Barriers to inclusive stakeholders’ participation in Northwest Ethiopia’s agricultural sector  – Nature.com 20:52 

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 12, Article number: 775 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

While promoting participatory communication approaches continues, empirical research that investigates whether all relevant stakeholders are participating on equal footing is sparse. The research underpinning this article attempted to assess the participation of and from different stakeholders and groups in the agricultural sector in northwest Ethiopia. Using a qualitative research approach, data were collected from various administrative levels, including kebeles, woredas, zones, and the regional level. In-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and observations were used to acquire data from the main actors, supporters, enablers, and civic organisations in the sector. Although inclusiveness has been a focus in the development discourse, the finding indicates that participatory communication in the agricultural sector often tends to limit the full participation of some stakeholders, including women, youth, and other marginalised groups, due to systemic, cultural, and structural barriers. The study also reveals that participatory communication platforms are dominated by enabler groups- primarily government bodies- while the main actors and supporters, particularly those from the private sector, have limited participation, even though they are key players and vital supporters of the sector. The study suggests that participatory communication in the agricultural sector should be more inclusive, democratic, equitable, and empowering for all stakeholders and groups involved.

Introduction

In the current development discourse, the concept of inclusiveness appears to emerge as a catchphrase and has gained prominence within the sphere of participatory development communication. Inclusivity is not only one of the major principles or components but also a goal of participatory communication (Mefalopulos, 2003) and has also been employed as a contributor and indicator of the effectiveness of development programmes. Researchers also emphasise the necessity for more inclusive and active participation, as well as the importance of considering the diverse perspectives, roles, and responsibilities of different stakeholders in the various stages of the development intervention, including decision-making (Chouinard and Milley, 2018; Huang, 2022).

Inclusive ownership (Di Vinadio et al. 2012) and inclusive innovation (Patnaik and Bhowmick, 2020) are also seen as means of improving effectiveness, sustainability, and a sense of ownership of development interventions. Moreover, inclusiveness implies an ethos of equal partnership, which recognises the ability, competence, initiative, and equal right of everyone, regardless of their social and political status, to participate and contribute to the development process, affirming their inherent fundamental right to active participation; these tenants are among the major principles of participatory communication (Tagarirofa and David, 2013).

Within the agricultural sector, effective collaboration among diverse stakeholders – comprising main actors such as farmers, farmer organisations, and traders; supporters like financial institutions and input suppliers; and enablers including government organisations, as well as civic organisations like NGOs and projects- is of utmost importance for achieving common development goals (Schrader et al. 2020). The essence of participatory communication lies in its ability to foster a fair and impartial setting where all relevant stakeholders can actively and sustainably participate and contribute to discussions and dialogues, thereby ensuring inclusivity and representation in the decision-making process. Bessette (2004) highlights the key role of participatory communication in facilitating dialogues among different stakeholders, with a focus on common development challenges or goals, while respecting diverse perspectives and fostering a collaborative approach to problem-solving.

Traditionally, some groups are marginalised, preventing them from participating in mainstream development activities. Women and youth have often been neglected or overlooked at various stages of the development process, including decision-making, although their participation is an essential condition for the success of different interventions and programmes. Women are either excluded (Mayoux, 1995, Cornwall, 2003) or barred from participatory communication, or they may not have the right to speak their thoughts (Bessette, 2004). Similarly, the World Youth Report (2020) and Trucco and Ullmann (2016) show that young people in some countries are experiencing exclusion and marginalisation from various ongoing development activities, including social and economic aspects, traditional political engagement, and policy decisions that affect them.

This paper aims to critically assess the participation of and from different stakeholders and groups within the agricultural sector in northwest Ethiopia. It specifically focuses on determining the agricultural stakeholders’ participation from diverse groups, including main actors, supporters, enablers, and civic organisations. The paper further explores the inclusion vs. exclusion of traditionally marginalised groups, such as women, youth, and other stakeholders in participatory communication and thereby identifies the major barriers that affect the participation of these bodies.

Literature review and theoretical underpinnings

Participatory development communication theory

The concept of participation in development communication is multifaceted, with interpretation varying across boundaries, including ideological, social, political, and methodological dimensions (Lawrence, 2006). Participation is often described as a malleable concept (Cornwall, 2008), multi-accentual, and a weasel word (Thomas, 2014). According to Wilkins (2009), the term participation, unfortunately, becomes co-opted to the extent that its precise meaning is ambiguous. Despite divergent understandings, which lead to diverse ways of practising it, the core idea of participation involves the active and constructive involvement of individuals in the decision-making process on issues that affect their lives. It represents a shift from a traditional top-down, one-way communication model to approaches that emphasise horizontal, two-way, or multiple-way process that enables the grassroots to voice their genuine needs and challenges (Servaes, 1999, Mefalopulos, 2008). Freire (1970) underscored the importance of inclusive communication, where everyone possesses an inherent right to express themselves and their voice is valued and respected. Participatory communication has gained ground in the growing body of academic literature, policy documents, and practices of international development organisations and developing countries. The central idea is that people actively and constructively participate in the processes that lead to the decisions that impact their lives, regardless of divergent interpretations that result in varied actions.

