PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN POVE RTY REDUCTION IN KENYA: A [601548]

PARTICIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN POVE RTY REDUCTION IN KENYA: A
STUDY OF MURANG’A COUNTY

NJOROGE LABAN NGUMBO
K50/69560/2013

A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMEN T FOR THE
REQUIREMENT OF MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN COMMUNICATION STUDIES
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
2015

ii
DECLARATION
This research is my original work and has not been presented for the award of a degree in any
other university

Signature …………………………………. Date …………………………………..
Laban Ngumbo Njoroge

This research project ha s been submitted to the University of Nairobi as part of the fulfilment
for the Award of Master of Arts in Communication Studies.

Signature ………………………………… Date ……………………………………
Leah Muchemi
Project Supervisor

iii
DEDICATION

To my parents, Henry Njoroge Ngumbo and Beth Njeri Njoroge for their unrelenting effort to
provide my siblings and I with the best possible education. Their godly sacrifice is the reason
for this academic achievement. I would also like to dedicate this to my sisters Muthoni Njoroge
and Wanjiru Njoroge and my brother Mwangi Njoroge for their support and encouragement
during this academic endeavour.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to sincerely acknowledge the support of my supervisor Leah Muchemi who has
steered me th rough out the proces s of conductin g this research. Her input has helped me
understand the process of research in ways that were previously unknown to me. I am forev er
grateful for her support .
I would also like to appreciate the support of Dr George Gathigi during the initi al stages of this
research in helping me understand the field of participatory communication.
This section would be incomplete without acknowledging the teaching fraternity at the School
of Journalism and Mass Communication throughout my 7 years at the sc hool at postgraduate
and undergraduate level. Dr Wambui Kiai and the team has moulded me, providing world class
university education for the 21st century.
However man makes plans, works to implement those plans but Ngai brings those plans for
fulfilment. I am grateful to the Almighty God for the wisdom and knowledge to achieve this
academic endeavour. All glory and praise to him.

v
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYM S

MDG – Millennium Development Goals
UN- United Nations
CDF – Constituency Development Fund
NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation
PFM – Participatory Forest Management
JFM- Joint Forest Management
CBFM – Community Based Forest Management
PAR – Participatory Action Research
MCG – Murang’a County Government

vi
ABSTRACT
The first 50 years of independence has been a period of rapid changes and progress but 33% of
the citizens of Murang’a County continue to be trapped in poverty. There is need to reduce
these statistics and this research sought to find out the role of participatory communicatio n in
poverty reduction in Murang’a County. The objectives of this study were to identify the
communication channels used to reach out to local communities in the milk coolers project,
the participation level of local communities at the implementation stage of this development
projects and to establish the effects of participation on the success of poverty reduction effort.
The study was guided by the participatory communication paradigm and Albert Bandura’s
Social Cognitive Theory.
An exploratory research d esign was adopted for this study, targeting the beneficiaries of this
development project. However this research studied three constituencies of the seven
constituencies in the County where the project has been implemented i.e. Kiharu, Kangema
and Gatanga. The study adopted cluster sampling method where the three constituencies were
the desired clusters and samples were be obtained from the clusters using simple random
sampling techniques depending on the population size . A sample of 400 respondents was dra wn
and obtained using simple random sampling methods. Data was collected using quantitative
and qualitative methods and questionnaires and interviews were used as the research
instrument s. The data collected was integrated for analysis. Descriptive statist ics were be
computed for all the variables to ensure quality of data. Qualitative data was grouped into
thematic areas and descriptive analysis given. The data was used to show the relationships
between variables.
It emerged that a majority of the benefic iaries had relied on the radio as a communication
vehicle on information about this project. Consultative meetings and interpersonal methods
were also influential in reaching out to the beneficiaries. The study concluded that there was

vii
less participation b y the intended beneficiaries during the implementation of the project,
adopting an anti -dialogical banking model to development. The findings indicate that a high
majority of the beneficiaries did not consider the project to have been successful while very
few beneficiaries considered the project was a success.
The study therefore recommends that change agents should take participatory development and
participatory communication as efficient development approaches in the steps towards
improving the living standards of its citizenry, encouraging involvement of the intended
beneficiaries at all stages of development.

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. iv
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… v
ABSTRACT ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… vi
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 1
1.0 Background of the study ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 1
1.1 Poverty reduction in Kenya ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 2
1.2 Background of Murang’a County ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 4
1.3 Statement of the problem ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 6
1.4 General Objectives of the study ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 7
1.5 Specific Objectives of the study ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 8
1.6 Research questions of the study ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 8
1.7 Significance of the study ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 8
1.8 Scope and limitations ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 9
1.9 Summary of chapter ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 9
CHAPTER TWO ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 10
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ………………………….. ……. 10
2.0 Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 10
2.1 Participatory communication ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 10
2.2 Poverty reduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 13
2.2.1 Drivers and Maintainers of Poverty ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 13
2.2.2 Poverty Reduction Strategies ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 14
2.3 Participatory approaches in community projects ………………………….. ……………………… 14
2.3.1 Participatory forest management in Tanzania ………………………….. ……………………. 15
2.4 The institutional challenges of participatory communication ………………………….. …….. 16
2.5 The origin of participatory communication ………………………….. ………………………….. … 18
2.6 Diffusion mode l versus participatory communication ………………………….. ………………. 23
2.7 stages of development projects ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 25
2.8 Conceptual framework ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 27
2.9 Theoretical Framework ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 28
2.9.1 Participatory Paradigm ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 28
2.9.2 Social Cognitive Theory ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 28

ix
2.10 Summary of chapter ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 29
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ………………………….. …………………….. 30
3.0 Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 30
3.1 Research Design ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 30
3.2 Study population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 30
3.3 Sample size and sampling techniques ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 31
3.3.1 Sample size ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 31
3.3.2 Sampling procedures and techniques ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 31
3.4 Data collection methods ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 32
3.4.1 Questionnaires ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 32
3.4.2 Interviews ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 32
3.5 Data analysis and Presentation Methods ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 33
3.6 Ethical considerations ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 35
3.7 Summary of chapter ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 35
CHAPTER FOUR ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 36
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ………………………….. ….. 36
4.0 Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 36
4.1 Demographics ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 36
4.1.1 Analysis of Respondents by Gender ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 37
4.1.2 Analysis of respondents by Age ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 38
4.1.3 Level of education ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 39
4.2 Knowledge of the Mil k Coolers project ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 41
4.3 Source of Information on the Project ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 42
4.4 Proposed communication vehicles ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 44
4.5 Consultation in the identification of the project ………………………….. ……………………….. 45
4.6 Did change agents encourage public to participate in implementation of the project … 47
4.7 Participation in consultative meetings on the project ………………………….. ………………… 48
4.8 Kind of meeting ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 49
4.9 Whether beneficiary input was sought during implementation ………………………….. ….. 49
4.10 Increase participation ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 51
4.11 Consider the project a success ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 53
4.12 How the beneficiaries can contribute to make the project better ………………………….. . 55
CHAPTER FIVE ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 57

x
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………….. ………… 57
5.0 Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 57
5.2 Summary of the findings ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 57
5.2.1 Communication channels used to reach out to local communities …………………….. 57
5.2.2 Participation of local communities at the implementat ion stage of development … 58
5.2.3 Role of participation on the success of poverty reduction efforts ……………………… 59
5.3 Conclusions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 60
5.4 Recommendations ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 61
5.4.1 Policy recommendations ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 61
5.4.2 Recommendation s for further research ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 62
REFERENCES ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 63
APPENDICES ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 68
APPENDIX 1: Q UESTIONNARE ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 68
APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR FARMERS ………………………….. ………… 72

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2 .1: Anti -dialogical banking method ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 22
Figure 2.2: Diffusion of innovation model ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 24
Figure 2.3 Participatory development communicat ion model ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 27
Figure 3.1: A map of Murang’a County showing wards ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 34
Figure 4.1: Gender of the respondents ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 37
Figure 4.2 Respondents level of education ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 39
Figure 4.3 Respondents’ current occupation ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 40
Figure 4.4 Knowledge on the Milk Coolers Project ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 41
Figure 4.5 Source of Information on the project ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 42
Figure 4.6 Consultation i n the identification of the project ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 46
Figure 4.7: Did change agents encourage public to participate in implementation ………………………….. …. 47
Figure 4 .8: Participation in consultative meetings on the project ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 48
Figure 4.9: Kind of meeting ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 49
Figure 4:10: Whether beneficiary input was sought during implementation ………………………….. ………….. 50
Figure 4.11: What should have been done to increase participation ………………………….. ………………………. 51
Figure 4.12: Why the pro ject did not succeed ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 54

xii

1

1
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of the study
Participation is what happens when members of a community themselves become part of the
process of change. Participatory communicati on appreciates a dialogical approach to
development rather than an anti -dialogical banking model. The notion of participatory
communication stresses the importance of cultural identity of local communities at all levels –
international, national, local and individual (Servaes, 2008 ).
Participation is – significant in any decision making for development . Participation is a principle
in development with support coming from many different stakeholders: governments, donors,
civil society and ordinary citizens ( Tufte and Mefalopulus , 2009 ). In all development projects,
there are change agents (the outsiders) and the l ocal people (the beneficiaries) who come
together in order to share knowledge and trust.
The emphasis of participatory communication is on the exchang e of information between the
outsider and the beneficiaries rather than on persuasion in the diffusion of innovation model by
Everett Rogers. There is a new awareness now that no expert has the solutions to poverty in
the world. All affected by poverty may have valuable information to contribute in poverty
reduction and we need dialogue to draw valuable insights from all who are affected. Therefore
the participation of the local people is crucial for effective and sustainable development
(Mulwa, 2008)
Poverty reduction efforts in Kenya have proved less successful because those who le ad them
assume they have solutions to all problems and therefore do not involve the local people.
Instead the participatory communication model advocates collective action and reflection by
the change agents and the intended beneficiaries .

