attractiveness, and/or emotional intelligence; such power is referred to as referent power (Sanchez et al., 2017)). Individuals of this nature can seamlessly integrate with others and exert a significant influence on participatory communication, either in a constructive or determinantal manner. An observation made by one of the KIIs illustrates the extent to which these individuals can impact the dynamics of such meetings. I perceive power dynamics to be a matter of personal significance. Individual participants played an important role in shaping and influencing others. I have had the opportunity to observe ordinary people who have practical communication skills when they can influence different domains of their engagement, including in their workplace, meetings, and workshops, despite their young age and lower position at work (KII, Gondar 4).
Overall, despite the cultural norms that restrict some groups of people from actively reflecting their thoughts and ideas on participatory communication, some extroverted individuals do not seem to give up the culture and break the unwritten rules for their own and their communities’ good. This can be seen as individuals playing an important role in resisting and transforming oppressive structures in the culture and taking part in decision-making. However, it should be noted that such an influence might not always be for the common good, as it can also manifest as power over others.
Tending to rely on educational status
Having a higher educational level and/or expertise can help some stakeholders either give power to farmers and other stakeholders or share power with others in participatory communication. As facilitators are not experts on all issues raised, the participation of different bodies with diverse expertise helps stakeholders discuss the issues raised. The data show that some experts and researchers, especially those who organise participatory platforms knowingly or unknowingly, misuse their power- their privilege and status as a source of information and expert knowledge on specific topics. “Facilitators of meetings spend too much time explaining issues to participants, rather than giving us opportunities to reflect and discuss” (FGD, 5; FGD 2). Even during the field days observed, instead of giving participant stakeholders, including farmers’ time to share their experiences and voice their challenges to other stakeholders, facilitators, who are experts from the agriculture office and research, devoted a significant amount of time to explaining the success of their trials and the challenges they encounter during their demonstration activities.
In particular, in meetings and workshops conducted with farmers, the data show that farmers are primarily on the receiving end or used as information sources. However, experts and facilitators have the impression that they know everything. As a result, farmers and their organisations are frequently left in the dark. A key informant with both government and NGO experience says:
Most of the time, our communication is top-down. The farmers were at the receiving end. Whether it is research or other development projects, they are often based on experts in areas that may not work in a way that is realistic on the ground. Organisers and facilitators of participatory communication platforms primarily drive farmers through supply-driven and one-way communication (KII 3, Guhala)
Similarly, an FGD participant from Kokit reflected: Most facilitators come up with agendas that the government considers important. Often, they have a mission to create public awareness and recognition of current issues. They come to us on a predetermined agenda (FGD 4, Kokit).
As farmers, most of us are not outspoken, mainly because we fear that what we know may not be helpful for people with better educational positions. Hence, we are reluctant to express ourselves in front of stakeholders (FGD 5, Kokit)
Some farmers claim that agriculture is guided by knowledge and that they prefer to listen to what professionals say rather than speak for themselves. FGD participants stated, “People who call us for a meeting often talk, and we accept. We will benefit from applying what they suggest. We accept and work with a professional if we discover one” (FGD 4, Kokit). It is difficult to claim that active communication exists. It can be deduced that some farmers do not seem to understand the notion that expert knowledge can be acquired through interaction and participation. They also fail to recognise that they possess knowledge and skills that have been accumulated through experience and practical involvement.
Farmers were frequently asked to attend meetings without being allowed to express their concerns. In particular, when gathering with other experts and stakeholders, farmers did not want to speak much. That is why KII 1 argues, “I think that there are certain occasions that necessitate participatory communication with farmers alone as they tend to express themselves more freely and effectively in such situations.”
Observations on field days organised at the regional level confirmed the aforementioned thoughts. On one of the field days, after observing demonstration fields in farmer plots and farmer training centres, participants were drawn from various stakeholder groups: national, regional, zone, district, and kebele levels from different government offices, local and international NGOs, smallholders and commercial farmers, and traders gathered in the shade of the big tree. The organisers of the field day designated three individuals with high educational and political status to facilitate discussion sessions. This selection was not pre-planned; rather, it was decided immediately. After providing some reflection on what they had observed, the selected facilitators allowed the participants to reflect on their thoughts and ask questions. A handful of farmers had the fortitude and opportunity to speak about their challenges, while the majority remained silent. A large amount of time was devoted to the reflection of experts from research and agriculture offices and bureaus in political positions. Although facilitators have better educational and political positions, they cannot respond to most of the critical questions, as some are far from their expertise. The absence of important experts and authorities who could have potentially offered more comprehensive insights suggests that they were either not invited or did not participate in the field day. This observation highlights the organisers’ lack of foresight regarding the facilitation process and selection of attendees.