Features of participatory development communication theory

In the efforts to assess the participation of and from different stakeholders and groups within the agricultural sector in northwest Ethiopia, this research attempts to see whether the participatory communication activities pursued are in line with the characteristics suggested in the literature. This part, therefore, attempts to review the common features of participatory communication, focusing on inclusiveness.

Among the distinctive features of participatory communication is the fact that it emphasises people (people-centric), the endogenous character of development, its way of looking at development as a global process, and its attention to power and rights; participation as one of the basic human rights has been largely recognised issues (Servaes, 1999, Mefalopulos, 2008).

The participatory communication approach is lauded for extending the concept of development beyond material aspects by including nonmaterial notions of development by transcending equation notions of social equality, liberty, revenue distribution, and grassroots participation (Bessette, 2004).

Participatory communication rejects a one-size-fits-all solution (context-based and diverse solution) as there is no one common and standardised way to bring about development or social change; it rather advocates for the fact that development needs to be viewed as an integral, multidimensional, and dialectical process that can differ across countries (Servaes and Malikhao, 2007). At present, the participatory approach has been touted as the ideal method to solve the various problems of Global South countries.

Development approaches and efforts should address specific needs, including health care, nutrition, sanitation, and shelter, self-determination, and self-reliance, cultural autonomy (Melkote, 1991).

These approaches promote cultural diversity, dialogue, use of Indigenous or local knowledge, self-reliant development, grassroots community participation and empowerment (Freire, 1970, Tufte and Mefalopulos, 2009, Servaes, 2008).

In emphasising the importance of participation at all levels, Servaes and Malikhao (2007) pointed out that participation is very crucial in both the planning and decision-making processes. It is important to share information, knowledge, trust, commitment, and a cheerful outlook in every stage of the development programme. Cooperation is key in all the various stages of participation.

Some major principles of participatory communication

Participatory communication is highly affected by each initiative’s social, political, and cultural structures and contexts, and therefore, it is difficult to set some general principles that can be followed by different participatory development communication initiatives. Nevertheless, by considering the different contexts, participatory initiatives can somehow be guided by some general principles. For example, the effectiveness of participatory communication in some way depends on how the communication process is conducted. To run meaningful participatory communication, due attention needs to be given to the methods of participation, the participants to be involved and how they can be involved, and the institutional structure and/or the social context under which the local people operate (Duraiappah et al. 2005).

The fundamental principles of participatory communication, include, among others, Inclusiveness: ensuring the involvement of all relevant stakeholders, regardless of their sociodemographic status, gender, or position; equality which is providing equal opportunity for participants; bottom-up approach: encouraging the involvement of the grassroots in decision-making; dialogue: fostering open and constructive communication; empowerment: enabling individuals and communities to take control of their own development; transparency and accountability: maintaining openness and responsibility in the communication process.

This paper specifically delves a little bit deeper into inclusivity, which includes all the relevant stakeholders and groups, whether they are sociodemographic majorities or a minority, have positions or not, male or female, that have been affected by the issue at hand.

Inclusive participatory communication

Participatory communication is all about inclusion, and as mentioned, the inclusion of all people or the representativeness of all groups, including the marginalised and grassroots, is among the main principles of participatory communication.

Inclusiveness is one of the basic principles of participatory communication, focusing on the comprehensive involvement of diverse and marginalised stakeholders in the various stages of the development process, including decision-making. Concerning inclusivity, researchers highlighted the importance of participatory communication, as it can play a key role by involving and fostering community integration and cohesion (Incio et al. 2021). Lennie and Hearn (2003) emphasise the importance of inclusive communication and diverse participation in participatory processes. Through the active participation of all relevant stakeholders, participatory communication enables more effective decision-making.

Two-way communication should always pay special attention to groups that are marginalised or at a disadvantage in society. Gender issues are always a primary concern in this context, as well as issues related to the poor or any other vulnerable group (Mefalopulos 2008).

Proper timing of communication inclusion affects overall effectiveness, both from the economic point of view (cutting unforeseen expenses for damage control initiatives) and from the sustainability point of view (ownership and long-term commitment strengthened by involvement of relevant stakeholders in a project’s objectives) (Mefalopulos, 2008).