2
1.1 Poverty reduction in Kenya
In September 2000 during a United Nations Summit in New York, world leaders presented a
commitment to reduce extreme poverty. The Millennium Declaration adopted by all the
members of the United Nations General Assembly in 2000 represents a commitment to a more
effective, results -oriented development partnership in the 21st century (World Development
Indicators, 2013). Developing countries are in the race to meet the global deadline of 2015.
In Kenya the section of the population living below the poverty line increased from 52.3 per
cent in 1997 to an estimated 56 per cent between 2000 and 2002, by 2005/06, it had dropped
to 45.9 per cent (Kenya Economic Update, 20 13). This means that during the first medium term
plan of Kenya’s Vision 2030, poverty rates reduced by 10.1%. According to the Kenya
Economic Report (2013) given the multidimensional nature of poverty, there is no single
channel of reducing macro and soci o- economic performance poverty but it argues that the
ultimate goal is to reduce the number of people living in poverty. However Kenya has made
significant progress towards reducing poverty through interventions discussed in this paper.
Since independence , successive Kenyan governments have made efforts towards fighting
poverty through development plans and projects. Kenya’s first president Mzee Jomo Kenyatta
identified poverty, ignorance and disease as some of the immediate needs that the new
government h ad to attend to. The new government’s poverty indicators were centred on access
to land, whose possession had been taken away by colonialism.
Today Kenya’s poverty rate is estimated to be in the range of between 34 and 42 per cent
(Kenya Economic Update, 2 013). The report identifies poverty rates as highest in the arid and
semi -arid regions in the north and north east, areas which experience very little annual rainfall,
and thus, low agricultural potential have acute poverty. These regions have also suffere d
Kenya’s development imbalance since independence. The report highlights that despite the fact

3
that Kenya’s economy has been growing at an average of 5% per annum, the effects do not
trickle down to the poorest people, rather the gap between the rich and the poor keeps
expanding.
Today the most used measure of poverty is the number of people living on less than 1.25 dollars
a day – the extreme poor and among the poorest Kenyans, 99 out of 100 live without electricity
and without a flush toilet, 80 out of 10 0 share a living space with two or more people, and 64
out of 100 do not have access to an improved source of water (Kenya Economic Update, 2013)..
Apart from low income and material deprivation, the report identifies lack of security, power,
poor health, discrimination and unstable work as other indicators of poverty in Kenya.
To tackle poverty, the government has come up with interventions that focus on revamping the
economy to create an enabling environment for citizens to access basic services. Kenya Vi sion
2030 (2006) is a vehicle for accelerating transformation of the country into a rapidly
industrializing middle -income nation by the year 2030. The vision aspires to meet the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for Kenyans, key among them eradicating ex treme
poverty. It is one of the interventions fronted by the government to fight poverty. Among its
three pillars however the vision fails to identify the role of participatory development towards
its realisation. Rather it is a top -down approach to devel opment fronted by the government to
be implemented by the beneficiaries.
The Constituency Development Fund Act (2013) however has provision for the
implementation of participatory development. In article 24 (6) the law that within the first year
of a new parliament and at least once every two years thereafter, the constituency development
board shall convene open forum public meetings at in every ward in the constituency to
deliberate on development matters in the ward and the constituency. Each ward shal l come up
with a list of priority projects to be submitted to board. However it can be argued that this exists

4
only in law because the boards at the ward and constituency levels are dominated by the elites
and development needs of the ordinary people are n ot represented.
Further the Constitution of Kenya (2010) establishes a devolved syst em of government and its
principles as stipulated Article 174 include recognizing the right of communities to manage
their own affairs and further their own development. Th e constitution appreciates a
participation development communication model where previously the former constitution was
silent on the role of communities in spearheading their own development, propagating a top –
down model where an outsider (the national go vernment) took charge of development at all
stages (research, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation)
1.2 Background of Murang’a County
Murang’a County is established by the First Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya (2010 ) as
Kenya’s county number 21.It is one of the five counties in Central region of the Republic of
Kenya. It is bordered to the North by Nyeri, to the South by Kiambu, to the West by Nyandarua
and to the East by Kirinyaga, Embu and Machakos counti es. It lies between latitudes 34’ South
and 107’ South and Longitudes 36o East and 37o 27’ East. The county occupies a total area of
2,558.8Km2 (Murang’a.go.ke)
The county constitutes 7 constituencies Kangema, Mathioya, Kiharu, Kigumo, Maragwa,
Kandara and Gatanga ( opendata.go.ke) . Mur ang’a County has an approximate population total
of 942,581 (male – 48% and female – 52%) according to the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
2009 National Census report.
The larger majority of locals are Kikuyus who are born here. Most of them engage in mixed
farming for staple food which includes maize, beans, cabbages, sorghum, millet and cassava
among others. The county has a small percentage of people from other communities including

5
Kamba, Meru, Embu, Luhya and Indians who are primarily involved in running small to
medium -size trade businesses in major towns of the county. (Kenyainformationguide.com)
Murang'a County has about 271 health facilities which include 112 centres run by government,
125 that are privately owned and 31 run by faith based orga nizations. A few centres are
managed by community based organizations. (Kenyainformationguide.com)
There are 739 primary schools and 271 secondary schools both public and private. Some of the
top high schools in Murang’a County include Murang’a High School , Mugoiri Girls High
School, Kahuhia Girls High School and Njiiris School. Murang’a University College, a
constituent college of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology is the only
institution of higher learning in the county offering degree programmes. However there are
over 10 middle level colleges in the county, sponsored by the government and individuals.
(Kenyainformationguide.com)
The County’s economy is deeply rooted in agriculture as its main economic activity , practiced
on small sc ale land holding and small scale farming. Over 60 percent of small scale farmers
grow cash crops tea and coffee. Ten tea factories serve most of the farmers; Githambo,
Gatunguru, Kanyenya -ini, Ngere, Njunu, Makomboki, Nduti,Gacharage, Ikumbi and Kiru.
Coffee factories in the area include Kanyenyaini, Mihuti and Gathima, Kiharu coffee factories
among others. Other agricultural activities that support the county‘s economy include dairy
farming and macadamia farming. Among main farms for Macadamia is Farmnut M acadamia
in Murang’a and Maragua town.
There are various financial establishments such as banks and SACCOs (Savings and Credit
Cooperatives) situated in the major towns and shopping centres in the County. They include
Equity Bank, Family Bank, KCB, Post B ank, Murata Sacco, Unaitas among others.

6
This study will focus on the milk coolers project and introduction of dairy cows project by the
county government. In line with the Murang’a County growth and empowerment agenda,
Governor Mwangi Wa Iria has initiate d a programme that will see Murang’a farmers access
the best of the dairy breeds that there is in this country at an affordable rate. So far 300 High
breed dairy cows were procured and distributed to farmers. The Murang’a County governor
has led and initia ted this milk cooling and bulking programme for the Murang’a people. The
County Government has procured 35 milk coolers. Each ward in the milk producing regions
will receive a cooler to be used by the farmers’ group in the area.
According to the Kenya Econ omic Survey (2014) Murang’a County has a poverty level of 33%
and its ranks 7th among the 47 counties. This means that Murang’a County is better ranked than
40 counties in terms of poverty and is not among the poorest counties in Kenya. However
Murang’a Co unty is not the richest county in Kenya and has not eradicated poverty fully, much
more remains to be done. In addition the county was chosen for this study through observation
undertaken in the County during the period before the promulgation of the new c onstitution
and in the period after the establishment of county governments.
1.3 Statement of the problem
The first 50 years of independence has been a period of rapid changes and progress but 42% of
Kenyans continue to be trapped in poverty. The introdu ction of the county government s after
the 2013 general elections meant that Murang’a county government like other 46 county
governments introduced dev elopment projects as part of its constitutional mandate. However
in the identification of the development needs of the people, the county government
disregarded participatory communication as a likely development communication paradigm.
As outsiders they under perceived rural poverty. They are attracted to and trapped in urban

7
cores which ge nerate and communic ate their own sort of knowledge while rural ‘peripheries’
are isolated and neglected (Chambers, 1983)
The beneficiaries of development projects meant to alleviate poverty are often bystanders and
regarded as passive shareholders in the development process. These beneficiaries are little seen
and less is the natu re of their poverty understood. According to Smith (200) t he lack of
involvement of the beneficiaries at all stages of development often leads to poor needs
assessment, implementa tion, monitoring and evaluation. This study looks at participatory
communication and how it could be a catalyst in poverty reduction efforts in Murang’a County.
Brown (1985) posits that succeed poverty reduction efforts must bring together the change
agents and the intended beneficiaries in a join t inquiry to understand their contextual realities,
identify needs and implement development. This means that participatory approaches can offer
a promising tool for promoting people -centred development in political and economic syst ems
that encourage local empowerment . Lack of participation among target groups or community
members in either the planning, implementation or decision making process of development
initiatives is one of the main reasons for the failures of some programmes (Chambers, 1997;
cited in Mefalopulos, 2003). This study will examine the relationship between participatory
communication and poverty and the expected results will contribute new knowledge on the role
of participatory communication in poverty reduction.
1.4 General Objectives of the study
The purpose of this study was to determine the contribution of participatory communication in
poverty reduction efforts in Kenya, with a special interest in Murang’a County.

8
1.5 Specific Objectives of the study
The sp ecific objectives of the study were ;
1. Identify the communication channels used to reach out to local communities i n the milk
coolers project in Murang’a County.
2. Determine the participation level of local communities at the implementation stage of
the milk c oolers project
3. Establish the effects of participation on the success of poverty reduction efforts.
1.6 Research questions of the study
1. What communication forms are used to reach out to local com munities on the
milk coolers project ?
2. What is the participatio n level of local communities at the implementation stage
of the milk coolers project ?
3. What are the effects of participation on the success of poverty reduction efforts?

1.7 Significance of the study
The study yield ed valuable information that will seek t o address the pertinent issues that come
to the fore as a result of lack of involvement of the target groups in poverty reduction efforts.
Previous efforts by the government have ignored the capability of the poor to take control of
their lives. This study will inform the efforts of change agents and influence a paradigm shift
in the approach taken by both local and national governments to alleviate poverty. Often the
vision of the change agents (the outsider) is blurred and they see action starting from wh ere
they are (Chambers, 1983) . This study sought to change that vision of the outsider, from one
distorted by top -down approach to one that is inclusive of the beneficiaries.

9
Therefore, it will to inform the key stakeholders in t he government (National go vernment and
County government), Non -Governmental Organisations (NGOs), local leaders and local
people.
1.8 Scope and limitations
The research study was carried out in Murang’a County. The study involved 340 respondents
and 6 interviewees from the county. The study was carried out within a period of three months.
The study examine d participatory communication and poverty reduction with a special interest
in the milk coolers pr oject and therefore did not investigate other development projects meant
to allev iate poverty.
This research faced limitations such as the respondents’ unwillingness to cooperate, financial
limitations, time did now allow for collection of detailed information on the project
identification stage. Data on this stage was not be obtained that would have been significant in
this study.
1.9 Summary of chapter
This chapter provides a background of the problem under study, poverty reduction in Murang’a
County and Kenya at large . The chapter also outlines that in all development projects, ther e are
change agents (the outsiders) and local people (the beneficiaries) who come together in order
to share knowledge and trust.
The chapter also brings out the variables under study – participatory communication and poverty
reduction explaining why they a re important to the study, explaining how the study will
contribute towards the issue. It also provides the objectives for the study and its significance.