This study bridges a critical gap in understanding the role of power dynamics in participatory communication, particularly in contexts where traditional hierarchies and political authority predominate. By illustrating how elite actors dominate decision-making processes and marginalise smallholder farmers, the findings challenge the assumptions of inclusivity in participatory approaches. This nuanced perspective adds depth to the current discourse on stakeholder engagement in hierarchical settings.
These findings are consistent with studies from other regions, such as India and Kenya (Eidt et al., 2020), where hierarchical power dynamics have similarly constrained the effectiveness of participatory platforms. However, this study extends these insights by uncovering the unique interplay between political authority and traditional leadership structures in Ethiopia, highlighting how cultural and institutional factors shape stakeholder interactions.
Discussion
The findings of this study revealed that political elites and educated experts wield a significant influence in determining the outcomes of issues raised and played a dominant role in participatory communication platforms. Despite a large number of stakeholders, the overall activities, in particular, agenda-setting and decision-making power in most participatory communication settings, are mainly in the hands of a relatively small number of political elites and/or educated persons who represent enabler groups from government organisations. These groups are viewed and perceived as they know everything about all issues raised in participatory communication. This might not be surprising or unexpected, but as long as they engage in participatory communication, they are expected to either give ‘power to’ or share ‘power with’ all relevant stakeholders (Pansardi and Bindi, 2021; Rowlands, 1997), on an equal footing.
For some strategic issues, decision-making by political elites and individual organisations with the consultation of other participants and professionals might not be a problem, as this can be a co-creation. However, stakeholders often come together for participatory communication to discuss common and complex challenges that do not require the simple management or technical knowledge and skills of these authorities or elites. Participatory development communication highlighted the need for multi-stakeholder communication to be beneficial to and focused on the common good rather than being driven by self-or individual interests. Habermas (1984) underlines that deliberative communicative action requires open access for citizens and presupposes that participants act rationally and are knowledgeable. He also emphasised that communicative action rests on power-free argumentation (Habermas, 1987). Although this seems ideal in everyday participatory communication, interaction and communication is expected to be power-free. Contrary to these ideals, politicians and experts from government organisations were not primarily seen as rational in setting agendas and entertaining the diversified ideas of the participant stakeholders.
The challenge is that these politicians and educated elites perceive themselves as a jack of all trades or know-it-all individuals, but the reality is that they are not. Even if they have the mandate to decide on some issues, such as those requiring resources, they are inept at making informed decisions for all issues alone. Essentially, these groups of people do not seem to care for the ideas and opinions of participant stakeholders, as they do activities such as agenda setting and making decisions without truly engaging participant stakeholders. This is still against what Habermas (1984) stated about communicative action, which theorises that collaborative and reciprocal efforts between individuals whose actions or communication are not driven by their desire for success alone but through understanding. Their actions are strategic, as they pursue their goals without recognising and valuing stakeholders’ concerns.
In a context where political authorities and educated experts dominate, the participation of farmers and other stakeholders tends to be largely nominal. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that participatory communication platforms disregard stakeholder interests and values. However, as Freire (1970) argued, in participatory communication, every voice needs to be heard, and that power is equally distributed among all participants. It is not about commanding but about suggesting, listening, and collaboratively developing solutions, rather than commanding.
Surprisingly, some stakeholders appear to have a tacit understanding that political elites and government officials have legitimate power to decide issues on their fate. This is evident in participatory meetings and workshops at different levels. Some farmers and other stakeholders appear to have been accustomed to this ‘power over’ by authoritative individuals and their organisations. However, these people fail to understand that the authorities are dictating them. This seems to be top-down deliberations, somehow going with Gaventa and Cornwall's (2015) assertion that power is perceived to be centralised and embedded in structures, where the powerful are those with resources and experts who control the powerless.
The interests of politicians and educated experts, rather than farmers and other stakeholders, are better represented on most platforms. This finding is similar to that of Aref (2010), who found that farmers are allowed to participate but with no opportunity to change programmes to their own needs and, as a result, maintain the status quo in power relations. Ideally, political authorities, mainly those who ‘can’ decide on available resources and the domain-specific experts who ‘can contribute specialised knowledge, should at least involve farmers and other stakeholders who’ can contribute by providing input in the decision-making process. Nevertheless, such groups, Although somehow engaged, seem to be systematically overlooked in the overall process, including decision-making, as politicians and educated people use participatory communication platforms to extend their interests and will. The overall communication seems to go with Haberma'’s (1984) strategic action, which is dialogue-oriented but does not value negotiation for collective action; instead, it employs dialogue to extend speakers’ interests.