Despite its importance, achieving inclusiveness is a complex challenge (Newsome and Lloyd, 2023), particularly in participatory communication interventions, as it depends on the interplay among various individual, institutional, structural, relational, and organisational conditions, which vary across hierarchies (Leite and Martinez, 2010). Furthermore, inclusiveness may have trade-offs related to the level of participation of individuals or stakeholders, as well as between the expectations and results of participation. Eskerod et al. (2015) highlight that inclusivity has the potential to result in more engaged and satisfied stakeholders, who also caution against the risk of losing sight of important stakeholders and creating disappointment because of competing and conflicting expectations. Similarly, Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009) underscored how crucial it is to consider the time, resources, interests, and knowledge of all participants and stakeholders involved in participatory communication. “After their input is taken into account, stakeholders may not need to be involved in detailed decisions beyond the scope of their interests”.

Notwithstanding these challenges, inclusive participatory communication has the potential to produce important benefits for both participants and the organisers and facilitators of development interventions. Inclusive participation cannot only enhance the personal development, social interaction, skill development, empowerment, and identity of those especially from marginalised groups (Miller et al. 2002) including women, youth, and elderly people with disabilities, among others, but inclusive participatory decision making can also foster community integration and cohesion, as well as improve the transparency, accountability, equity, and efficiency of organisers such as public administrators, NGOs, or community associations (Bell and Reed, 2022). It is, therefore, critical that inclusive participatory communication be approached from a dynamic, holistic perspective, considering the myriad aspects and variables that impact both the process as well as the outcome.

Fostering inclusiveness in participatory communication requires reasonable knowledge and skills and careful preparation, and facilitation skills. Participatory research can create inclusive spaces for local problem-solving in agricultural research for development, but it needs skilled and well-trained facilitators who can address power inequalities. This research further suggested that facilitators of participatory communications should learn and apply different strategies to involve women and other marginalised groups in participatory research (Dey de Pryck and Elias, 2023).

Methodology

The study was conducted within the framework of a qualitative research paradigm, which allowed for a comprehensive discussion of the various social contours and processes that people use to create and maintain their social realities (Berg, 2001).

Study areas and rationale for selection

The study was conducted in two woredas in the Amhara region of Ethiopia: Metema and East Belessa. While the earlier is part of the Food System Resilience Programme and is recognised for its diverse agricultural productivity, particularly in sesame, cotton, soya bean and sorghum, the latter is supported by the Productive Safety Net Programme, as it is a food-insecure woreda that relies on traditional agriculture and mixed farming. The two woredas were selected for their distinct agricultural and socio-economic contexts, adhering to Morse’s (1998) recommendation for diverse sample mixes. The researcher’s experience in these areas facilitated the collection of relevant and credible data.

Target population

The stakeholders in the agricultural sector in Ethiopia can be placed in four different categories: main actors such as farmers, their organisations, traders, processors etc.; supporters mainly the private sector- transporters, financial institutions – banks and microfinance institutions, etc.; enablers, primarily the public sector, those who facilitate or limit the development of the sub-sector, especially government bodies such as bureaus of agriculture, research, cooperative promotion agencies, etc.) and civic organisations including NGOs and projects. These stakeholders are found at various levels: kebele, woreda, zone, and regional, federal, or national levels. For this study, those working in Metema and East Belessa woredas, as well as their leaders at the regional level in Bahir Dar and the zones of West and Central Gondar, were the specific focus of the study. To ensure a diverse sample, two kebeles, Kokit from Metema and Guhala from East Belessa, were purposely selected based on the researcher’s experience and informal discussions with stakeholders.

Data collection methods and procedures

Data in this research were drawn from a larger study that explored the participatory communication approach in the agricultural sector. For the study, data was collected using six FGDs (two with farmer groups, two with farmer organisations and two with mixed stakeholder groups; women, men, youth and elderly participated), 11 in-depth interviews (key informants in interviews representing supporters and enablers groups from woredas, zones and region), and observations of five meetings, workshops, and field days. For the larger study, a total of 55 individuals participated, with 44 farmers and farmer organisations from the two kebeles and woredas participating in the six FGDs (farmers, farmer organisations and stakeholders’ groups). After data gathering reached saturation, translation, transcription, coding, and thematic analysis were performed. For this article, particular data pertaining to inclusion and exclusion were specifically used.

Data analysis

Data related to inclusion and exclusion was extracted, translated, and transcribed into English. The researcher and assistant, both fluent in Amharic, ensured accurate translation. Data from KIIs, FGDs, and observations of meetings, workshops, and field days were organised and categorised. Following the identification and coding of recurrent remark themes and sub-themes were extracted and analysed using thematic analysis. This process helped us understand the inclusion and exclusion of stakeholders in participatory communications.

Findings and discussions

The following section delves into the main findings and discussions regarding the participation of different stakeholder groups in agricultural communication platforms. The analysis first examines the representation and participation of the four major stakeholder groups: main actors, supporters, enablers, and civic organisations, and assesses whether the participatory platforms provide equal opportunities for these groups. Consequently, the analysis will focus on whether these platforms have given different segments of society, particularly women, youth, and other marginalised groups, equal opportunities. In doing so, it also assesses the structural and sociocultural barriers that limit the engagement of these groups.