10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.0 Introduction
According to Wiersma (199 5:406), a review of the literature provides the background and
context for the research problem, establishing the need for the research and indicates the level
of knowledge about the area of study.
Kombo (2006) argues that literature review gives the resea rcher insight into what has already
been done in the selected field, pinpointing its strengths and weaknesses. Understanding the
previous inquiry aids the researcher to identify a significant problem which will provide new
knowledge in the area under study .
2.1 Participatory communication
No unanimity exists about a single definition of participation but the different scholars agree
on the gist of the subject and the variations d epends on the context applied. Some stakeholders
define it as the mobilization of human beings to eliminate unjust hierarchies of knowledge,
power and economic distribution while others define it as the reach and inclusion of inputs by
relevant groups in the design and implementation of a development project (Tufte &
Mefalopulos , 2009).
Therefore for people to participate they must become conscious of their own dignity and they
must express themselves and have an opportunity to have their say. The Oxford English
Dictionary defines participation as the act of taking part in something and in poverty reduction
efforts it puts the target group at the centre of the process. They actively take part in the process.
The term ‘participatory communication ’ is used to refer to approaches and methods which use
dialogue to boost people’s awareness and confidence and empower their action in realizing

11
development. To facilitate participation, research teams and development practitioners must
consider the people they want to communicate with as partners in a development effort, and
not merely as benef iciaries (Bessete, 2004)
Participatory communication is an approach based on dialogue which allows the sharing of
information, perceptions and opinions among the various stakeholders and thereby facilitates
their empowerment, especially for those who are m ost vulnerable and marginalise d ( Tufte &
Mefalopulos, 2009). Participatory communication stresses the need to counter perennial
tendency among those who hold power of being paternalistic and authoritarian. It therefore
advocates for a more democratic appro ach to development where it becomes ‘development of
the people, for the people and by the people.’
According to Bessete (2004) participatory communication is a planned activity, based on the
one hand on participatory processes, and on the other hand on med ia and interpersonal
communication, which facilitates a dialogue among different stakeholders, around a common
development problem or goal, with the objective of developing and implementing a set of
activities to contribute to its solution, or its realizat ion, and which supports a nd accompanies
this initiative. The development practitioner uses a communication tool to enhance
participation. Therefore the stakeholders in poverty reduction efforts i.e. community members,
active community groups, local and reg ional authorities, NGOs, government technical services
or other institutions working at the community level engage in dialogue to identify problems,
make decisions and initiate action.
According to Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009) participatory communication is not just the
exchange of information and experiences but is also the exploration and generation of new
knowledge aimed at addressing situations that need to be improved. The beneficiaries are
involved in the baseline survey stage to identify their needs . Instead of starting with an

12
innovation or a behaviour or an organiza tion’s priorities, increasingly participatory
communication interventions are emphasizing the individual or family or community as the
centre of the d evelopment process (Colle, 2008)
Participatory communication posits that communities should be the main protagonists of
processes of social change rather than ‘passive beneficiaries’ of decisions made by foreign
experts (Waisboard, 2008 ). Therefore the outsider and the beneficiaries do not j ust exchange
information on what is to be done but they actively participate in crafting the methodology of
how it should be done. The identification and assessment of the beneficiary needs involve
participatory action research
According to Waisboard (2008 ) participatory communication proposes a ‘communitarian’
view that makes deliberation and participation in public affairs, rather than information –
transmission (including message design and media technologies), the essential elements of
communication and p erceives ‘development’ as a transformative process at both individual and
social levels through which communities become empowered. It promotes local forms of
knowledge for change.
In order to share information, knowledge, trust, commitment and a right att itude in
development projects , participation is very important in any decision -making process for
development ( Servaes, 2008)

13
2.2 Poverty reduction
The problem of poverty and how to reduce it remains the most pressing dilemma in the
international deve lopment debate. Combating poverty is seen as the prime goal of development
and this make it matter more to know what poverty is. Poverty is now thought of as a kind of
generalised lacking, or a state of being without some essential goods and services. Poor people
are people deprived of things that they need to live a normal life (Toyte, 2007)
2.2.1 Drivers and Maintainers of Poverty
With the understanding of the challenge that extreme poverty presents to society, the United
Nations adopted the goal to eradi cate extreme poverty and halve, between 1990 and 2015, the
proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day. Handley et al (2009) argues
that while efforts are made to reduce poverty in Sub Saharan Africa there are factors that
continue to hinder that success. They refer to those factors as the socio -economic drivers and
maintainers of poverty.
People everywhere face risks and vulnerabilities but poor people, especially those living in
rural areas dependant on agriculture and in tropical ec ologies face more than others. This is
true of a large proportion of the Kenyan population like is the rest of Sub Saharan Africa.
According to Handley et al (2009) there are a number of risks and vulnerabilities that drive and
maintain poverty in Sub Saha ran Africa, including harvest failure, market failure and volatility,
conflict, and health shocks.
A different approach of discerning about the roots of poverty is to think in terms of capabilities.
These, according to Sen (1999), reflect a person’s freedo m or ability to choose the way he or
she wishes to live. These include the capacity to be free from hunger, to become educated, and
to earn a decent living and as such, they are interconnected and mutually reinforcing.

14
People trapped in persistent poverty tend to experience multiple ‘capability deprivations’
concurrently. That is, they are illiterate, have inadequate nutrition, poor human rights, and
insufficient income and livelihood opportunities, which taken together drive and maintain their
poverty and ensure it passes across generations (CPRC, 2004: 40).
Handley et al also posits that inequality, exclusion and adverse incorporation also contribute to
poverty. Inequality, which is generally defined as the proportion of, and gaps between, the rich
and the poor, can exist and contribute to poverty in a range of dimensions. Inequalities in
income and other economic indicators, such as asset ownership, are often persistent, deeply
rooted and typically a result of political forces that enable powerful groups t o protect their
wealth, and of market imperfections that make it difficult for those who have low incomes and
low savings to accumulate capital. (Handley et al, 2009 p 4)
2.2.2 Poverty Reduction Strategies
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were artic ulated in September 2000 at the United
Nations Millennium Summit. They are time bound, measurable targets for combating poverty,
among other development needs such as disease, hunger, illiteracy, environmental degradation
and discrimination against women b y 2015. They form a design agreed internationally for
combating poverty and have galvanised an unprecedented level of support for meeting the
needs of the world’s poorest people (United Nations, 2007a).
2.3 Participatory approaches in community projects
Participatory development communication approaches have taken root in some countries and
their application has yielded considerable results. These approaches have been implemented in
participatory forest management in Tanzania.

15
2.3.1 Participatory forest man agement in Tanzania
The PFM was introduced as an approach to managing Tanzania’s forests and allowed under
specific conditions local communities to benefit legally from nearby forests. Deforestation is a
serious concern in Tanzania and other East African c ountries.
Two approaches to PFM were adopted where villagers could declare and gazette forest areas
on village land as ‘Village Land Forest Reserves.’ The villagers took full management
responsibility, setting and enforcing rules and regulations over the f orest management and use,
including the collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) . However according to
Robinson and Maganga (2009) the PFM approaches did not deliver the expected results. The
level of awareness and information among the stakeholder s was different and the intended
beneficiaries did not own the project despite the benefits it portended for them.
The other approach joint forest management (JFM) regarded the management of local and
national forest reserves where villagers enter agreeme nts with the forest division and are given
right to collect forest resources such as timber and firewood. Common concerns among
stakeholders were that the importance of forest products for rural livelihoods were not
sufficiently understood and so poverty c ould increase without officials realizing, that forest
regulations are not sufficiently clear concerning the involvement of villagers in forest activities;
that communication among regional, district, and ward officials is not sufficient; that guidelines
are not clear; and that there is a limited capacity of partners to negotiate in JFM because of a
lack of knowledge and rights (Robinson &Maganga, 2009)
According to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania
(2008) if communi ties are to be fully protected and empowered to manage forests for their own
benefits, there is also a need to ensure that PFM processes comply with the legal r equirements
set out in the law. Other concerns were the lack of real enforcement on the ground, despite
often well drawn out plans; limited resources for participatory activities; the lack of willingness

16
of some stakeholders to share information fully and release power to villagers; and frustration
with the long delays in the implementation of JFM an d CBFM progr ammes (Robinson
&Maganga, 2009).
2.4 The institutional challenges of participatory communication
According to Waisboard (2008) the aid system has adapted an instrumental notion of
participation as a means to achieve predetermined ends. He adds that participation has become
a meaningless and bland term, a decorative piece in a system that continues to keep states,
agencies, and experts in control. This means that application of participatory communication
is non -existent and this compromises the development since communication is an ingredient
without which development in economic fronts would be hard to achieve (Moemeka, 1994)
What was once a subversive position that aimed to turn development upside down,
participation has become part of the disc ursive disguise of ‘developmentalism,’ a mere
rhetorical piece in the service of neo -liberalism and policies imposed upon communities around
the world (Cornwall, 2007 as quoted in Waisboard 2008) . Participatory communication should
be enveloped at all sta ges of the projects but Waisboard identifies that Participatory action
research (PAR) and similar methodologies that foreground community knowledge are
circumstantially used, but they are rarely the starting point.
Even when participatory approaches are ad opted in problem solution the identification of the
problem is often done by the expatriates, the solution already imagined and the involvement of
the beneficiaries is often done to legitimise the parti cipatory nature of the efforts. According to
Bill Cook e and Uma Khotari (2001 as cited in Waisboard 2008) programs are hardly subjected
to the ‘tyranny of participation,’ instead they follow pre -established goals decided at the
national, regional, and/or global levels such as improving tuberculosis control or reducing child
mortality.

