Assessing Indigenous Community Radio as Two-Way Communications Infrastructure: Communal Engagement and Political Mobilization in Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This revision of the article “Assessing Indigenous Community Radio as Two-Way Communications Infrastructure” presents a decolonial approach to collaborative research on Indigenous community radio. The article suggests that prior approaches to assessing the impacts of radio and other media on Indigenous communities are inadequate for the reality of Indigenous practices with media technologies. By combining interview, survey, and observational methods, the authors provide an innovative perspective on the bidirectional flow of information through Indigenous Amazonian radio, while highlighting the role of radio media among listening audiences. Although a preliminary sample with acknowledged limitations, the authors compellingly demonstrate the value of radio media for Indigenous communities, as well as the utility of their collaborative research design.

 

Article:

The authors have deftly addressed most of my comments from the previous version. The new historical section particularly provides important context for the ecology of media and political mobilization in which the radio is being evaluated, and addresses my questions about collective mobilization, pan-Indigenous identity, and the bidirectional nature of Indigenous radio more broadly, while also engaging with more of the relevant literature.

 

I note as well that the authors have made several stylistic revisions to the article that improves its readability. They have also added several citations. I did notice that the new reference to Simpson et al. 2024 has not been included in the bibliography.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors have engaged in considerable copyediting that improves the flow and readability of their article. Some minor typos remain, but I found this version much improved. 

Author Response

Comments 1:

This revision of the article “Assessing Indigenous Community Radio as Two-Way Communications Infrastructure” presents a decolonial approach to collaborative research on Indigenous community radio. The article suggests that prior approaches to assessing the impacts of radio and other media on Indigenous communities are inadequate for the reality of Indigenous practices with media technologies. By combining interview, survey, and observational methods, the authors provide an innovative perspective on the bidirectional flow of information through Indigenous Amazonian radio, while highlighting the role of radio media among listening audiences. Although a preliminary sample with acknowledged limitations, the authors compellingly demonstrate the value of radio media for Indigenous communities, as well as the utility of their collaborative research design.

 

Article:

The authors have deftly addressed most of my comments from the previous version. The new historical section particularly provides important context for the ecology of media and political mobilization in which the radio is being evaluated, and addresses my questions about collective mobilization, pan-Indigenous identity, and the bidirectional nature of Indigenous radio more broadly, while also engaging with more of the relevant literature. I note as well that the authors have made several stylistic revisions to the article that improves its readability. They have also added several citations. I did notice that the new reference to Simpson et al. 2024 has not been included in the bibliography.

Response 1:

Thank you sincerely for your speedy reconsideration of our manuscript. We are pleased to learn that our revision has satisfied your concerns and we thank you for engaging so deeply to help us improve the work.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have extensively revised the paper and it is almost ready for publication. See below.

The reference list needs to be updated to include the new citations included in the paper.

Author Response

Comments 1:

The authors have extensively revised the paper and it is almost ready for publication. See below.

The reference list needs to be updated to include the new citations included in the paper.

Response:

Thank you for your consideration and we have now updated the reference list as requested. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary:

This article simultaneously explores collaborative, decolonial methods between anthropologists and Indigenous communities, as well as preliminary results of a survey of Indigenous radio listeners in the Ecuadorian Amazon.  Drawing together the results of pilot observational, interview, and survey data, the authors convincingly demonstrate that Indigenous radio is a valuable informational source for listeners, which influences their behavior in several ways.  The study thus provides some of the first empirical survey data—confirming prior ethnographic explorations of Indigenous community radio listening practices in the region—while also prioritizing Indigenous research goals and analyses on community-decision making and mobilization. Although still preliminary, the study provides suggestive avenues for further research on the impact of Indigenous radio on communal political practices. It also models innovative community-driven approaches to radio reception studies.