Stakeholder group representation in participatory platforms

Uneven communication and representation

One of the main findings is the uneven representation and communication among the four different stakeholder groups in the agricultural sector: main actors, supporters, enablers, and NGOs/projects, with certain key groups, such as farmers, traders, and labourers, being underrepresented in participatory meetings. While efforts are made to include various stakeholders, participation is often inconsistent, particularly in platforms organised at the woreda or regional levels. For example, FGD participants from Guhala noted that labourers, traders, and private actors were rarely invited to meetings, even when the discussions directly concerned them (FGD Guhala 2).

One key informant also remarked,

It is hard to say that participatory platforms are attended by all relevant stakeholder groups. Sometimes, stakeholders come together and design a plan to be implemented in farmers’ fields without involving smallholder farmers. Participatory meetings are largely initiated and facilitated by a top-down approach (KII 4 Gondar).

Observations also confirmed that these groups were hardly present in meetings organised at woreda and beyond woreda levels, largely due to the organisers’ lack of attention to their inclusion.

While some stakeholders acknowledged the importance of participating in a wide array of actors in the agricultural sector, practicality remains a challenge. The participation of stakeholders is contingent upon the convening organisation, which had the responsibility of setting up the event, deciding on the agenda being addressed, and deciding who was invited. FGD participants reported that most stakeholders were more likely to attend meetings when the organisers were supporting projects (FGD Guhala 2 and Kokit 1), where financial incentives such as better per diems, encourage participation (FGD Kokit 6). Some interviewees also mentioned that most stakeholders are hesitant to attend meetings without per diems (KII, 3, 10). This suggests that participation is largely driven by external rewards or logistical benefits rather than motivated by a genuine desire for collective problem-solving, thus undermining the principle of meaningful participatory communication.

Absence of key decision-makers

One of the recurring concerns among many of the respondents is the absence of key decision-makers during participatory communication meetings, which limits the effectiveness of these platforms. As FGD participants indicated, on occasions, critical issues are discussed without the presence of important stakeholders, limiting the impact and relevance of decisions made. These participants also noted that their meetings are frequently disrupted, resulting in the dispersal of participants without accomplishing their objectives (FGD 2, Guhala and 5, Kokit).

Observations revealed that some government authorities often miss meetings due to overlapping programmes or some unforeseen political or other commitments. Even when they attend meetings, their appearance is fleeting, as they are frequently called away for other issues due to the position they hold. This highlights the need for a more inclusive system where decision-makers are engaged in discussions.

Dominance of enablers in shaping participatory platforms

One of the important findings that comes out broadly is the fact that while government bodies play a leading role in initiating and facilitating participatory platforms in the agricultural sector, the involvement of other stakeholder groups, such as farmers and private sector actors, remain limited in many cases (FGD 2 Guhala & 4 Kokit; KII 3, 5 & 10). This group often dictate and structures the participatory process, and sometimes this influence results in the exclusion of other vital stakeholders, particularly main actors like smallholder farmers, labourers, and traders. Observations confirmed that government bodies often come together and deal with agricultural issues, without involving the main actors and supporters. Failing to integrate all stakeholders into the decision-making process led to decisions that overlooked the perspectives of those who would be most affected by policy outcomes.

The private sector and occasionally even smallholder farmers, traders, aggregators, and other stakeholders like labourers did not participate with other stakeholders, despite being the main actors and supporters of the sector, and some issues of discussion concern them. This enablers-centric approach skews the participatory platforms toward the interests and priorities of the facilitating organisations, contradicting the principles of inclusivity advocated by participatory development communication theory. As Duraiappah et al. (2005) stated, meaningful participatory communication needs to give attention, among other things, to the participants to be involved and the institutional structure and/or the social context under which the local people operate.

Participants of the FGDs expressed that no platform has yet encompassed all actors effectively and adequately in the agricultural sector. The agriculture office engages in a wide range of activities and is present in almost all participatory communications, but does not always ensure the participation of all relevant actors, therefore limiting the meaningfulness of the process (FGD 5, Kokit). Despite the rhetoric of inclusivity, many public organisations fail to engage meaningfully, undermining the legitimacy of the platforms they facilitate.

Organisers’ failure as a barrier to inclusivity

The respondents’ reflection and observation show that the organisers’ lack of commitment is a significant barrier to inclusion. As mentioned by FGD participants, things look good on the surface but are problematic on the inside. Stakeholders’ participation seems reasonable during joint planning or reviewing plans, as most show up in these communication settings. Cooperatives, unions, microfinance institutions, the office of agriculture and other concerned woreda-level public organisations participate in planning meetings. However, there is a fundamental problem in implementing the work; many activities are not being reviewed jointly in a scheduled way. Sometimes it is challenging to organise meetings that bring all relevant stakeholders together. For example, when cooperative representatives attend meetings, microfinance representatives may be absent, and vice versa (FGD 6, Kokit). Although the KIIs did not boldly mention the woreda-level planning meetings, which have been viewed as good, they appear to have failed to engage the participation of farmers, traders, and other private actors, who are among the main stakeholders in the sector. This lack of coordination reflects a broader issue of lack of commitment among stakeholders, including the organising bodies.