17
David Mosse’s (2005) reflections on the obstacles for integrating participation in a rural
development project in India offer a useful point of comparison to understand the institutional
limitations for participatory communica tion. Even when key parties were committed to making
participation central, turning it into a concrete action was fraught with problems. Participation
was viewed as a too time -consuming approach that required intensive use of human resources.
Officials wer e doubtful about a participatory approach given the limited scale of the program
and the difficulty for replicating it in other communities. Therefore participatory
communication face the problem of unpredictability.
Institutional imperatives are responsi ble for why essential participatory ideas, namely local
knowledge and decision -making, are rarely at the forefron t of development initiatives.
Waisboard (2008) argues that a system of administrative procedures that rewards established
efficiency and weaken s empowerment, and reduces participation to publicity copy . The
emphasis according to Waisboard is more on the informational communication as opposed to
participatory communication in development agencies.
According to Uphoff (1985) participation plays a w eaker role in the centrality of local
knowledge in determining problems, identifying solutions, and assessing results. Communities,
rather than experts or other external agents, should determine challenges and decide appropriate
courses of action to tackle problems through dialogue and critical thinking but this is not often
the case. Uphoff argues that this being the first stage of participation, it is often bypassed by
development change agents who assume to know the contextual reality of the beneficiarie s.
Available evidence suggests that development programs are more likely to feature active
communities involved in the implementation of activities rather than assessing problems and
solutions or making decisions about goals (Holland & Blackburn, 1998) . Communities have a
central role in making decisions about the goals and the direction of programs and actions. If

18
decisions are left to agencies and their cadres of professionals, programs and actions are
disconnected from the actual motivations and expectat ions of communities.

2.5 The origin of participatory communication
Its origin owes to the works and inspiration of the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire in his book
Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970 ) in which he projected a view that poor and exploited people
can and should be enabled to conduct their own analysis of their own reality (Chambers ,1992)
The participatory communication approach has dominated the field of development
communication since the 1970s, w hen Paulo Freire, proposed the replacement of th e
pedagogical system with a more liberating type of communication that would contain more
dialogue and would be more receiver -centred and more conscious of social structure (Muturi
& Mwangi, 2009 )
2.5.1 The pedagogy of the oppressed

In the mid-1970s , Pau lo Freire proposed the replacement of the pedagogical system of learning
with a more emancipating type of communication that would contain more dialogue and would
be more receiver -centred and more conscious of social structure , different from other top -down
approaches (Freire 1970).
He argued that dialogue cannot occur between those who want to name the world and those
who do not wish the world named – between those who deny others the right to speak their word
and those whose right to speak has been denied. For dialogue to take place, those who right to
speak has been denied must first reclaim it. Freire idea of society is based on the idea of
dialectical materialism where there is an oppressor class and the oppressed class, his main
concern being with the s tate of consciousness of the oppressed class.

19
Oppression involves imposition of one individual’s choice upon another, transforming the
consciousness of the one person into one that conforms to the consciousness of the other.
However during the first stages of the struggle, the oppressed tends to become oppressors.
Dialogue is the key to successful emancipation of the oppressed and this means that projects
should not be a preserve of the affluent instead all the stakeholders should participate in the
process . Without dialogue, the dominant ideologies neglect the world view of the beneficiaries.
Citing Paulo Friere, De Melo (1979 as quoted in Gumicio -Dagron 2006) says that every
democratic experience is made feasible as a work of society by the very hands of i ts people i.e
with the participation of its people. The essence of development thus lies in people’s
participation, in their power to decide and choose.
For people to participate, they must become conscious of their own dignity. This in turn means
that the y must express themselves and be given the opportunity to have their say, based on the
individual reality that infuses each person’s life (Gumicio -Dagron & Tufte, 2006). Therefore
the pedagogy of the oppressed seeks to answer the core problem of communicat ion. It is part
of the struggle of man for his own humanization. For this reason it is a pedagogy f orged with
man and not for man De Melo (1979).
Participation th us cannot exist without dialogue and according to Freire (1970) dialogue cannot
exists if cer tain conditions are not met. In the absence of a profound love for the world and for
the people, there will be domination of one group of people over another group and since
dialogue is founded on the principle of love, there can be no real participation w ithout love . “If
I do not love the world – if I do not love life -if I do not love people – I cannot enter into dialogue.”
Dialogue can also not exists without humility. The naming of the world, through which people
constantly re -create that world, cannot be an act of ignorance. Dialogue as an encounter of

20
those addressed to the common task of learning and acting is broken if the parties lack humility
(Freire, 1970)
Without faith in humankind, dialogue cannot exist. In this case the stakeholders must have fait h
in each other’s power to make and remake their world. In his pedagogy, Freire sought to counter
an already existing approach to education and creating understanding between the teacher and
the student. The anti – dialogical banking method saw the teacher as having full autonomy over
the subject. This means that the teacher would depending on their discretion deposit the
knowledge they held on the students from time to time. In this method there was less dialogue
and the participation of the students in the advancement of knowledge was curtailed.
This method of learning adopted a top -down approach to education that assumed that the
teacher knew what was best for the student and there was little or no dialogue between the
stakeholders in the naming of the wo rld. The students are merely perceive receivers of
education. To counter this, Freire proposed a new model that h e called the problem -posing
method. Freire proposes that the themes of an education for the rural poor in South America be
ones from their own experience and that they be trained in critical reflection on their own
experience.
Freire sees clearly how the teacher in a banking system assumes that the students know nothing
and projects an absolute ignorance onto others. He describes the modern teach er presents
himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he
justif ies his existence (Freire 1970). The new model proposes that it is not always the case that
the teacher knows and the student does not. It pr oposes a situation where the student and the
teacher approach a problem together.
Freire’s new model has influence d participatory communication discourse and the idea of
participation pegged on the fact that both the outsider and the intended beneficiary m ust

21
approach a p roblem together. The change agent must enter into dialogue with the beneficiary
instead of adopting a purely top -down approach. They should be able to bring the community
members to express their points of view and listen to others, and to build consensus around a
course of action. This demands the ability to listen, to be aware of the participants' viewpoints
and to be in a position to bring them to share information and views. (Bessete, 2004)
The ideas of Paulo Freire have influenced the development communication discourse over the
years and provided knowledge for the central themes of participatory communication. Where
Freire sees dialogue as important in helping the student and the teacher understand their world,
development communicatio n scholars sees dialogue as imperative in identifying the needs off
the poor.

22
Figure 2.1: Anti -dialogical banking method

Source: Researcher (2015)

Problem identification
Action
Implementation
Ex-post evaluation
CHANGE AGENT
BENEFICIARIES

23
2.6 Diffusion model versus participatory communication
Participatory commun ication and diffusion of innovation are the two dominant development
communication paradigms but they propose different approaches to development. The end for
both is the same, to see the adoption of a new innovation or bring change in society, they differ
in the means.
While participatory communication proposes a more pragmatic approach where the people are
at the centre of their own development, the diffusion of innovation theory adopts a top down
approach where opinion leaders as early adopters receive the information from the innovator
(change agent) and pass the same message to the other members of the community.
Everett Rodgers (2003) proposed a model that looked at the process that occurs as people adopt
a new idea, product, practice, philosophy, an d so on. He called the model diffusion of
innovation theory, arguing that that in most cases, an initial few are open to the new idea and
adopt its use. As these early innovators ‘spread the word’ more and more people become open
to it which leads to the d evelopment of a critical mass (Kaminski, 2011). Over time, the
innovative idea or product becomes diffused amongst the population until a saturation point is
achieved. According to Rodgers (200 3) a common problem for many individuals and
organizations is h ow to speed up the rate of diffusion of an innovation.
Newer perspectives on development communication claim that this is still a limited view of
development communication. They argue that this diffusion model is a vertical or one -way
perspective on commu nication, and that active involvement in the process of the
communication itself will accelerate development (Servaes, 2008)
Unlike the diffusion of innovation, participatory communication stresses that the point of
departure of development initiatives mus t be the community. According to Servaes (2008) it is

24
at the community level that the problems of living conditions are discussed, and interactions
with other communities are elicited.
The diffusion model and the participatory communication model have stoo d out over time as
the two main approaches of communication for development. The diffusion model aimed at
solving problems due to a lack of knowledge and information. Change is thus driven by the
change agents and provides little room for the in volvement o f the beneficiaries. Despite being
the dominant paradigm in the 1940s and 1950s, the diffusion of innovation model and the
communication model it adopts has since been replaced by the participatory communication
model that appreciates horizontal communicat ion as opposed to downward communication for
development.
Figure 2.2: Diffusion of innovation model

Source: worldhistoryreview.org

25
2.7 stages of development projects
According to the European Commission (2004) a project is a series of activities aime d at
bringing about clearly specified objectives within a defined time -period and with a defined
budget. In the development process, projects are undertaken with the objective of meeting
developmental needs. They undergo through various stages to realize t he objectives.
The way in which projects are planned and carried out follows a sequence beginning with an
agreed strategy, which leads to an idea for a specific action, oriented to -wards achieving a set
of objectives, which then is formulated, implemented, and evaluated with a view to improving
the strategy and further action (Particip, 2002) . Adopting a participatory communication
approach the initial stage of the development project involve identification of the needs of the
beneficiaries. This is achieve d through the dialogic process between the stakeholders.
The project cycle provides a structure to ensure that stakeholders are consulted and relevant
information is available, so that informed decisions can be made at key stages in the life of a
project. The generic project cycle has six stages; programming, identification, appraisal,
financing, implementation and evaluation. (Particip, 2002).
During the Programming phase, the situation is ana lysed to identify problems, constraints and
opportunities which co-operation could address. This involves a review of socio -economic
indicators, and of national and donor priorities. The purpose is to identify the ma in objectives
and to provide a relevant and feasible programming frame -work within which projects can be
identified and prepared .
During the Identification phase established by the Country Strategy Paper (2002), the stress is
on analysis of relevance of project ideas, which includes an analysis of the stakeholders and of
the likely target groups and benefic iaries (who they are: women and men from different socio –

26
economic groups; assessment of their potentials) and of the situation, including an analysis of
the problems they face, and the identification of options to address these problems.
During the Apprais al phase relevant project ideas are developed into project plans. The
particular stress should be on feasibility and sustainability and quality of the suggested
intervention. Beneficiaries and other stakeholders participate in the detailed specification of
the project idea that is then assessed for its feasibility (whether it is likely to succeed) and
sustainability (whether it is likely to generate long -term benefits)
Once a project has been planned and financial support been secured, implementation can st art.
The agreed resources are used to achieve the Project Purpose and to contribute to the wider,
Overall Objectives. This usually involves contracts for studies, technical assistance, works or
supplies. Progress is assessed to enable adjustment to changin g circumstances.
Evaluation is an assessment of an ongoing or completed project, programme or policy, its
design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of
objectives, develop -mental efficiency, effectiveness, impa ct and sustainability. An evaluation
should pro -vide information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons
learned into the decision -making process of both recipients and donors