 

General concept comments:

Article: The authors carefully note several important limitations of their study in their conclusion. Of particular note is the study location where the radio is located, especially given the political nature of the station and its content. Some discussion of Indigenous political history in the Amazon and Ecuador more broadly may help orient readers. A further oversight relates to their survey population – which they note is small in this preliminary study. Beyond expanding the geographic locations sampled, including more participants in the 55+ range would provide valuable insight into the impact of radio on a population that is less likely to have access to other technologies (like Internet or smart phone), and may have different attitudes towards the “poetics of radio” than those held by younger respondents. Further, given that 90% of survey participants were under 45, respondents 55+ seem somewhat overrepresented among interview samples. 

 

Figures/tables: I found the table (Table 1) summarizing demographic information for survey participants to be helpful and might appreciate a similar table highlighting the demographic categories for interview participants in Unión Base and Yukutais and the sampling that produced this population. This may help resolve some of my concerns above. 

 

The literature review deftly covers many of the relevant areas of research regarding Indigenous community radio. While not exhaustive of the anthropology of radio or global radio, it raises several relevant questions regarding Indigenous radio, grounded in Latin America. One of the main findings of the study is that survey participants feel that radio may facilitate further cultural and linguistic transmission and preservation. The authors may wish to engage further with Ennis (2020 and 2019) already cited in their text on this question, as well as Ennis (2022) and Muniz (2022), which both address the role of radio media and other communicative infrastructure in the Amazon for the maintenance and revitalization of language and culture.  

 

Ennis, Georgia. 2022. “Afecto y modalidad en la revalorización lingüistica del kichwa del Alto Napo.” In Oralidades y escrituras kichwas, edited by Fernando Garcés V. and Armando Muyolema C., 121–45. Quito: Abya Yala. http://dspace.ups.edu.ec/handle/123456789/23675.

 

Muniz, Maria Luiza de Castro. 2022. “Jatari Kichwa: flujos (y contraflujos) comunicativos amazónicos, desde la radio comunitaria.” In Oralidades y escrituras kichwas, edited by Fernando Garcés V. and Armando Muyolema C., 147–69. Quito: Abya-Yala.

 

For more global perspective on radio and politics:

Gunner, Elizabeth., Dina. Ligaga, and Dumisani. Moyo. 2011. Radio in Africa: Publics, Cultures, Communities. Woodbridge: James Currey.

 

Kunreuther, Laura. 2014. Voicing Subjects: Public Intimacy and Mediation in Kathmandu. Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

Fisher, Daniel. 2016. The Voice and Its Doubles Media and Music in Northern Australia. Durham: Duke University Press.

 

Specific comments:

Lines 149-150: the authors write that “assessing community engagement and impact (back) on the radio station or programming […] are proposed here to be central functions of Indigenous radio.” The study does a clear job of highlighting the impact of Indigenous radio on community engagement through interviews and surveys on various forms of mobilization or re-circulation. Less clear in the overall analysis is this “impact back” on the radio station, suggested by the “bi-directional communications” (508) alluded to in the conclusion. Clarifying what they mean by impact on the station, or what is involved in these bi-directional communications would strengthen their argument.

 

Lines 332-334, the authors note that collective mobilization across Indigenous groups in Ecuador resulted, in part, from radio broadcasts e.g. in interviews 336-337, 340-343, 355, 358 – several of the interviewees describe “all nationalities,” “indigenous nationality,” “un pueblo.” This is an interesting theoretical point that remains somewhat under considered (and may relate to further questions of communalism that the authors indicate need to be developed/deepened in their conclusion). This kind of collective mobilization – while historically deep-seated in CONFENIAE – is also a transformation of how many people think of themselves in terms of a ‘community’ or a ‘nationality’ in contrast to a ‘pueblo.’ It would be interesting to explore the tension between the formation of a pan-Indigenous political consciousness through the radio on one hand, as well as its possibilities for locally responsive and community-oriented media. The authors may wish to consult: 

 

Wroblewski, Michael. 2012. “Amazonian Kichwa Proper: Ethnolinguistic Domain in Pan-Indian Ecuador.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 22 (1): 64–86.

 

Becker, Marc. 2010. Pachakutik Indigenous Movements and Electoral Politics in Ecuador. Critical Currents in Latin American Perspectives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

 

among many others, on questions of pan-Indigeneity in Ecuadorian politics.