Stakeholders, including some public organisations, did not give much attention to participatory communication platforms, leading to low attendance and engagement. FGD participants emphasised the need for a more open and inclusive approach to participatory meetings.

The way we do things has not changed significantly for a long time and needs improvement. Participatory meetings need to be open to the full participation of all relevant stakeholders. Stakeholders need to establish a common vision and understanding of the issues that affect them, as this facilitates collective learning and problem-solving (FGD 5, Kokit).

There is a perception among stakeholders that facilitating collaborative efforts is of utmost importance, as most respondents highlighted the importance of participatory communication for stakeholders’ collaborative efforts (for example, KII 2, 10, FGD 2 and 5). Despite this, the findings show that participatory platforms in the agricultural sector are not sufficiently inclusive and representative of all stakeholders in the sector. Failure to include all the relevant stakeholders defeats what Eskerod, Huemann and Ringhofer (2015) suggested and results in disengagement and dissatisfied stakeholders. It also compromises the integration and cohesion of stakeholders, as well as improves the transparency, accountability, equity, and efficiency of organisers such as public administrators, NGOs, or community associations (Bell and Reed 2022). Given that stakeholders work within the same woreda and in the same sector, having common goals to achieve, instead of working independently, all the relevant stakeholders can join forces to strategise, execute, oversee, and assess development initiatives. This does not, however, mean that all stakeholders are concerned about all issues. As suggested by Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009), it is important to consider the time, resources, interests, and knowledge of all participants and stakeholders involved in participatory communication.

Gender, age, and socio-cultural issues in participation

To evaluate the inclusivity of participatory communication platforms in the agricultural sector, respondents to this study were asked about the demographic composition of the participants, focusing on gender, age, and sociocultural factors. Gender appeared as a critical theme, with cultural and social norms significantly restricting women’s participation in platforms with mixed-gender settings.

Women’s participation

Most FGD participants pointed out that women’s participation in participatory platforms is influenced by societal expectations, cultural norms and structural barriers such as limited facilitation strategies and time constraints. For instance, in Kokit, it was noted that women are more afraid of speaking than men are, with few women participating, and those who could express themselves preferred to keep silent (FGD 6, Kokit). Likewise, FGD participants in Guhala observed that women’s attendance at meetings is consistently low. Even when invited, many women choose not to attend, and those who do often refrain from expressing their views due to shyness or discomfort. As one participant explained,

Their absence may not affect discussions, but it does not make the meetings inclusive. Those who come under pressure hardly share their thoughts adequately, as they are shy. They are embarrassed to express their opinions; they do not feel comfortable. The culture of women and men in the past has influenced us (FGD 2, Guhala).

This situation reflects broader social dynamics where women are conditioned to defer to male voices, thus limiting their active participation in critical discussions. Some FGD participants from Guhala appeared to accept this as a “common problem”, showing a lack of awareness and becoming gender blind as they oversimplified and did not recognise social, cultural, economic, and political contexts that create differences in the roles and responsibilities of women and men. Their understanding of the concept of inclusion is equated to mere physical presence, with little recognition of the need for meaningful participation.

A woman participant reflected that most women lack the courage to speak in front of large audiences. She said, “If three out of the ten women reflect, that would be a significant achievement.” She also underscored the role of facilitators, explaining that while some facilitators actively encourage women to speak out and provide their input, others tend to favour more outspoken participants. However, most women do not have previous experience or exposure to speaking in front of a large public. Thus, this action of facilitators further limits women’s opportunities to voice their ideas, resulting in constrained roles and restricted perspectives (FGD 2, Guhala).

The same participant shared her observation that women tend to express themselves more freely in women-only groups. She cited a project that convened women alone, where those who participated interacted more actively when meeting separately but remained too shy to talk when they were in mixed-gender forums. Although there are increased opportunities for women, in some cases, cultural conditioning continues to suppress women’s voices, as many still feel ashamed or embarrassed to speak publicly (FGD 2, Guhala).

In general terms, efforts made to include women were limited, and the overall level of empowerment of women is not yet there. The broader issue of power dynamics and cultural norms continues to affect women’s participation. While women’s limited participation is attributed to the women themselves as they are ‘shy and embarrassed,’ it is crucial to acknowledge the structural barriers they face, such as facilitators’ skills and time management practices and the dominance of outspoken individuals. These factors collectively restrict the likelihood of women contributing meaningfully to participatory discussions (FGD 2, Guhala).