27
2.8 Conceptual framework
Figure 2.3 Participato ry development communication model

Source: Researcher (2015)
The figure above explain the relationship between the two variables under study. Development
projects go through a cycle before they achieve their intended objective s. The process involves
problem identification, planning, implementation and monitoring and ex -post evaluation.
Participatory communication is the glue that holds all these stages together to ensure success
and sustainability of the project.
PARTICIPATO RY
COMMUNICATION
(a) Information sharing
(b) Consultation
(c) Decision making PROBLEM
IDENTIFICATION
PLANNING
IMPLE MENTATION &
MONITORING EX-POST
EVALUATION

28
2.9 Theoretic al Framework
This study will be guided by two theories, participatory paradigm and the Social Cognitive
Theory.
2.9.1 Participatory Paradigm
The participatory paradigm of development stems from the dependency theorists who were
looking for a new way to dev elopment. The model sought to counter earlier beliefs in the
diffusion of innovations model developed by Everett Rodgers. It emphasizes the
empowerment, cultural reality and multidimensionality in the approaches of development
(Servaes, 2008).
The model is also founded on empowerment and participation and posits that development
cannot be approached from a linear perspective. This paradigm views the beneficiaries of
development as active participants in the attainment of their development goals while prev ious
paradigms viewed them as passive. This approach is grounded in a two way dialogic mode but
it also incorporates the monologic approaches and methods (Mefalopulos, 2008) Within this
approach, participatory communication becomes the essential tool, as it offers away to tap into
the knowledge of citizens and participants in the change process.
2.9.2 Social Cognitive Theory
The S ocial Cognitive Theory of Albert Bandura posits that people learn from each other
through observing, imitating and modellin g others while being guided by their proactive, self –
regulating, self -organizing and self -reflective nature (Bandura, 2009). This theory is a
behavioural change theory and argues that people observe actions and adopt those actions if
they result in the des ired behaviour. In the present study it can be argued that the beneficiaries
learn from the actions of the change agents through their interaction in the needs assessment
and implementation and in their interaction with other intended beneficiaries, they a dopt those
practices they deem highly productive.

29
According to Bandura the perceived or real rewards and punishments attracted by an action
taken by a few people will serve as a detriment or motivation for others. In the present study,
the involvement of a few dairy farmers at the needs assessment and implementation stages of
the projects will influence others positively into taking part in the participatory action.
2.10 Summary of chapter
This chapter provides a review of literature on the area of partic ipatory communication and
poverty reduction. It traces the origin of the participatory communication discourse to Paulo
Freire in his writings on the pedagogy of the oppressed and the critical praxis. The chapter also
reviews literature on the participator y approaches in community projects and the institutional
challenges of participatory communication. Participatory communication and diffusion model
as the two dominant development communication paradigms, the chapter makes contrast
between the two. The ch apter also contains a review of literature on poverty reduction, the
stages of development projects and also provides a conceptual framework.

30
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
The chapter is concerned with the research methodolog y to be employed during the research.
The chapter details the research design including the methods of data collection that were used
and sampling method used to select the participants of the research. It also specifies the data
presentation method s and r esearch instruments used. Therefor e, the methodology employed
aimed to collect and analyze data that would clearly reflect the relationship between the two
variables (participatory communication and poverty reduction)
3.1 Research Design
The study employ ed an exploratory research design to examine the research problem and offer
understanding into it without necessarily providing solutions to the research problem. However
this design wa s chosen because it would lead to the discovery of new knowledge and allo w for
free flow of information, providing room for further inquiry. According to Kothari (2004) the
research procedure in exploratory research design is flexible and allows for amendment of
aspects of the study due to the likelihood of discovering new aspe cts of the phenomena under
study.
3.2 Study population
The study target ed the beneficiaries of this development project within Murang’a County . The
citizens targeted were be both male and female above the age of 18years who currently engage
in dairy farmin g activities in Murang’a County.
According to the 2009 census the county has a total population of 942,581. However this
research studied three constituencies of the seven constituencies in the County where the
project has been implemented. The three cons tituencies are Kangema, Kiharu and Gatanga with
a combined population of 421,661 according to the census. Including different positions in the

31
target population will ensure d that the researcher gets varied views that would help achieve
objective data.
3.3 Sample size and sampling techniques
3.3.1 Sample size
According to Kombo (2006) a sample is a finite part of a statistical population such that the
selected group contains elements representative of the characteristics found in the entire group.
These char acteristics are studied to gain information about the whole.
To obtain the desired sample size, this study adopted a model proposed by Yamani in Keyton
(2001). The formula used is
= n/1 +N (e)2 When n is the sample size, N is the population size, e is t he
degree of tolerable error and 1 is constant
Using this formula therefore and allowing 5% error margin, the study sample w as
n= 421661/1 + 421661(0.05)2
n=400
3.3.2 Sampling procedures and techniques
Probabi lity sampling techniques were used in this stud y. According to Kombo (2006) the use
of this sampling method gives all units in the study population an equal chance of selection in
the sample. The study adopted cluster sampling method where t he three constituencies were
the desired clusters and samples were be obtained from the clusters using simple random
sampling techniques depending on the population size.
This means that using this technique, there were be 172 respondents from Kiharu constituency,
73 from Kangema constituency and 155 from Gatanga.

32
3.4 Data collection methods
The study employ ed both quantitative and qualitative data c ollection methods. The
questionnai res had both close ended and open ended questions. Primary data was collected by
administering questionnaires to the respondents and conducting interviews with farmers . Data
collection for the study was primarily fieldwork. The chief data collection te chniques were
questionnaires and interviews .
3.4.1 Questionnaires
The use of questionnaire to get response from the beneficiaries aims to get standard response
across the b oard. All the beneficiaries respond ed to the same quest ions and the data obtained
was subjected to the statistical process to come up with a comprehensive finding. The
questionnaires were be in English with a Kiswahili translation for respondents who may be
unfamiliar with the English language.
The questionnaires were designed in a way that the researcher would get response that would
cover all the variables identified in the conceptual framework. Questionnaires were easy to
administer within the target population. Data collected using structured questionnaires is also
easily analysed (Denscombe, 2007: 35). The questions were structured to be able to get
quantitative data that was be used to answer research questions and fulfil the objectives and
aims of the research. The questionnaires were be dropped and later picked from the respondents
while some were administered physically with the aid of a research assistant.

3.4.2 Interviews
The use of interviews helped obtain de tailed information about the project from both large scale
and small scale farmers in the county. The interviews were semi -structured and therefore used
an interview guide. Interview method , as argued by Strauss & Corbin (1990), enables striking
a rapport with the participants thereby enabling the researcher easily win their trust. This is
necessary for the interviewees to freely express themselves and capture the desired information.

33
To direct the interview, an interview schedule was used. According to Kot hari (2004) an
interview schedule is a list of questions that are asked in the interview process. Six farmers
were interviewed for about 30 minutes each, where field notes were taken to capture the
participant’s views.
3.5 Data analysis and Presentation Me thods
The research used questionnaires and interviews as the methods for data collection. The data
collected was integrated for analysis. After administering the questionnaires the researcher
intends to code and have the information converted into numeric al codes for statistical analysis.
A computer software, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) will be used for data
analysis. Descriptive statistics will be computed for all the variables to ensure quality of data.
These statistics were used to sh ow the relationships between variables. The effectiveness of the
analysis of the data also determines how the interpretation of the results would be accurate.
Walliman (2011) states that whenever faulty analytical instruments and methods are used in a
research, the interpretation of the results is also expected to be wrong making the whole process
invalid. According to Creswell (2002), qualitative research dwells more on the intangible
factors that emanates from human activity

34

Figure 3.1: A map of Murang ’a County showing wards Source (Murang’a.go.ke)

35
3.6 Ethical considerations
Since the research is conducted in Kenya and its findings intends to contribute to the study of
human behaviours , the researcher request ed for a formal letter from the Universit y of Nairobi,
administration to facilitate data collection process. The identity of the participants will not be
revealed and before questionnaires we re admi nistered , the con sent of the participant was
requested.
3.7 Summary of chapter
This chapter ela borates on how the research was carried out. It sets out the method a nd strategy
that were used to mak e sure that the data collected wa s valid and help in answering all the
research questions laid down and meeting the research objectives and aims. From the onset, it
was defined that the resear ch to be carried out was prim ary. The research use d questionnaires
and interviews as the ma in tools to collect data from the beneficiaries . Finally the chapter
discussed the research tools to be used and explain the si gnificance of the tool and more so its
effectiveness to this particular study.

36
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION , ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.0 Introduction
This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the data collected. The pu rpose of this
research was to find out the contribution of participatory communication in poverty reduction
efforts in Kenya with an interest in the milk coolers project, an initiative of the Murang’a
County government. The interpretations made in this chapte r and the discussions made are in
relation with the objectives of the study.
The research was conducted on a sample of 400 respondents and six interviewees from
Murang’a County who are the intended beneficiaries of the poverty reduction efforts and to
whom questionnaires were administered. The statistics analysed were used to show the
relationships between variables. Out of the 400 questionnaires, 340 questionnaires were duly
filled and this represents a response rate of 85%.
4.1 Demographics
The following is the presentation of demographic data collected using the questionnaires from
the field.

37
4.1.1 Analysis of Respondents by Gender
Of the 340 respondents the study sought to ascertain informat ion in regards to their gender.
From the findings, the figu re below reveals that 56 % of the respondents were male while 44%
were female.

Figure 4.1: Gender of the respondents

Source: Researcher 2015

They were more male respondent compared to females meaning that the number of male
beneficiaries of the pr oject in Murang’a County was slightly higher compared to their female
counterparts .

44%
56%

38
4.1.2 Analysis of respondents by Age
The study sought to find out the respondent’s age distribution and the questionnaire required
the respondents to fill in the ir age category. Table 4.1 indicates the distribution of the
respondents by age
Table 4.1 Ana lysis of the Respondents by Age

YEARS FREQUENCY PERCENT
18-24 23 7
25-30 24 7
31-40 48 14
41-50 126 37
51-60 85 25
60 and above 34 10
Total 340 100
Source: Researcher 2015

From the table above, the majority of the respondents 37% were between the age category of
41-50. This represents 126 out of the total 340 respondents. 25% of the respondents are aged
between 51 and 60 while 10% are aged 6 0 and above. 48 respondents were aged between 31
and 40 which represents 14%. The above findings indicate that the majority of the beneficiaries
of the project are between the ages of 41 and 50.