Experts and educated people who facilitate participatory communication sometimes use these platforms to either simply disseminate information or extract information from farmers and other stakeholders in the agricultural sector. This demonstrates that participation was used as a means to an end. The use of participation as a means might not be wrong, although not ideal; it can contribute significantly to the co-creation of knowledge and learning. The provision of information is also equivalent to empowerment. However, simple extraction of information without benefiting farmers and stakeholders is not fair. In addition, participation as a means, as Parfitt (2004) states, does not address unequal power relations. Theoretically, experts and authorities are expected to give power not simply by disseminating mere information but by empowering, improving the ability of stakeholders to negotiate and influence relational decisions, and organising and changing existing hierarchies, which gives productive power by increasing one's ability to resist and challenge “power over” (Rowlands, 1997).
The findings also revealed that individual participants struggled to breach cultural norms and tried to express themselves through communication platforms. This effort can be seen as a ‘generative power’ that helps individuals take action and transform the social conditions of oppression and subordination (Nair and White, 1994). It can also be seen in the (Rowlands, 1997) typology as power from within-power derived from individual consciousness with enhanced awareness and desire for change through self-respect and acceptance of others, even with authorities as equals. However, this is insufficient to bring about collective empowerment, which requires the fulfilment of the three interrelated levels suggested by Rowlands (1997): personal or agency, relational, and collective empowerment.
Except for this, other power relations were perceived unfavourably and negatively, and hence, were not accepted by stakeholders. On rare occasions, although a small number of FGD participants appear to accept the status quo, their nominal participation, as normal and acceptable, may be due to their low level of understanding and empowerment. Thus, it can be deduced that communication platforms in the agricultural sector do not facilitate stakeholder empowerment. Participation is one way to facilitate empowerment (Tufte and Mefalopulos, 2009).
Stakeholders in participatory communication are expected to come together for their common good and plan, implement, monitor, and evaluate their joint activities with the same level and the same power- ‘power with’; however, what has been observed is that those people who are supposed to be in charge of activities as facilitators, elders, authorities, and experts are misusing and abusing ‘power with’ and exercising ‘power over’ others, which in turn predominantly affects the very ideals of participation. Research participants posited that while they had many things to say and do, they merely accepted what the elders, educated, and politicians had to say. They behave in this fashion for different reasons, partly because their understanding of participatory communication and empowerment is limited. Some farmers, in particular, accept it as a standard practice, and they mentioned that they have no means of knowing whether their speeches and comments are received favourably by others. This is partly because of the imposition of these bodies. Those with power and already privileged or advantaged groups favour the status quo, as they do not want to miss their power and therefore affect the communication process. Servaes and Malikhao (2005) point out that participatory communication may threaten the interests of power holders and decrease the advantage of certain groups.
The other reason is related to culture; what comes out vividly from the findings is that participatory communication is affected by the youths’ reservation of participating as a result of giving value to the existing culture of respecting elders and authorities. Participants refrained from speaking in disagreement with or contrary to the ideas of old people or authorities. This finding is akin to Bozalek's (2004) finding that power differentials resulting from a culture of respect for the elderly may inhibit participatory possibilities for young people in rural African families. The author discovered that participation is somehow restricted because of intricately woven cultural practices in rural African communities.
As mentioned, ‘power over’ will not result in the empowerment of stakeholders; instead, ‘power to’ or ‘power with’ can help stakeholders become empowered and have the power to decide on their own issues (Pansardi and Bindi, 2021; Rowlands, 1997). The interplay of political power, educational status, cultural practices, and personality traits has played an essential role in power relations among agricultural stakeholders in northwest Ethiopia. This seems to have been primarily picked up from the overall political culture of the country, as participatory democracy is not yet a culture.
The involvement and participation of communities in the decision-making process have proven essential in determining the success of development initiatives (Narayan et al., 2000; Pretty et al., 1995). However, in the present form, participatory communication platforms in the agricultural sector in northwest Ethiopia do not involve all relevant stakeholders in the decision-making process, and the overall system appears to reinforce the existing power imbalances. The problem largely stems from the organisers’ lack of a theoretical understanding of participatory methods. As Servaes (2008) states, this cannot be substantially changed unless fundamental structural changes in society can alter such power relationships.