Cultural norms were further emphasised by respondents who acknowledged the historical influence of gender divisions. For example, FGD participants noted that a woman from the countryside who speaks up in a meeting may not be appreciated by some members of the community; she may even be perceived as “rude, mannerless, and shameful”, illustrating how cultural attitudes continue to suppress women’s voices (FGD 1, Guhala).

Regional and zonal-level stakeholders echoed the idea that participatory platforms often fail to include diverse groups, particularly women and youth. KIIs revealed that men consistently outnumber women in participatory platforms, and even when women attend, they rarely use the opportunity to share their perspectives. As one respondent noted, “Long-standing traditions that discourage women from speaking in public continue to hinder their participation, despite the availability of some opportunities (KII 1, Bahir Dar).

Observations further confirmed that women are significantly under-represented compared to men in all the meetings, workshops, and field days, underscoring the persistent imbalance or lack of inclusion in participatory communication settings.

Participation of the youth, the elderly, and other marginalised groups

Youth, the elderly, and other marginalised groups also face barriers to engaging in participatory communication platforms. Respondents noted that these groups are often overlooked or face social and logistical barriers that limit their participation in communication platforms. A KII notes,

Participatory platforms often overlook marginalised groups. The same individuals tend to dominate different forums. Whether they do things right or wrong, these people always attend meetings and field days. Women, youth, and other marginalised groups remain underrepresented (KII 5, Gondar).

Some research participants suggested that youth are disengaged due to a lack of interest in the agendas of the meetings or a mismatch between their priorities and the agendas of discussions. For example, FGD participants noted: “We are arguing that the youth should be participating and rising to leadership positions, but the youth are not participating or behaving in the ways we expect.” (FGD 5, Kokit). Respondents mentioned there is a mismatch between what the youth want and what the agendas of participatory meetings, stating, “Although young people have opportunities, they often face difficulties participating due to misalignment between meeting agendas on the table and their priorities” (FGD, Guhala 2).

However, the idea of some of the FGD participants does not seem to adequately consider the structural factors at play, such as a lack of opportunities for youth to engage meaningfully in decision-making or the facilitators’ failure to address their needs and concerns. The disinterest of youth in these forums may be more accurately attributed to a failure of the organisers to create spaces that go in line with the priorities and interests of younger generations.

Similarly, the elderly and individuals with disabilities are frequently excluded due to physical or logistical challenges in accessing meetings.

Cultural and structural constraints

Although the literature highlighted the importance of inclusive communication and diverse participation in participatory processes and fostering community integration and cohesion (Lennie and Hearn 2003; Incio et al. 2021), the findings reveal that the participatory communication processes in the agricultural sector are not effectively involving diversified groups. The social fabric and overarching structure of the participatory communication systems became one main barrier to the inclusion of some groups. FGD participants from Guhala highlighted that, even when women and youth are present in meetings, their voices are often not valued (FGD1 and 2, Guhala). This shows broader cultural and structural limitations that prevent some groups from participating meaningfully. As mentioned by Jabeen (2019), such superficial inclusion does not bring about meaningful changes for marginalised groups, as their participation is often tokenistic rather than transformative.

Organisers/facilitators approach as a barrier

It seems that most stakeholders who are in charge of organising participatory platforms lack gender and age sensitivity, resulting in initiatives and activities that are not tailor-made for the needs of women, youth, and other less privileged parts of communities. Even agricultural researchers, who are in a better position to understand this, seem to overlook the importance of including women, youth, and the elderly in their studies. As an informant states:

Technologies from the research do not largely take gender and age into account. Instead of minimising the difficulties of women and the elderly, research efforts are sometimes found to widen the gap by focusing on model farmers and not including women, youth, and other marginalised groups (KII 3, Gondar).

Apart from women and youth, who are rarely invited to participatory events, some respondents of this study mentioned that the participation of the elderly, people with disabilities, and poor and resource-poor or landless farmers in different platforms is restricted across various platforms. One KII explains, “Elderly farmers and individuals with disabilities are often excluded from participatory platforms, despite their role in the agricultural sector” (KII 2, Bahir Dar). Similarly, another KII indicated that there was no problem with adult men as the culture supported them. However, women, youth, disabled people, poor farmers, and landless people are less likely to attend participatory communication forums (KII 5, Gondar).

Some of the technologies and released research recommendations, though they help to improve production and productivity, have trade-offs as they increase, for example, the women’s or other marginalised groups’ work burden both in the household and in the field. If such innovations could be presented and discussed with all genders and age groups in an open communication platform, better inputs could be gained to either adapt or improve for better implementations.

A handful of innovative platforms organised by agricultural research take these issues into account, albeit only at the conceptual level. One of the KIIs points out:

We used to have guidelines that encompassed women, young people, the elderly, and resource-rich and resource-poor individuals/farmers. The directive explicitly specifies that a minimum of 30% of the participants should be female. Nevertheless, this requirement is not being implemented, as the platforms did not consider such demographic differences. Model farmers and agricultural professionals are the main participants in most participatory communication platforms (KII, 10, Gondar).