39
4.1.3 Level of education
Further the study sought to find out the respondents level of education and the respondents
filled in their highest level of education as represented in the figure below.
Figure 4.2 Respondents level of education

Source: Researcher 2015

From the findings 48% of respondents has secon dary school education, 30% of the respondents
has university/college education and 11 % indicated they had primary school education while
12% of the respondents indicated they had no formal education. The findings indicate that
nearly half of the beneficiar ies 48% had achieved a minimum of secondary education. This
means that in addition to those that had attained university/college education, 78% of all
respondents had minimum O level education.

40
4.1.4 Respondents’ occupation
In order to understand the respondents’ occupation, the respondents were asked to indicate their
current occupation.

Figure 4.3 Respondents’ current occupation

Source: Researcher 2015

From t he findings above , 52% of the respondents indicated that they were farmers howev er
there are other beneficiaries whose engaged in other activities apart from farming , 20%
indicated they were private business people, 12% of the respondents indicated they were
teachers, 7% were students, 5% were retired civil servants, 2% were civil ser vants, 2% were
members of the civil society while 1% of the respondents were unemployed. There were
provisions in the questionnaire to indicate any other occupation save for those provided but
there were no returns on different occupations. This means tha t the majority of the beneficiaries
of the project were full time farmers, represented by 176 of the total 340 respondents.

20%
52% 2%
12%
5%
7% 2%

41
4.2 Knowledge of the Milk Coolers project
The study sought to find out whether the respondents were aware of the project that had been
initiated and implemented by the Murang’a County government.
Figure 4.4 Knowledge on the Milk Coolers Project

Source: Researcher 2015

From the findings above, it emerged that 85% of the respondents were aware of this project
representing 29 0 respondents of the total 340. However 15% of the respondents had no prior
knowledge of the existence of the project, this represents 50 of the total 340 respondents. From
the findings it is clear that there was an awareness of the project among its inten ded
beneficiaries.
When the same question was asked during the interview with prominent farmers in dairy
farming , the responses were affirmative that they had knowledge of this project even if most
observed that they did not have detailed information about it and had received scanty details
through the media.
These findings augurs well with the arguments advanced by Gumicio -Dagron (2006) that for
people to participate they must become conscious of their own dignity. This means that they
must be able to expr ess themselves and be given an opportunity to have their say, based on the
85%
15%

42
individual reality that infuses each person’s life. In shaping their own reality, beneficiaries of
development must become conscious of the world around them.

4.3 Source of Inform ation on the Project
The study further sought to find out which communication vehicles had been used to reach out
to the beneficiaries on this project. This information was obtained from 85% of the respondents
who indicated that they were aware of the proj ect. The figure below indicates the sources of
information
Figure 4.5 Source of Information on the project

Source: Researcher 2015
From the findings it emerged that a majority of the respondents had obtained information about
the project from the radio i.e. 152 of the total 293 who were knowledgeable ab out the project,
representing 52 %. There were only 9 respondents who had obtained information about the
project from the newspapers representing 3%. 23% of the respondents indicated that they had
received information about the project through consultative meetings with the change agents.
This augurs well with the arguments advanced by Oriakhi & Okoedo –Okojie (2013) on the
preference of sources of information. They point out that sources that are easily a ccessible,

43
cheap and user friendly are preferred. The radio is a cheap media channel to acquire and
maintain and according to the findings of Oriare (2010) that a majority of Kenyans 90% listen
to the radio.

However the arguments of Sarvaes (2008) differ with the dominant use of the radio as
communication vehicle in participatory development approaches. He argues that in
development communication must be integrated with a number of other efforts so as to nurture
new behaviour in people. Once motivated wit h information and awareness about a new
practice, people need to learn and master new skills to enable them to apply it. The radio
presents a top -down approach unlike other interpersonal efforts such as the word of mouth and
consultative meetings. The comm unication approaches proposed by Sarvaes conform to
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, which holds that people learn through modelling and
imitation (Bandura, 1971)

44
4.4 Proposed communication vehicles
The study sought to find out from benefic iaries who had no information about the project on
what communication vehicle the change agent would have used to reach out to them. The
findings are presented in the table below.
Table 4.2 Proposed communication vehicles

Communication vehicle Frequency Valid Percent
Radio 21 48
Television 6 13
Consultative meetings 14 30
Billboards 4 9

Public service announcements 2 4
Total 47 100.0
Source: Researcher 2015
This question was presented to respondents who had no prior information on the proje ct,
representing 15% of the respondents. As presented in the table above, 48% chose the radio as
a likely communication vehicle to be used by the change agent to reach out to them while a
further 30% wanted to have consultative meetings with change agents. 2 respondents wanted
to get information on the project through public service announcements while 4 respondents
opted for billboards.
When the prominent farmers were asked whether they felt that the channels used to reach out
to the intended beneficiarie s were sufficient, they reported that there was need to adopt
channels that were more inclusive and interactive as opposed to just messages on the media.
Q3: Do you think the channels used to reach out to the farmers were sufficient and what do
you think should have been done to enhance reach?

45
A1: I have heard about this coolers on the radio but we have not had a chance to meet the
people in charge of this project to educate us more on how they are supposed to benefit us
A2: I think it would be best if the y had agricultural officers like they have in tea and coffee, to
come to the grassroots and tell us how we will benefit from this project. If we have to take our
milk to the coolers, it must be a better option than what we have now. I sell my own milk to
small scale consumers in the nearby towns, I have to be convinced why I should stop selling to
them and take to the cooler.
These findings however differs with Blanchet -Cohen (2014) who observes that aside from
creating awareness and interest among citizens , organizations focused on giving voice to
citizens’ problems and solutions, proposing for more interactive communication forms rather
than the top -down methods.
4.5 Consultation in the identification of the project
In order to find out if the intended cha nge agents had perceived the beneficiaries as equals in
the development process as is premise in the participatory communication paradigm, the
respondents were asked to indicate of they had been consulted in the identification of the
project. The findings of the stud are presented in the figure below.

46
Figure 4.6 Consultation in the identification of the project

Source: Researcher 2015

The findings above indicates that 73% of the respondents were not consulted in the
identification of the projec t while 27% were consulted. This means that whereas a significant
number of respondents were consulted, the change agents did not consider consulting the
intended beneficiaries as a prerequisite in the success of the project. Those who participated
indica ted that they took part in public forums and consultative meetings with the change agents.
Jihandra (2014) argues that development approaches developed with little understanding of
local contexts may yield no incentive to participate

73% 27%

47
4.6 Did chang e agents encourage public to participate in implementation of the project
Apart from finding out if the beneficiaries were consulted in the identification of the project,
the study sought to find out if the respondents took part in the implementation of th e project
and if they did, how did they take part. The findings are presented in the figure below
Figure 4.7: Did change agents encourage public to participate in implementation

Source: Researcher 2015
A total of 51% of the respondents indicated that the change agent (Murang’a County
Government) encouraged the public to participate in the implementation of the project while
49% of the respondents indicated that the change agent did not encourage the beneficiaries to
take part in the implementation of t he project. Those who sa id that the beneficiaries were
encouraged to take part in the implementation cited that this was done through the provision of
incentives to the beneficiaries. The change agent provided free Nap pier grass (fodder), public
forums whe re free training was offered to the beneficiaries as well as provision of free services.

49% 51%

48
4.7 Participation in consultative meetings on the project
On the question of whether the respondents had participated in consultative meetings before,
during and after the implementation of the project, 53% of th e respondents said they had
participated in consultative meetings on this project. The findings are represented in the figure
below.
Figure 4.8: Participation in consultative meetings on the project

Sourc e: Researcher 2015

The findings indicate that 52.6%, representing 179 of the total 340 respondents , said they had
participated in consultative meetings with the change agents on this project while 47.4% of the
respondents said they had not participated in the consultative meetings .
Conversely from the interviews conducted the farmers indicated that they had not participated
in the identification of the project. They observed that they came to know of the project during
its implementation when it was annou nced on the media, noting that they were later involved
only to ‘rubber stamp’ the operations of the county government.

49
4.8 Kind of meeting
The study further sought to find out from the respondents who indicated they had participated
in consultative meet ings with the change agents on what kind of meetings they were. The
findings are presented in the figure below
Figure 4.9: Kind of meeting

Source: Researcher 2015

The above findings were obtained from the 179 respondents who indicated that they ha d
participated in consultative meetings on the project. 33% of them, which represents 59
respondents, said took part in decision making meetings, 30% took part in training and skill
building and 23% took part in information oriented meetings while 14%, rep resenting 25
respondents took part in problem solving meetings.
4.9 Whether beneficiary input was sought during implementation
On the question of whether the beneficiaries took part in the implementation of the project, the
study kindly requested the resp ondents to indicate if their input had been sought during
implementation. Participatory communication as a development paradigm advocates for the
beneficiaries to actively take part in the implementation of the project. The findings are
presented in the fi gure below
23%
33% 30%
14%

50
Figure 4:10: Whether beneficiary input was sought during implementation

Source: Researcher 2015
This study observed that 81% of the respondents indicated that they had not been involved in
the implementation of the project, representing 275 of the total 340 respondents. 19% of the
respondents indicated that they had been involved during the implementation of the project.
This can be interpreted to mean that there was less participation by the intended beneficiary
during the implementation o f the project, adopting an anti -dialogical banking model to
development. In a community, participation can help promote improvements in efficiency,
accountability and transparency of resource allocation and development (Fung andWright,
2001). Chambers (198 3) observes that participation is the key to genuine and sustainable
poverty alleviation, as increased participation can enhance ownership and commitment among
the ‘local and poor’ people.

81% 19%

51
4.10 Increase participation
The study further sought to find out what the respondents thought should have b een done to
increase the participa tion of the intended beneficiaries. The findings are presented in the figure
below

Figure 4.11 : What should have been done to increase participation

The study found that 44 % of the respondents indicated that the change agent should have
involved the local people at the implementation of the project, 28% indicated that the change
agent should have held public information forums with the beneficiaries while 27% indicated
that the change agents should involve the local people in decision making.
From the interviews, all the interviewees confirmed that there was less participation among the
beneficiaries of this project and there was need for the change agent to do more to incr ease
participation. The question was posed to them and this is how some responded in verbatim
Q6: In your opinion what do you think should have been done to increase participation of the
people during the implementation of this project?

