Writing for Communities, Not Just About Them: Lessons from Grassroots Communication

Rethinking the Language of Development

Much of development communication is written in boardrooms but intended for the field. This gap often shows. Policies and reports are filled with phrases like “capacity enhancement,” “beneficiary targeting,” or “stakeholder alignment.” While these words may satisfy technical accuracy, they rarely resonate with people on the ground. For communities, the language feels distant and abstract. They do not see themselves in these narratives, and so the messages fail to inspire ownership or trust.

What Inclusive Writing Really Demands

Inclusive writing is often mistaken for simplification or translation. In practice, it is neither. It is about crafting words that mirror lived realities and speak directly to those who matter most. Consider the case of rural health outreach in Rajasthan, where communication around maternal health shifted dramatically when local midwives were invited to help design messages. Instead of relying on technical phrases about “antenatal care,” the campaign used familiar references to daily routines and family roles. The result was not only clearer understanding but also stronger community participation, because people recognised their own context in the message.

Learning from Grassroots Experience

In 2024–25, Radio Udaan, founded by Danish Mahajan in Punjab, has gained national attention for empowering the disability community through accessible media. 

• What makes it distinct: it is fully operated by people with disabilities—not as token consultants but as broadcasters, producers, and managers.

• The station tailors content to address issues that mainstream media often ignores: employment, legal rights under the RPWD Act, inclusive education, and personal stories of resilience.

• It has also innovated in format: beyond traditional FM (where feasible), the station leverages digital platforms and podcasts to reach listeners who cannot access radio due to various constraints.

This case shows how grassroots communication can be inclusive by design, rather than by adaptation.

The Risks of Abstraction

Writing that treats communities as passive “target groups” misses the deeper point that they are active agents in change. Abstraction does more than confuse; it alienates. When a farmer reads about “agricultural productivity stakeholders” rather than “farmers and cultivators,” or when sanitation workers are called “service providers” without acknowledgement of their role in public health, the text strips away dignity. This not only weakens the bond between programme and people but also reinforces the sense that policies are written about them, never with them.

Towards Grounded Communication

Changing this pattern requires more than a stylistic adjustment. It demands structural reform in how communication is developed. Testing materials with community representatives before release, involving frontline workers in drafting content, and embedding local narratives into official communication are essential steps. When writing reflects lived experience, it moves from instruction to dialogue. And dialogue builds the trust that sustains programmes long after the posters are taken down and the campaigns have ended.

Key Takeaways

• Communities engage when they see their realities reflected in writing.

• Inclusive communication is not about simplifying but about dignifying.

• Case studies show that localised language drives quicker response and deeper trust.

• Organisations must move from writing about communities to writing with them.

Closing Note

Words shape the way people see themselves in development programmes. When writing uses abstract jargon, communities are positioned as outsiders. When it mirrors their lives and voices, it transforms them into partners. The difference is not semantic it is strategic. For communication to be effective, it must stop being a monologue and start becoming a conversation.

FAQs

Q: How can organisations make technical documents more accessible without losing precision? 

A: By layering communication keeping technical detail in annexes or footnotes, while ensuring the main text uses terms communities recognise.

Q: What are the first steps towards inclusive writing? 

A: Begin with participatory content creation, field testing messages, and replacing abstract terms with recognisable ones that preserve dignity.

Q: Why is UIL focused on this shift? 

A: Because communication is not a side activity it is core to impact. Programmes succeed not when they are announced, but when they are understood, trusted, and owned by those they are meant to serve.