policy initiatives designed to establish geopolitical bulkheads against the Soviets during
the Cold War (see Gilman, 2003; Latham, 2000.)
In any case, modernization did become the dominant paradigm underlying
research into and the practice of development communication, defined broadly as
communication-based interventions for social and economic improvement (see Singhal &
Rogers, 2001, pp. 33-35; Wilkins, forthcoming). From the late 1950s through much of
the 1960s (though the specific time period can be debated), modernization-based
development projects were planned for and implemented in the postcolonial world
primarily by Western institutions and scholars (Melkote, 2002; Mody, 2000). As this
research was carried out, intellectuals in the postcolonial world were increasingly critical
of the modernization approach. Dependency theorists from Latin America led the attack
on modernization theory (e.g., Frank, 1969), their arguments reflecting the general
critique of global capitalism and colonialism offered earlier by C.L.R. James, Eric
Williams, and Amilcar Cabral, among others (see Blaut, 1993).
Soon, Latin American scholars such as Beltrán (1976) and Díaz Bordenave
(1976), and Pakistani scholar Inayatullah (1967) challenged the modernization-based
approach to development communication as well. By the mid 1970s, Rogers (1976), who
had trained many of those critics, edited a special issue of Communication Research titled
“Passing of the Dominant Paradigm.” In the place of modernization theory a number of
alternatives had entered the arena. Though many concepts from the tradition of US
communication science retained their influence over the field (e.g., agenda setting,
knowledge gap, and even the hypodermic-needle model of media effects), development
communication practices also were informed by newer approaches such as participatory
communication, dialogic theory, and theories of cultural integration.
2
Convention