52
A1: Let me tell yo u, the main reason why this project has not achieved what it should have is
because we the people were not involved from the beginning. In my opinion, I think the county
government should have called us farmers to a meeting and ask us what we feel about su ch a
project because we were meant to benefit from it. We have seen other farmers in areas such as
tea called to meetings in the factory where they discuss issues that concern them. It would have
been important for us to get involved before they started im plementing this project.
A2: Good leaders talk to their people and get their feelings on various issues that affect them.
We are not seeing the same with this county government which we unanimously voted into
office. They cannot be making plans without our knowledge yet those plans are supposed to
benefit us. Our views as the citizens is also important and they should involve us when they
are making such decisions.
A3: As farmers we have a lot of information about agriculture even if we do not have many
university degrees. We ought to be the ones running this project. We should be involved more.
In making a case for participation, Eversole (2012) argues that meaningful participation
requires that community members, the main actors in the development process , become
participants in their own right, while the community leader plays an important role in
stimu lating interest in participation

53
4.11 Consider the project a success
The study sought to establish whether the respondents perceived the project to have been a
success depending on their previous responses. On this question, 8% of the respondents
considered the project to have been successful while a majority 92% considered the project to
have been unsuccessful as indicated in the table below.

Cons ider Milk Coolers Project Success
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 27 7.9 7.9 7.9
No
313 92.1 92.1 100.0
Total
340 100.0 100.0
Table 4.3: Consider the project a success

Conversely these sentiments were shared during th e face to face interviews with both the large
scale and small scale farmers. They observed that this project had not reached its optimum
despite the fact that the plants were working. They also pointed out why they felt the project
had not reached its opti mum, the findings of which are presented below.
This can be interpreted to mean that the beneficiaries did not perceive the project to have been
successful. As proposed by Tosun (2000), the more engagement there is in the process, the
more self -reliance/ l ess dependence on others. For poverty reduction efforts to succeed, they
ought to be participatory, stakeholders are expected to engage in dialogue to foster analysis,
knowledge sharing, and exchange of perspectives to reach a consensus about the future of the
community (Green and Haines, 2007).

54
The study further sought to find out from those who indicated “NO” why they thought the
project was not successful and it was observed that 62% of the respondents said that it was
because the beneficiaries had not b een involved in the project. 28% of the respondents said
they was little information about the project, 6% indicated there was limited resources allocated
to the project while 5% sad there was outsider bias on the local people. The findings are
represented in the figure below.
Figure 4.12: Why the project did not succeed

Source: Researcher 2015

Q7: Do you consider this project a success and if not why do you think this project failed?
A1: Listen to me Sir, it is not possible for us to consider this project a success yet it was imposed
on us. I personally do not consider this project a success because it has not impacted on me as
a dairy farmer yet it was meant to benefit me. I am disappointed that those who brought about
this project did not see the need to consult me. They failed in doing so and most of us farmers
never owned this project. It is their project and that is why we do not consider it important to
take our milk to their coolers. We preserve our milk the same way we did before the county
62% 28% 6% 5%

55
government came into place and sell it to small scale consumers, hotels and schools the same
way we have been doing.
A2: I cannot say that we have benefited much from this project because it has not really helped
us. There was very little information abou t it and I think that is where they began to fail. It was
conceived in the boardrooms in the towns and they considered us farmers very foolish to have
any knowledge on this. Even when they began implementing it, we were never involved. We
only saw them com e to talk to us when some of the plants had been completed and they wanted
us to take our milk to them. They did not even offer a better alternative to what we had earlier
and therefore we did not see the need for the project. How can I take my milk to the cooler and
earn less than what I learn from selling my milk locally? I am a farmer who is in business, I
need to make profits not losses.
4.12 How the beneficiaries can contribute to make the project better
In order to identify the missing gaps in partic ipatory development that could have captured or
failed to capture, the study kindly requested the respondents to indicate how the beneficiaries
could contribute to make the project better. A majority of the respondents proposed the training
and building of skills among the beneficiaries to aid them take leading positions in the poverty
reduction projects.
The above sentiments were shared by farmers who were interviewed. They observed that once
the farmers needed to have the necessary skills to enable them take active part in the
implementation of such development projects. They indicated that this could only happen if
the change agents held training forums to equip them with the necessary know how to take part
in such projects.
These approaches borrow from those advanced by Gaventa (2004). He talks about different
spaces of participation such as ‘closed spaces’ where key decisions are taken behind closed

56
doors; ‘invited spaces’ where people are invited to participate by governments, which can
assume a routin ized form over years, and finally ‘created spaces’ that people come to occupy
by their own effort, through mobilisation. Seen in this light, most participatory planning sites
could be described as ‘invited spaces’

57
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the findings from the research with respect to the objectives of the
study, what these findings imply and gives recommendations for further research. This chapter
is structured into summary of the findings, conclusions, recommendations and area for further
research.
5.2 Summary of the findings
5.2.1 Communication channels used to reach out to local communities

From the finding of this study, several key things can be deduced in rela tion to this research
question . It is evident that majority of the beneficiaries of the Milk Coolers Project are not
without information on the project. Majority of the beneficiaries had information about the
project and had received the information from a variety of communica tion forms.
It emerged that a majority of the beneficiaries had relied on the radio as a communication
vehicle on informat ion about this project. This finding is in line with previous resear ch by
Oriare (2010) that a majority of Kenya ns 90% listen to the radio. The radio thus became a
successful tool in reaching out to the intended beneficiaries on information about the project.
This means that the radio has a major role in reaching out to the majority of Kenyans on matters
of national significance, development being among them.
Participatory communication however does not envision a communication paradigm where the
intended beneficiaries of development would be receivers of top -down communication but
promotes horizontal communication between the change agents and the beneficiaries as

58
opposed to a banking model to developme nt. C onsu ltative meetings were also influential in
reaching out to the beneficiaries. Interpersonal face to face communication methods that
adopted the word of mouth were also used in reaching out to intended beneficiaries.
Among those who said they had no prior information about the project, a majority like those
who had information proposed the radio as a likely communication channel to reach out to
them on the proje ct but this does not discard the place of consultative meetings between the
stakeholders.
This study thus found out that the radio, consultative meetings and interpersonal methods were
the communication methods used to reach out to local communities
5.2.2 Participation of local communities at the implementation stage of development

The participatory development paradigm proposes a view of development where the
beneficiary takes an active role throughout the development cycle. It proposes that the
benefic iary and the change agent join hands in participatory action research in identifying the
development needs and the implementation of the project to foster sustainability. This study
found out that a majority of the beneficiaries had not been consulted in t he identification of the
project . This explains why majority of the beneficiaries had received information about the
project through channels that propagate a banking model of development. Whereas a
significant number of respondents were encouraged to part icipate, the change agents did not
consider consulting the intended beneficiaries as a prerequisite in the success of the project.
Those who participated indicated that they took part in public forums and consultative m eetings
with the change agents.The s tudy also found out that the change agent (Murang’a County
Government) did not sufficiently encourage the public to participate in the implementation of
the project .

59
A majority of the respondents indicated that they had not been involved in the implementat ion
of the project. This can be interpreted to mean that there was less participation by the intended
beneficiary during the implementation of the project, adopting an anti -dialogical banking
model to development. In answering this research question, the s tudy therefore observes that
the beneficiary input during the project implementation was minimal, meaning that during the
implementation, the project did not adopt participatory development methods.

5.2.3 Role of participation on the success of poverty reduction efforts

The participatory development paradigm pegs the success of development initiatives on the
role of the beneficiary throughout the project. This study observed that the beneficiaries were
not involved in the ex -ante evaluation of the proje ct but were passive receivers of information
on the project. The findings indicate that a high majority of the beneficiaries did not consider
the project to hav e been successful while very few beneficiaries considered the proje ct was a
success. The finding s indicate that the majority said that they did not consider the project
because the beneficiaries had no t been involved in the project. It also emerged that there was
little informatio n about the project as well as outsider bias on the local people. These findings
proves true the basic postulates of the part icipatory development paradigm as advanced by
Chambers (1980) that poverty reduction efforts must enhance increased participation which
also enhances ownership and commitment among the ‘local and poor’ people.

60
5.3 Conclusions
This study purposed to establish how participatory communication could be used to reduce
poverty in Kenya hence improving the living standards of the people . To this end, the discourse
of the conclusions are grounded on the res ults of this case so as to leave room for unfounded
information or unconfirmed data.
The study concludes that a majority of the beneficiaries of this project had information about
the study but they had received information through communication vehicles that promoted the
banking model view of development (Freire, 1970). This means that efforts in identifying this
project as a development need for the people of Murang’a County did not involve the target
groups and the change agent adopted an outside bias, perceiving to understand the contextual
reality of the local people without involving them in the identification of their development
needs.
The study also concludes that the involvement of the beneficiaries during the implementation
stage of the project was very low and whereas majority of the respondents felt that through
holding meetings with the people, the change agent had encouraged them to take part during
the implementation, the change agent created no avenue for the local people to participate
during the implementation phase of the project. Like in other phases of the project, during
implementation, the beneficiaries were mere by standers, perceive receivers of development
and this could have devastating consequences on the sustainability of the p roject.
The study further concludes that efforts should be put in place to ensure that the people take
centre stage in the identification of development needs and implementation. Change agents in
the county and throughout Kenya should now adopt a new appr oach to development where all
stakeholders play an equal role and where outsider bias by the change agents are discarded.

61
5.4 Recommendations
Based on the findings of this research, several recommendations are made as follows.
5.4.1 Policy recommenda tions

First the County government should take participatory development and participatory
communication as efficient development approaches in the steps towards improving the living
standards of its citizenry. Lack of participation of the intended benefic iaries was the main
reason why the majority of the intended beneficiaries did not consider the project to have been
successful. Therefore the county government, rather than just send out information on
development projects through the mass media, should cr eate a platform where the views of the
citizenry are heard in the identification of development needs. Further they should conduct a
needs assessment survey of the development needs in the county to establish what development
needs are more pressing to the people and require urgent attention.
Save for encouraging the beneficiaries to take part in needs identification, the study further
recommends that the change agent should involve the local people in project implementation.
The change agents should hold public information forums with the people that are information
oriented and decision making and where solutions to problems that affect the people are crafted.
There sh ould be more training and skill building of the intended beneficiaries to ensure that th e
people can run any development project even after the change agent has left to foster
sustainability.
Lack of information on the project and outsider bias on the local people were cited as reasons
why the project did not succeed. To this end it is recom mended that the county government
should have a communication policy that details the engagement between the change agent and
the beneficiaries in terms of the communication, crafting of messages/information and a
horizontal communication approach among al l stakeholders.