 

Line 71 - the authors mention there is little 'empirical evidence' on the impact of radio - this is somewhat of an unacknowledged irony in an article attempting to decolonize research, as Tuhiwai-Smith (1999 - referenced in the article) critiques the empiricist nature of much Western research on Indigenous peoples. Although it may be beyond the scope of this article, and the authors already acknowledge some of the complications inherent in their approach, exploring this tension regarding the "empirical" in decolonial research methods may be a productive avenue for them in future publications. 

 

Overall, I found this to be a well-written and engaging article that presents preliminary results of an innovative mixed-methods approach to understanding the impact of Indigenous radio in the Ecuadorian Amazon. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is very clearly written other than some minor typos (e.g. line 314 "stoop up"). 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Firstly, it is readily apparent that English is not the native language of the authors; the overall articulation of the text is considerably poor. It is recommended that they seek advice to improve their writing process.

In the introduction, the authors refer to an "endogenous evaluative model for Indigenous community radio." However, this model is neither evident in the results nor in the conclusions. Moreover, the introduction does not clearly articulate the problem at hand.

The theoretical framework is structured incorrectly. I recommend employing a deductive approach—from the general to the specific:

1. Acknowledge the significant contributions of radio in the Latin American context, noting that there are several important documented experiences.
2. Highlight the added value of community participation and its impact on the local environment.
3. Precisely focus the discussion on the utilization of radio in Ecuadorian Indigenous communities.

The methodology differs from what was presented in the abstract. Furthermore, there are no clearly defined research objectives or questions, the data collection tools are not detailed, and the methodological procedure is not explained. Overall, the methodology lacks consistency and clarity in its approach.

The results lack order and clarity in the presentation of information; they are devoid of graphical representations of the data and lack detailed information on the patterns observed, appearing as a collection of incoherent sentences.

The conclusions do not relate to the title, and they mention a triangulation that was not discussed in the methodology. There is a lack of pragmatism in the findings obtained

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is readily apparent that English is not the native language of the authors; the overall articulation of the text is considerably poor. It is recommended that they seek advice to improve their writing process.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is an important contribution to the literature on the relationship between Indigenous communities and media. It will be an invaluable resource of scholars of Indigenous media in the Global North and South. The paper, however, needs some revision before it is ready for publication.

Early in your essay, provide the context of the positioning of Indigenous languages in the Ecuadorian public sphere demonstrating how colonization has shaped or impeded the growth of Indigenous knowledges and languages.

In your review of the literature, engage scholarship that has made the connections between Indigenous knowledges/languages and media such as Mohammed’s extensive scholarship in the area. See below:

Mohammed, W. F. (2022). Bilchiinsi philosophy: Decolonizing methodologies in media studies. The Review of Communication.

Mohammed, W. F. (2021). Pɔhim Zuɣu: Understanding Indigenous Language News Audiences in Ghana. African Journalism Studies.

Mohammed, W. F. (2019). Journalistic griots: The marginalization of indigenous language news and oral epistemologies in Ghana. Radio Journal International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media.

You can also use the literature above to strengthen the arguments you make in the results/discussion section of the paper.

Foreground your review of the literature in the conversations that are happening around decolonization in media, communication and language. You can do this in 1 paragraph in the literature review section. You can also use this literature to support your arguments in the results and discussion sections.

In making the argument about the self-determination of Indigenous communities, put your work in conversation with the scholarship of Melkote and Steeves (2015) Communication for Development: Theory and Practice for Empowerment and Social Justice, Third Edition. You can also consider using this work to enrich the theoretical arguments you make in the paper.

See here: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bgsu_books/5/

On page 5 line 184, explain further what you mean by “Shuar-speaking, not yet exposed to radio programming.”

Be clear in your methods section about the kind of radio programming Indigenous communities listen to. Are they programs in Indigenous languages? If there aren’t what’s the reason? What language were the 15 interviews conducted in?

What are the colonial implications of Indigenous communities only having access to media content in a colonial language, Spanish. You can also foreground this early in the essay.

In the method section, present the research questions guiding your research.

Good luck revising!