The Meaning Of Development Of Filipinos By Filipinos In Diaspora: Rhetorical Vision In Participatory Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development is currently one of the drivers of international migration resulting in south-to-north or third-to-first world movements of immigrants seeking for a better life in more developed countries. Consequently, new economic diaspora communities are being formed, most of which help alleviate poverty of relatives back home through regular remittances, now considered an important source of foreign capital in many developing economies. Amidst new challenges for the field of development is the question of the relevance of development communication in migration and diaspora. This exploratory study investigates the role of participatory development communication in expanding diaspora contributions to their home countries. Using the focus group method within the participatory communication for development framework, I conducted 12 focus groups participated by first-generation Filipino immigrants from Fargo, North Dakota, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, two communities located in the northern border between the United States and Canada. I documented and analyzed their meanings of development and their understanding of the current state, problems, solutions and vision for Philippine development. I used Bormann's (1985) narrative-based theory of rhetorical vision to analyze how symbolic convergence played out in the participatory communication dialogues, theorizing "rhetorical participatory communication" as a means and a process of achieving social change. I also provided implications of the focus group method for participatory communication research and accentuated the roles of "engagement" of the focus group facilitator. Results showed that Fargo participants viewed development from the lenses of modernization while Winnipeg participants applied a reformed modernization framework. Corruption was top on the list of development problems in the Philippines and solutions included removal of corrupt and inept leaders and a spiritual revolution transforming Filipino cultural identity. Analysis of the elements of rhetorical vision in participatory communication dialogues showed possibilities for sustainable commitment and greater involvement of participants to a common vision needed in community building. Implications of the focus group method on participatory communication include its capacity to reinforce the participatory principles of dialogue, knowledge-sharing, conscience-raising, empowerment and multiplicity. Focus group facilitators may well maximize their "engagement" roles as equalizer, prompter, prober, conscientiser, knowledge broker, advocate and catalyst, and synthesizer to enhance participatory dialogues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".