62
5.4.2 Recommendations for further research

This study was limited to the contribution of participatory communication in poverty reduction
efforts in the area of study and as such there are many other factors that may aid in the reduction
of poverty in other areas of the republic that may not have been captured in the study area. This
study was conducted during a period of three months and did not capture the different variables
of the p roject during the project identification stage (ex -ante evaluation) . Therefore it is
recommended that a long term qualitative study be carried out in this area to capture those
variables.
The study focused on one poverty reduction effort, the Milk Coolers Project, and the findings
of the study may not be su fficient to make a case for all poverty reduction efforts in the county
and in the country. Therefore further research is required in other poverty reduction efforts to
explain the place of participatory communication in poverty reduction.
The study noted that the radio formed the bulk of information sources for most beneficiaries
while consultative meetings and the word of mouth were less popular. The study recommends
that further inquiry be conducted to on how consultative meetings and new communication
technologies can be used to improve information flow among beneficiaries of development
projects in rural Kenya.

63
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. & Poole, M. (2001 ). Assignment and thesis writing , 4thed. John Wiley & Sons
Australian Ltd.
Bandura, A. (2009). S ocial Cognitive Theory of Mas Communication. In J.Bryant and
D.Zillman (Eds). The psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and
Research (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Bessete G. (2004). Involving the community; A guide to Par ticipatory Development
Communication: SouthBound. Penang
Blanchet -Cohen, N. (2014). Igniting citizen participation in creating healthy built
environments; the role of community organisations: Oxford University Press
Brown D.L . (1985). People -Centered Deve lopment and Participatory Research. In Alfonso
Gumicio -Dragon and Thomas Tufte. (2006 ). Communication for Social Change; Anthology,
Historical and Contemporary Readings. New Jersey: Communication for Social Change
Consortium Inc.
Chambers R. (1983). Whose Priorities? In Alfonso Gumicio -Dragon and Thomas Tufte.
(2006). Communication for Social Change; Anthology, Historical and Contemporary
Readings. New Jersey: Communication for Social Change Consortium Inc.
CPRC (2004) The Chronic Poverty Report 2004 -05. Ma nchester : Chronic Poverty Research
Centre. Available at http://www.chronicpoverty.org/resources/cprc_report_2004 –
2005_contents.html
Cresswell, J. (2002). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches: Sage Publications. London

64
Denscombe, M., (2007). The Good Research Guide for small -scale social research projects ,
New York: McGraw -Hill
Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson and Faustin Maganga. (2009). The implications of improved
communications for participatory forest management in Tanzani a. BlackWell Publishing Ltd.
Dar Es Salaam
Eversole, R. (2012) Remarking participation: challenges for community development practice,
Community Development Journal, 47 (1), 29 –41.
Freire P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed . The Continuum International Publ ishing Group
Inc. New York
Fung, A. andWright, E. O. (2001) Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered
participatory governance, Politics and Society, 19 (1), 5 –41.
Government of Kenya. (2006). Kenya Vision 2030 . Nairobi
Gumicio D.A and Tufte T. (2006). Communication for Social Change;Anthology: Denise Gray –
Felder. New York
Green, G. P. and Haines, A. (2007) Asset Building & Community Development: Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Griffin E. (2012). A First Look at Communication Theory : McGraw -Hill. New Y ork
Handley G,Higgins K and Sharma B with Bird K and Cammack D. (2009). Poverty and Poverty
Reduction in Sub -Saharan Africa: An Overview of Key Issues. Overseas Development Insittute,
London
Holland, J., & Blackburn, J. (Eds.). (1998). Whose voice? Partici patory research and policy
change . London: IT Publications.

65
Jindahra, P. (2014). Participatory Community Development; evidence from Thailand: Oxford
University Press
Kaminski, J. (Spring 2011). Diffusion of Innovation Theory Canadian Journal of Nursing
Informatics , 6(2). Theory in Nursing Informatics Column. http://cjni.net/journal/?p=1444
Kombo D &Tromp D . Proposal and Thesis Writing: Paulines Publications. Nairobi
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and technology . New Age
International Pu blishers Ltd, India.
Mefalopulus P and Tufte T (2009). Participatory Communication; A Practical Guide: World
Bank. Washington DC
Moemeka, A.A (1994). Communicating for Development: A New Pan -Disciplinary
Perspective . New York. Suny Press
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. (2008). Participatory Forest Management in
Tanzania: Dar Es Salaam
Meriam, S. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education : Rev.and
Expanded. California: Jossey -Bass Inc.
Mugenda O. & Mugenda, A. 2008 Social Sc ience Research . Africa Centre for Technology
Studies Press (ACTS). Nairobi.
Mulwa F. (2008). Demystifying participatory community development: beginning from the
people the; ending at the people . Zapf Chancery,Nairobi
Muturi N and Mwangi S .(2009). The The ory and Practice Gap in Participatory
Communication : Journal of International Communication

66
Oriakhi,H. &Okoedo -Okojie, D.U. (2013). Arable Crop Farmers Preference for Agricultural
Information Sources and Adoption of Technology in Edo State, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of
Agriculture and Veterinary Science, Volume 3, Issue 1 (May -June. 2013). Benin City,
University of Benin,Nigeria
Oriare, P, Ugangu, W and Orlale, R (2010) The Media We Want : Friedich Ebert Stiftung
Rodgers E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations: The Free Press. London
Servaes J. (2008) Communication for Development and Social Change. Sage Publications.
London
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom . Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Smith D. (200). Communicating for Development. Daystar University,Nairob i
Strauss,A &Corbin J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Prodecures
abd Techniques. Newbury Park,CA. Sage Publications
Tosun, C. (2000) Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in
developing countries, Tour ism Management, 21, 613 –633.
Toyote J. (2007). Poverty Reduction: Routledge. London
Uphoff, N. (1985). Fitting projects to people. In M. Cernea (Ed.), Putting people first:
Sociological variables in rural development (pp. 369378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (2006). Poverty In Focus
Waisboard S. (2008). The institutional challenges of participatory communication in
international aid : Routledge. Washington DC
Wierasma, W. (1995). Research methods in education: An Introduction. 6th edn: Boston.

67
Ally and Bacon.
United Nations (2004). Human Rights and Poverty Reduction A Conceptual Framework.
Geneva
Government of Kenya. (2013). The Constituencies Development Fund Act, 2013. Retrieved
from http://www.kenya law.org on 6th March 2015
Walliman, N. (2011). Your Research Project: Designing and Planning your work (3rd Ed).
London: Sage
World Bank. (2013). Kenya Economic Update 2013 (8th editition) . Nairobi
World Bank. (2013). World Development Indicators 2013 . Washington, DC: World Bank.

68
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNARE
PARTCIPATORY COMMUNICATION IN POVERTY REDUCTION IN KENYA: A
STUDY OF MURANG’A COUNTY

I Njoroge Laban Ngumbo, a Masters student at the School of Journalism and Mass
Communic ation, University of Nairobi, conducting a research on the subject indicated above.
The primary aim of this research is to determine the contribution of participatory
communication in poverty reduction efforts in Kenya, a study of Murang’a County
The infor mation given herein will be treated with strict confidentiality. The identity of the
respondent and all matters connected with it are confidential. Kindly do not write your name
on the questionnaire.
Please note;
• Please attempt to answer all questions.
• There is no right or wrong answer therefore be as spontaneous as possible.

1. Gender

Male ( ) Female ( )

2. Age range

18 to 24 years ( )
25 to 31 years ( )
25 to 30 years ( )
31 to 40 years ( )
41 to 50 years ( )
51 to 60 yea rs ( )
60 and above ( )

3. What is your highest level of education?

No formal education ( )
Primary school ( )
Secondary school ( )
University/College education ( )

Any other specify

69

4. What is your current occupation?
 Public servant ( )
 Self-employed
Private business ( )
 Farmer ( )
 Student ( )
 Unemployed ( )
 civil society ( )
 Retired ( )
 Teacher ( )
Other, Specify_________________________________

5. Are you aware of the Milk Coole rs plants by t he Murang’a County government?
Yes ( )
No ( )
6. If YES how did you get information about the Milk Coolers? (If NO skip this question)

• Newspapers ( )
• Radio ( )
• Television ( )
• Consultative meetings ( )
• Billboards ( )

7. If NO how do you think the County Government could have reached out to local people on
this project?
i. Newspapers ( )
ii. Radio ( )
iii. Television ( )
iv. Consultative meetings ( )
v. Billboards ( )

70
vi. Public service an nouncements ( )

8. Were you consulted in the identi fication of this project?
Yes ( )
No ( )

9. If YES how did you participate?

10. Did the Murang’a County Government encourage the public to participate in
implementati on of the Milk Coo lers project?
Yes ( )
No ( )

11. If YES what did MCG do to encourage public participation?

12. Have you ever participated in a consultat ive meeting in Murang’a County?

71
Yes ( )
No ( )
13. What kind of meeting was it?
 Information orie nted
 Decision making
 Problem solving
 Training and Skills building

14. Was your input sought during implementation of the Milk Coolers Project?
Yes ( )
No ( )

15. In your opinion do what do you think the Murang’a County government should have done
to increase participation in the implementation of this project?
a) Involve the local people at the project implementation
b) Hold public information forums with the people
c) Involve locals in decision making

16. Do you consider the Milk Coolers Project a success?
Yes ( )
No ( )

17. If NO why?

a) Lack of participation of the intended beneficiaries
b) Lack of information on the project
c) Limited resources allocated to the project
d) Outsider bias on the local people

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

72
APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR FARMERS
1. Briefly share with me what your knowledge of the Milk Coolers project being
implemented by the Murang’a County government
2. How did you come to know about this project?
3. Do you think the channels used to reach out t o the farmers were sufficient and what do
you think should have been done to enhance reach?
4. How did you as a farmer participate in the identification of this project?
5. What do you think the County Government did to encourage the participation of the
people of Murang’a in this project?
6. In your opinion what do you think should have been done to increase participation of
the people during the implementation of this project?
7. Do you consider this project a success and if not why do you think this project failed?
8. How do you think the public can contribute to make the project better?