As a result, it is difficult to assert that the platforms are inclusive, both in number and kind. This informant further expresses doubts about whether the participating farmers themselves are the true representatives, as the concerned person may not come to most platforms (KII, 10, Gondar).

Overall, such exclusion highlighted that there is a need for more inclusive and tailored approaches to participatory communication.

Budget and resources versus structural efforts

Some research participants attributed the limited participation of women and young people to a lack of budget. Although inclusiveness may, in some cases, depend on the available resources and funding, this reason does not hold water in the context of northwest Ethiopia. As mentioned earlier, the problem here is on the organiser’s side. Women and youth could have participated within the existing budget if organisers and facilitators of the participatory communication platforms had paid attention to inclusivity. The shortage of budget and resources may, at times, have an impact on the overall participatory process; nevertheless, it may not necessarily have a distinct effect on the participation of women and youth, as it is still possible to engage this group within the limited budget and resources.

Stakeholders misunderstanding

Some of the respondents blamed women and young people themselves for not participating in communication platforms. Although this assertion may hold some grain of truth, in some cases, the respondent’s attribution is a bold claim, lacking the necessary analysis and failing to show the root cause of the problem. For example, one FGD participant stated: “…Their absence may not affect the discussion, but does not make the meetings inclusive….” (FGD 2, Guhala). They simply perceive the participation of women for the sake of inclusivity, as they state that the absence may not affect the discussion, but it does not make the meetings inclusive. This underscores that there is still a critical misunderstanding of what inclusivity entails, that it is not merely the physical presence of individuals but the active participation of all stakeholders in the decision-making process that fosters meaningful participation. This reflects a more extensive problem with the way stakeholders approach and manage participatory communication.

Overall, the exclusion of marginalised groups is the result of multiple factors, including organisers and facilitators’ reluctance and failure to prioritise inclusivity, deeply ingrained social norms, the lack of structural support for marginalised voices and misunderstanding of stakeholders, among others. This exclusionary practice undermines the principles of participatory communication, which emphasises the genuine inclusion of diverse community groups at various levels. Such inclusion is not merely symbolic but essential for incorporating the thoughts, ideas, and decisions of all stakeholders, ultimately fostering meaningful participation.

Comparative insights from the literature

The findings of this study echo broader trends identified in different contexts, especially less developed countries, which indicated that bringing all relevant stakeholders, specifically including underprivileged parts of communities such as women, youth and the elderly, in participatory communication initiatives has been challenged due to the overarching social structure or framework societies, which could contribute to women’s disempowerment. For example, the women deliver consultation survey identified some significant barriers to meaningful engagement, including cultural and religious norms, lack of information and education, lack of trust and respect for youth perspectives, lack of resources and few safe spaces or opportunities to learn and engage, and weak systems and organisational structures (Women Deliver 2016). Research by Jabeen (2019) highlights that failure to consider the overall social structure and fabric, as well as the individual beliefs held by both participants and implementers, can have a significant impact on participation and lead to superficial inclusion and tokenistic participation. Such inclusion will not bring a substantial change in the marginalised groups.

However, not all studies report such negative results. Some studies have shown the success of participatory communication initiatives not only in bringing diverse stakeholders together but also in empowering them. For example, Garcia (2011) found that the various participatory methods employed in some contexts have facilitated the active engagement and empowerment of women and youth, enabling their active participation in numerous community engagement initiatives, thus providing them with a platform to voice their thoughts and perspectives and influence decisions. Another study focusing on women in health communication shows that women have become self-reliant in water and disease management, which was the initiative’s goal (Lal et al. 1992). Nonetheless, these positive outcomes are not the norm, and most studies point to the challenges in achieving truly inclusive participation.

One of the underlying themes of the analysis is the discrepancy between the theoretical principles of participatory communication and its practical implementation in the agricultural sector. While participatory communication paradigms promote empowerment, inclusion, and active participation of all stakeholders, the findings show that these principles are not consistently applied in practice. Women, youth, and marginalised groups are often excluded from meaningful participation in discussions that affect their lives. This discrepancy highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the barriers to participation and a greater commitment from organisers to overcome them. The findings indicate that systemic and cultural changes are critical for advancing the ideal of participatory communication, where all voices are heard and valued.

Although participatory communication theory emphasises pluralism and social change by including marginalised groups of society, such as women, youth, and resource-poor farmers, among others, practical execution in this context has fallen short of these ideals. The fact that dialogue and participation are used as empowerment proves that participation upholds the marginalised part of different communities. Wilkins (2005) notes that currently, the participatory communication approach has recognised the patriarchal assumptions rooted in making communication interventions within powerful groups that are then imposed on groups with less powerful ones. Contrary to what the literature suggests, the participatory communication settings organised in the agricultural sector in northwest Ethiopia are not adequately aligned with the theoretical conceptions of participatory communication. The underrepresentation and limited participation of women, youth, and other marginalised groups highlight gaps in inclusivity and require targeted interventions to address structural and cultural barriers.

Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that the participatory communication platforms organised in the agriculture sector in northwest Ethiopia have not sufficiently acknowledged the diversity within the society, particularly women, young, and other marginalised groups such as the elderly and people with disabilities. Despite their important role as value chain actors and their overall contribution to broader societal functions, these groups face barriers to meaningful participation.

The study identifies several barriers which contribute to this limited inclusion, including cultural norms of the communities, the structure or fabric of the society, insufficient attention from organisers/ facilitators, misalignment of discussion agendas with youth priorities, stakeholders’ misunderstandings that misattribute exclusion to women and youth’s lack of interest and a general lack of opportunities for marginalised groups. These barriers have collectively affected participatory communication platforms to engage all stakeholders meaningfully.

The study highlights the gap between the theoretical principles of participatory communication and its practical implementation, with exclusion resulting from a combination of complex interplay of cultural norms and influences, and systemic factors such as enabler-dominated platforms and inadequate facilitation, as well as personal challenges like fear, shyness, and limited exposure. As a result, these individuals often lack opportunities to voice their concerns and contribute to decision-making processes that directly impact their lives, families, and communities.

To address these gaps, deliberate steps are needed to overcome cultural, systemic, and organisational barriers to inclusivity and fostering platforms that align with the principles of participatory communication. Practical steps could include training facilitators to foster inclusive dialogue, creating separate forums for women and youth to build confidence, and ensuring consistent representation of main actors, such as farmers and traders, in planning and implementing participatory platforms. Aligning such efforts with national programmes could help enhance inclusivity.

This study provides valuable insights related to the exclusion of some groups in participatory communication platforms, but is limited by geographical scope, covering only two woredas and relying on existing platforms. Future research could explore broader contexts and try to test proposed recommendations to strengthen the participation of women, youth and other marginalised groups.

Data availability

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.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to University of South Africa and Bahir Dar University.

Funding

Bahir Dar University facilitated the opportunity for my PhD study, and the University of South Africa (UNISA) provided bursary support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Africa, Pretoria, South AfricaAnteneh Mekuria Tesfaye & Tyali Siyasanga M
  2. SWR Ethiopia, SWR Ethiopia, EthiopiaAnteneh Mekuria Tesfaye

Contributions

Anteneh Mekuria Tesfaye (PhD), corresponding author, was responsible for conducting the overall study, including data collection, analysis and manuscript preparation. https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1778-0055. Siyasanga M. Tyali (Professor) has been my supervisor who provided guidance and supervision in all the processes, critically commenting, reviewing, and editing the manuscript. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5365-6896.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anteneh Mekuria Tesfaye.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Informed consent

Data collection was made after ethical clearance was gained from the University of South Africa (UNISA). Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and observations. Consent was formally secured in the form of signed forms completed by the participants. Consent forms were signed on a written form by participants from focus group discussions in Guhala (East Belesa Woreda), farmer group on March 24, 2022; farmer organisation group on March 25, 2022, and stakeholders’ group on March 27, 2022. In Kokit and Gendawuha (Metema Woreda), consent forms were signed with farmer group participants on April 12, 2022, farmer organisations on April 13, 2022, and stakeholder groups on April 15, 2022. Interviews were conducted with regional and zone-level stakeholders at Bahir Dar and West and Central Gondar zones from April 20, 2022, to May 15, 2022, and consent forms were signed by participants during this time. To protect the participants’ identity, no personal information was disclosed without the consent of participants. Participants’ identities were protected using codes. They were replaced by codes, they were referred to as KII 1, KII 2, KII, etc. for key informant interviews, and FGD1, FGD2, FGD3, etc. for focus group discussions. This coding system helped to ensure the anonymity of the study participants. This was clearly mentioned to all participants of the study. What is more, participants provided their consent to use the data for academic purposes, including publication of findings.

Ethical approval

All research activities were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines/regulations. This study was conducted after ethical clearance was granted by the College of Human Sciences Research Ethics Review Committee under NHREC Registration number: Rec-240816-052 CREC and Reference number: 50840673_CREC_CHS_2022. The ethical approval was given from 04 March 2022 to 04 March 2027. All research procedures adhere to the ethical guidelines, values, principles, and policies of the University of South Africa (UNISA), as well as relevant ethical guidelines, including the Declaration of Helsinki, before and while conducting the data-gathering process and doing the overall study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tesfaye, A.M., Siyasanga M, T. Barriers to inclusive stakeholders’ participation in Northwest Ethiopia’s agricultural sector. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 775 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05104-3

Download citation