The findings of this study highlight persistent power imbalances that marginalise smallholder farmers, women, youth, and other vulnerable stakeholders in participatory communication processes. Addressing these imbalances requires targeted strategies to create more inclusive and equitable decision-making platforms.
Conclusion
The stakeholders in the agricultural sector come together primarily to improve overall functioning and enhance the sector's efficiency by increasing production and productivity, improving farmers’ income, and contributing to the country's economy. To address complex and multifaceted challenges and advance the sector, participatory communication platforms can provide stakeholders with the opportunity to express their ideas and participate in making joint decisions.
However, this study revealed that participatory communication initiatives in the agricultural sector of northwest Ethiopia tend to favour the status quo, upholding the pre-existing unequal power dynamics imposed by politicians, elders, experts or educated individuals, and the few orally active people. The ideas of equitable power sharing, distribution of responsibilities, listening to diverse perspectives and voices, empowerment, and mutual learning, which define the essence of participatory development communication, remain unfulfilled in most initiatives.
Stakeholders with power are meant to readjust the power imbalance by empowering farmers and other marginalised stakeholders. However, with a few exceptions, what is often observed is essentially power over dynamics, which contradicts the premise of participatory development communication theories. These largely manipulative power dynamics severely impact the relationships among stakeholders of the agricultural sector and their ability to achieve shared goals, affecting the sector's overall progress and the country's sustainable development efforts. Hence, despite all efforts made to pursue participatory communication, there is still a significant gap to be looked at regarding power dynamics among stakeholders.
Addressing the power imbalance in agricultural stakeholders’ communication requires enablers, policymakers, and practitioners to prioritise the development of inclusivity and equitable participatory platforms. This involves ensuring mechanisms that marginalised groups, such as smallholder farmers, women, and youth, have significant roles in discussions and decision-making processes. Empowerment through capacity-building initiatives including leadership training and the placement of neutral facilitators to support stakeholder interactions can help mitigate power imbalances. Neutral and well-trained facilitators play a pivotal role in ensuring equitable participation by mediating discussions, preventing domination by elite actors, and ensuring diverse perspectives are heard and incorporated into decision-making processes.
Furthermore, having a communication strategy, with guidelines indicating the roles and responsibilities of participant stakeholders and working for its practical realisation, can help reduce the power relation-related challenges. Participants, both power holders and those without power, must be well aware of the fact that participation needs to occur where there is equal footing among all participants. What is more, investments in infrastructure, such as digital communication tools and decentralised decision-making hubs, can enhance accessibility and transparency within participatory frameworks. A coordinated effort among the various stakeholders is essential for sustaining and fostering inclusive participatory communication that improves stakeholders’ communication and agricultural productivity.
The findings of this study have important implications for participatory communication theory, particularly in the context of hierarchical power structures. Traditional models often assume that participatory processes inherently lead to equitable outcomes; however, this research demonstrates how entrenched power dynamics can undermine these efforts. By highlighting the interplay between political authority and stakeholder marginalisation, this study extends the theoretical discourse on participatory communication, emphasising the need for adaptive frameworks that account for cultural, social, and institutional hierarchies.
Addressing power imbalances and fostering inclusive communication is pivotal in transforming participatory frameworks into catalysts for equitable and sustainable agricultural development. These efforts align seamlessly with global objectives such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those aimed at reducing inequalities and promoting inclusive decision-making.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Bahir Dar University for facilitating the opportunity and UNISA for awarding the bursary that supported my study.
Author contributions
Anteneh Mekuria Tesfaye (PhD) was responsible for conducting the overall study including data collection analysis and manuscript preparation. anteneh.sbn@gmail.com, Stichting Wageningen Research Ethiopia, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Prof. Siyasanga M Tyali is my supervisor who provided guidance and supervisor in all the process, critically commenting, reviewing and editing the manuscript. tyalism@unisa.ac.za, University of South Africa (UNISA).
Data availability statement
The authors would like to confirm that the data used for this study are available and can be obtained from the corresponding author with a valid request.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that they have no financial and non-financial competing interest that would have affected this study.
Ethical approval and informed consent
Ethical clearance was obtained from the College of Human Sciences Research Ethics Review Committee, and all participants provided informed consent prior to the data collection process.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Bahir Dar University facilitated the opportunity for my Ph.D. study and the University of South Africa (UNISA) provided me with a bursary.
